Sort of a moral dilemma, what's your opinion and why?

The munitions explosion already killed off the old person A. So the only sentence one can impose is on the old body A not the new being occupying the old body.

Legally a mentally handicapped person can't be tried because they can't understand the charges to defend them. If the lawyer appeals once after the murder sentence is handed down, then the argument will be for a hearing. The lawyer could call the witness to the stand. "What is your name?" Since no questions can be answered, then at that level, this "new being" in body A can walk away for treatment.

If your dilemma is just about the jury and what they need to say they can only go by the evidence, so they will either say death or a life sentence. There's no space for accident report to creep into that hearing.

After the first appeal hearing, the whole story will turn on a dime.

That is an intriguing question, though, because it raises questions about cognition, memory, identity, recognition of a wrongdoing, and our ethics as a society, as well as legal concerns.

"'A' transformed into new self, no longer the former criminal" is what it boils down to. To punish A after the new personality emerged and old perished, would in a sense be like digging up a corpse of a prematurely deceased criminal and having it sit in prison for full 900 years - as in, "punishing the body" once the consciousness within changed (or is gone completely). Legally speaking, we do live in a world where bodies will be made to serve their sentence I suppose, but morally/ethically it's bit silly to punish that crucial aspect of the person which is no longer the same criminal aside from bearing physical resemblance. But in all fairness, often relatives of victims need closure, and such thinly veiled revenge dubbed "justice" is often part of their healing process even if it involves "silly" procedures - so, without giving it more indepth thought, for now I'll just leave it be with this simple opinion above. IMHO. -Pat

no a crime is crime.A will be punished bcoz he commited the crime and may be the sentence he as to serve cud decrease from death penalty to a life term or considerable years in prison

now he still has a hypothetical chance for a mercy plea according to law for A's country although i dont think he will be forgiven or given less sentence bcoz he commited the crime which sentences death penalty

definitely no mercy

my reason is a similar sort of case happened in south africa last year....he was some man who killed an abandoned wife of an english citizen and and also had a very rare brain cancer but court showed no mercy since he showed no remorse for killing and was not considered worth of mercy....i feel court was right..

Very interesting indeed. I would say lawfully, of course not. But morally, yes. I would see this person as a "new person", and one could argue to the court, if there would be a term for such thing, some sort of insanity plea or get many doctors and psychologists to argue that this person is in fact a "new person". Great question.

No, the incident was after the fact

this person was in fully aware of his actions

when he committed the crime- I say Death Penalty

If A lives in the UK, they would get better care in prison, than in a home for the mentally handicapped, so the real punishment would not putting them in prison.

No. The accident didn't erase the crime. The dead person is still dead and the convicted, even though not technically accountable could still do harm again.

Yes - A should be admitted to a psychiatric facility under life long care

If he was sentenced to death, then end the life.

Life sentence completed.

No, I'd call it Karma.