  Nevertheless, all of these theories, including narrative identity, fall prey to the  fission case. Suppose X were to  rob a bank and then undergo fission, dividing into Y and  Z, both of whom were psychologically continuous with  X. Both Y and Z would seem to remember  X's theft, they would still be buzzing over the thrill of  the getaway chase, they would each have inherited an intention to  spend the money on wine, women, and song, they would each persist in  X's beliefs about the justification for the crime, and so  forth. We would likely think the crime to be properly attributable to both of them, and so hold them both (at least partially) responsible  for it. Yet neither could be numerically identical to  X, and if identity is a necessary condition of  responsibility, neither could be morally responsible for his crime.  But this seems the wrong answer.