impure_tale

A recent matter appears to have spurred some discussion, and considering my involvement, I suppose that since one person has already apparently made his views quite public, it is only fair that I do the same, only conversely I will have the backbone to make it so that he can view and respond to my remarks.

To keep it brief I will spare you my usual style for something a little more stilted.

Some nights ago, my item warned me of my Inmate being in danger, and naturally I armed myself and went seeking him first in his cabin, which is where I found him, along with Captain Swing, who had bound and was presently torturing him, using a sharpened implement of some crude form to cut him open in multiple places. There was so much blood I could smell it upon entering the room. I spoke, alerting the culprit of my presence, and when I saw the whites of his eyes, I shot him.

I do not deny my doing so. I would also say that I do not apologize, but I do, quite humbly, to his Warden, because he is charged with Swing's protection and discipline, and by what laws the Wardens like to collectively hold one another to, I have therefore overstepped my bounds in defense of my own Inmate.

I did not find out about an incident between the two after the fact and seek Swing out to retaliate. I did not follow a lead built up on rumor and speculation and move to correct it. I did not attack an innocent. My Inmate was being flayed alive, and I acted. This is not a choice that I take lightly -- I have not killed a man since I was younger than all but a few of you on this ship, when I served my country in times of war. And as I intimated to Professor Snape in private conversation, if I were to have found an enemy combatant in the tent of a soldier for whom I was responsible, doing the same as Captain Swing was doing, I would have still done what I did a few nights ago.

I will conclude by re-iterating this: The well-being of my Inmate, and his continued progress, is of the utmost importance to me, and I intend to continue to protect him aggressively. That is fair warning to anyone who might intend to harm him, because for some of you it takes knowing that much to convince you to use common sense and forgo violence. That is not to say that every slight against him earns a pistol shot. If he has attacked you, then inform me, and I will punish him. If you defend yourself against his attack, he will be punished. No one here can claim I spoil my Inmate. I do not.

Torture, however, is not a defensive measure. If I had caught anyone in Swing's position that night, they would be recovering from death toll right now.

All of this having been said, I submit myself to whatever measures the other Wardens see fit to level against me, though I maintain that the Doctor really is the only one with the right to state what those should be.

[Private to Iago]

...I do not know how you are recovering, but I shall come in to check on you soon. I am concerned, however, that the other Wardens may attempt to re-sort you over this. I will do my best to see to it this does not happen, but I apologize, Iago, if my rash decision comes to harm you further.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Actually, I noticed that. Your honesty was appreciated, trust me, I was objecting to everyone else acting as if you'd done nothing wrong in the matter. I was objecting to that opinon, not accusing you of asserting it.

I am not completely blind to the implications in taking a life, Monsieur. But as I said the protection of my Inmate and his progress is of the utmost importance to me. The killing, I already apologize for, but I will not apologize for maintaining a consistent example for Iago. I have firmly punished his own infractions and likewise deter his unlawful action by giving him no need to retaliate to remain in balance with other, more aggressive Inmates.

If I may propose another perspective for you, Monsieur -- do not take it as my argument, but I would have you understand. You and I are from different times and countries, were exposed to differing educations, and it is fundamentally wrong to have either of us look at the other and claim greater morality over the other if we act by cultural imperative, if you get my meaning.

You say that it is difficult for you to teach your Inmate not to kill when others do so. It is also difficult to teach an Inmate not to kill or injure when others do it to them and are punished with merely seven days of isolation. There is a powerful unfairness in this -- they have had harm done to them a good deal more painful than seven days in zero can add up to, and there is a helplessness that comes with it -- one that I, as a former Inmate, am quite aware of. I'm not claiming that justifies my retaliation, but I would hope it clarifies my reasoning. I realize there are flaws in it, but there are flaws in yours as well.

I understand your point, but what I am talking about I don't see as a cultural imperative, but a strictly and solely moral one. Murder is, generally, wrong in most moral codes, no matter how they are defined, and saying that someone should be soley judged by their place and time means that we should just send O'Brien, Prefect, and... probably Swing home, because they were abiding by, or even enforcing, their time, country and world view's laws and moral codes.

I understand the difficulties and unfairness in that, to an extent, because yes, it's difficult to teach people not to do unto others as they would have done unto themselves when they accept it as a fact that such harm can be done, and with what can be viewed as minimal punishment - which is why we, as wardens, should be more wide-ranging with punishment than just throwing someone in zero. I accept you have a point on that, but a warden killing an inmate when it was not strictly necessary makes it even more difficult. At least, when an inmate does it, you can argue that they're here to change. When a warden does it, it's implicitly accepting that this is a fine way to enforce authority.

I knew I liked you for a reason, Monsieur.

We will all view it differently in the end, I think. As I said I do not mean to minimalize the concept of killing in itself. But just now, between one conversation and the other you have named it on one hand murder and on the other manslaughter. ...Perhaps this is a modern turn of phrase, oui? Explain it to me.

I wasn't actually aware you did.

Ah, sort of, yes. I was using murder in a general term, as a synonym for killing, which it isn't, and I shouldn't have done, but it's commonly done. Manslaughter, however, is a legal definition, at least in British law, and a lesser crime than murder: it generally means it was either done in:

a) a position of diminished responsibility, usually on grounds of mental health, or being put under duress;

or b) provocation - both in the actual fact of the provocation happening, and the fact of that provocation being enough to make a reasonable man act as he did. That provocation is usually considered to be acts of violence against the defendant, but can also be considered as acts against a third party.

That is why I would uses manslaughter to refer to what you did, but not murder. Or I shouldn't have, if we were talking in strictly legal concepts, called it murder. Not that there's any law here, but that's why I used manslaughter as a term.

((ooc: and hurray, making me trawl the home office website at 5am. fun search histories. :D))

123

no subject

no subject

no subject

Touche on the philosophical front, Howie!

FIST OF VICTORY. now to conquer the vampires... XP