impure_tale (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
impure_tale) wrote2011-06-22 09:16 pm
impure_tale) wrote2011-06-22 09:16 pm
Entry tags:
171
I would like to clarify a certain issue. There have been debates as to how Edward Sexby would be dealt with after he attacked me in my cabin. At the time I insisted that I would not have the Wardens vote on this for two reasons. The first, which most assume already, is that I would like to decide that myself. The second, and most important, is that I was not about to demand that a system work for me that I spat upon not two hours before I was injured.
I still will not. Sexby has since sent messengers like the craven dog he behaves as to express that he felt it unfair that the decision should be left to me. When two people of the same stature have a disagreement, why should one take authority over the other? I would see more sense in this were the querant not doing so after already deciding that I was guilty and how I was meant to be punished.
No, it's not fair. If we were talking about fairness I would have your last remaining hand, and fuck anyone that dares suggest I wouldn't have the right.
That he would have the audacity to send people and not face me and speak with me as one man professing equality would to another is enough to shake away the layers of medicine and drug. I am angry and my body complains with me.
I have not made my decision. This whining will not induce me to consider more quickly. It is my answer and I shall render it when I wish to.
I still will not. Sexby has since sent messengers like the craven dog he behaves as to express that he felt it unfair that the decision should be left to me. When two people of the same stature have a disagreement, why should one take authority over the other? I would see more sense in this were the querant not doing so after already deciding that I was guilty and how I was meant to be punished.
No, it's not fair. If we were talking about fairness I would have your last remaining hand, and fuck anyone that dares suggest I wouldn't have the right.
That he would have the audacity to send people and not face me and speak with me as one man professing equality would to another is enough to shake away the layers of medicine and drug. I am angry and my body complains with me.
I have not made my decision. This whining will not induce me to consider more quickly. It is my answer and I shall render it when I wish to.
no subject
Let me first of all express that I did not send messenger. I was unsure as to the decision reached by the other wardens, and asked a man who I knew had an interest in holding wardens to account to clarify for me. I sent him with no message to impart on my behalf, I expressed my reservations to him privately on the nature of justice I had been dealt. The fact you have now chosen to drag this out in public shows the true level of what your 'justice' may entail, and this, sir, is what concerns me.
I will express a few facts clearly, sir.
- Every other warden who has injured another, who has acted out of turn, to my knowledge, has faced collective justice. This is a perfectly sound principle. We have no authority over another. You hold none over me, and I none over you. But several wardens may weild authority over another, and this is what I submit to.
- No system of justice ever invented has allowed the victim to prosecute the punishment of an aggressor. None. The gravest injustices I have seen are those when the victim has prosecuted said punishment.
- Which, indeed, does bring me to my actions. Actions I have accepted were injurious. Actions which I have accepted were ill judged, ill thought out and I regret them. I accept the punishment which I am to be dealt. But I did nothing more than what you are having legitimised to be done here. I accept my actions were illegitimate. I accept that they are worthy of punishment. We do not, sir, operate on an eye for an eye here, and never have done. Never should.
- Justice should be equal for all - and this point is especially true as you have posted this publicly. So those inmates injured by a warden now have the right to claim the same you have, sir? Arthas and others have cause to execute their own punishment, sir? That is absurd. So either you propose uneven application of justice, or you propose that a man can be put at the mercies of his victim. No matter what that victim may wish to do.
- My objection, let me make expressly clear, is not to being punished. But to the very principle of being punished by my victim alone. Even law in the seventeenth century, in a system I considered so injust I would not waste my spit upon it, had a jury. Had a system of punishment which was supposed to be impartial and distant from those who had been wronged. For it is not your place to enact what would be retribution. That, indeed, would be the same as my actions. My actions which were rightly judged to be wrong.
- Also, sir, how fair is it upon other wardens - other wardens who have submitted to collective will, for recognising the authority of numbers amongst a society of equals, and other victims, who considered not this an option, for you to walk in here and demand a law unto yourself. Demand for yourself to be given the right to undermine the principles of justice and replace them with retribution.
I know not, sir, how this was agreed to. But that is my argument. They are all the reservations I expressed to another warden. The fact he chose to come and converse with you on the matter, perhaps only to explain my position, was not me sending a messenger. He acted on his own accord, and insult him not for taking a concern in my thoughts and greater levels of accountability. It was not a refusal to speak to you - I can show you the very conversation we had. I wished for clarification, not an attack dog on my behalf. I sincerely doubt Mr Narvin acted as one for me. I would be greatly amazed if he did, but even if that was so, it was on his own moral conscience, not my orders.
Also, sir, shame on you for dragging this out in public when it was being constructively discussed - at least by myself and the Coordinator, clearly you did not care to participate - behind closed doors, in a civil matter.
[Warden filter]
And now this is open in the air, sirs, let me make it clear: I reject any justice enacted by an individual. I accept only that decided to by previous methods. I happily, and graciously accept it, but I accept not legitimised retribution when the crime I am being called up upon is illegitimate retribution.
no subject
-I don't acknowledge the Wardens' collective authority. There is therefore no justice in leaving it to them.
-So if I ask someone significantly stronger and healthier than you are to beat the piss and shit from your bones, would you consider that a fair trade? After all, you viewed your wife the victim and me the aggressor. Do I have to choose a Warden?
-I disagree. Wholeheartedly. No justice.
-Inmates are Inmates. I would confer the right to those that are assigned to look after their protection, if said Warden did not perpetrate the crime.
-You rebelled against the system you came from. You aren't entitled to a jury.
-I do not give a flying resounding and glimmering fuck what other Wardens have submitted themselves to. I have not. I will not.
You will not shame me for honesty. You have no right to discretion and you certainly are not entitled to my civility. I am inclined to take my time and consider carefully out of fairness, but not out of any respect for you. I simply will not cry for your blood so quickly as you, like a savage, would demand mine.
no subject
- I do. I do not acknowledge that you have any authority over me. I acknowledge only the authority of several wardens.
- I am not in the business of trade, sir. As is a great, and old, adage, two wrongs do not make a right. I have committed a grave wrong against you, but to allow you retribution is an insult to justice. I acted out of anger - and all have acknowledged the grave wrong in my action - if you were to take the same against me, I should hope they would acknowledge the same.
- There is more justice in a collective process than retribution put in the victim's hands.
- If that is how you choose to see things, sir, I might as well return to my guns to ensure the right thing is done.
- All men are entitled to a jury. A man arrested for sedition is entitled to a trial like any other. Rebelling against the system or not, the system must still be imposed and used .
- You are not the one being punished. I am. I am the one submitting myself to someone's authority in allowing them to punish me. It will not be you.
No, but my wife does, and I tried to keep this conversation in private, and as discreet as possible for her sake, not my own.
no subject
And as before, your ailment is that you do not listen, or rather you fail to comprehend what you hear. I am not demanding retribution.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I intend not to protest for your opinion to be ignored. I intend to protest for the very heavily influenced opinion of my victim to be tempered by some impartial mediation, if naught else.
no subject
no subject
I consider this my right as much the next warden, and I will demand it. I would not refuse it from any other.
no subject
no subject
In the spirit of... all, I offer you a compromise. I will accept you offering the wardens an alternative punishment for myself - one which you have chosen, in addition to the others available to them. It is then down to them, and their authority, to choose which to enforce, but your opinion has clearly been heard and marked, and given an equal chance against other punishments. But it is still reached impartially.
Is that an acceptable compromise? If you still wish not to discuss it, I shall put the suggestion to a neutral party. Mr Narvin, perhaps.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Leave it to someone else.
no subject
I shall suggest it to Narvin as a compromise of position.