Puella Magi Adfligo Systema

[Sentient Tree]

I would like to note that every bit of evidence we are using to incriminate Riona was said in a privacy barrier. Everything we say to Homura, Mami, Sayaka, etc. to explain why we're gemming Riona will ideally be said under timestop. Therefore, there will be no evidence one way or the other to anyone outside of our group that we didn't just decide to gank Riona for no reason. Furthermore, the evidence that we will use to convince the group is a confession... made inside the privacy barrier. To an outsider, it would look like Sabrina's word against Riona's, except that we're not even giving her the chance to speak up against us.

The best way to fix this is to have a fair trial after the fact. Let Riona say her piece. Let's face it, we still know next to nothing about Riona or her motivations. If nothing else, defending herself in a trial might give Riona incentive to actually explain some things.

 

[Kaizuki]

I disagree with you because I think you missed an important part of what legal system should be: it should be an authority that people will be able to trust. I get that letting Rionna go is wrong. What I am concerned about is the checks and balances that should be placed on the authority for the authority to limit people's freedom. In an ideal world, I think that when an authority decides to limit people's freedom, it should be required to write its reasonings down, and it should also be required to base on verifiable evidences that other people can check for themselves. I know that such circumstances are not always feasible, but my point is this: It's not just about making the right decisions. It's about making the right decisions with proper justifications so that people will be able to trust us. If you think that making the right decision (not letting Rionna go) is more important than having proper justifications, I can respect that. I just think that being concerned about having proper justifications and about potential loss of trust that not having proper justifications might cause is also a reasonable stance to take.

p.s. I'm going to class in about 45 minutes, so forgive me if I don't come reply for awhile

Click to shrink...

I think you may be talking past eachother slightly, in that it looks like literally nobody is arguing that Rionna has a right to go free right now.

Also, that said, I would like to not use the logic of "it's not wrong for meguca to go around righting wrongs and stopping evil" or "most protagonists would have already just jumped to shooting" to avoid examining how we go about it, or to avoid conducting ourselves to as a high a standard in anticipation of the legal system we want to create as possible. Because it's that self examination and standard of excellence that, both in the public eye and generally, is going to be what separates what we're doing here from what Rionna started off doing with her "let's go around ganking and nomming the powers of murderous evil griefgucas" business. I mean, yes, we're not malicious, but burden of proof for that will be on us, publicly.

There are of course various other things that separate our conduct from Riona's, but several of the thoughts I have on them would probably verge on reviving the morality debate that we're not to have here, so I'll leave it at my more immediate practical concerns.



(Regarding legal systems and our plans for them generally, not the argument about them

While yes, a system that would free Rionna at this juncture would not be a legal system that we'd consider a legitimate system, given the weight of evidence we have the capacity to collect and the knowledge given to us by Firn, legal representation and the right to it is also relevant in the context of securing just treatment. (Whatever that eventually shakes out to being.) It's my belief that we do clearly have standards of acceptable treatment (as moderated by safety concerns), evidenced by how we deal with Anri and Oriko and Kirika, and upon construction of our hypothetical legal system, I believe there should be methods in place such that magical girls subject to that system can be guaranteed that acceptable treatment.

It won't just be the Mitakihara band running individual cases, when we get a larger system up and running; it needs to be able to hold up while we're engaged with other pursuits. (It also probably is going to require an expert in multicultural messes, probably.) Because however much we trust Sabrina and co. to hold to whatever standards we decide upon as acceptable treatment, it'll be important for the general populace of meguca to be able to trust them too, and that means having a system that includes representation for the accused and guilty to make sure we're not just... dictating. Or basement-canning-ing. This is one of the cases where the appearance of what we do is gonna matter a lot, for the reputability of our system. As well, no matter how much we trust Sabrina and co., unless literally all the lawkeepers are Sayaka + like Yuki for the cases where Sayaka would be a conflict of interest, there's going to be instances where our legal system is going to be being implemented without our direct supervision. In those cases particularly, representation (and a solid chain of evidence and paperwork, probably) is going to be important.

So like, while representation in the sense of "determine whether or not you are guilty of this specific thing which we by all appearances know you are guilty of" may not be of much use, Rionna's (and future megucas') rights to that representation- including representation that is there to make sure we do gather that evidence we are capable of getting, again, so that there is no room for us to be appearing to condemn someone for personal reasons without that evidence- is still something that she's kinda got to get, as soon as we have a system running, if we do in fact intend not to just dictate it all manually. If we know she's guilty, then the legal system we intend to construct better be robust enough to determine that by itself, and then she should be subject to whatever standards we've put together within that. At that point, legal representation becomes relevant for the whole "acceptable treatment" thing, which does in fact also include making sure we're not just shoving a conscious Rionna into a no-activities box, or keeping her in stasis for our personal convenience rather than her preference or practical security concerns.

... I feel like I forgot something, but that's most of it.



... also, slightly ninja'd.

Click to shrink...

Am I so bad at writing that I can't even convey something this simple...? Wow, reading my post, I guess I am. Whatever, I was doing two things at once back there anyway.

As anyone who has ever put serious thought into it will tell you, a legal system is a potentially flawed attempt to achieve a better imposition of morality onto life. Ensuring that people have lawyers and courts is not an end in and of itself under any prominent philosophical model you care to name, but a means to the end of trying to make a flawed world into a better place.

Generally, a legal system is a crucial element of society because of the myriad ways in which it imposes reliability on things. Countries with weak legal systems suffer from issues like trying to guarantee the enforcement of contracts, and those issues cause people to have problems like needing to worry whether the lumber they purchased will ever be delivered or not.

Click to shrink...

The *entirety* of my point here is that a reliable, predictable legal system has various benefits which you two were quick to cite. Reliable contract enforcement is the biggest.

... But, that there is a point where you go from being reliable to reliably *evil.*

No reliable and just system would let Rionna go with the weight of evidence involved. Period. This isn't something that gets to happen one time in ten thousand, it gets to happen *never*.

So when you guys start going on about the benefits a reliable legal system has for society, my reply is "no duh, but what Aris was suggesting *wasn't a plausibly reliable system.*"

Let's not start about appeals or whatever either: if a lower court screws up a finding and a higher court corrects it, there's only one end result. The hypothesis was "Sabrina not accepting the result that a legal system let's Rionna go is bad." My counter is and remains: a system sufficiently fucked up to let Rionna go is inevitably fucked up in other ways, too, to the point that not accepting that verdict and indeed replacing the system is necessary.

...

My counter is and remains: a legal system capable of conferring all the various benefits, e.g. enforcing contracts, is one which will let Rionna go only in a pipe dream. Ergo, a legal system which lets Rionna go also does an intolerably poor job of conferring those other benefits. Ergo, refusing to accept that verdict and replacing the system which rendered it is just and warranted, as doing so will improve society.

You guys are arguing against this hypothetical world where you can have both a functional legal system *and* have that same system let Rionna go, saying that in that scenario the destruction of that system is tyrannical and wrong because it's a functional legal system and comes with all these other benefits.

Gadjo says if Rionna is let go, don't abide by the decision to let her go.

I say if Rionna is let go, it follows that the legal system isn't functional and so can't confer the benefits you guys are trying to say would be subverted by its destruction. I'm saying the setting you guys are arguing in cannot reasonably exist given PMMM's characteristics.

I'm saying the entire debate is centered on an implausible premise.

 

[Filraen]

The best way to fix this is to have a fair trial after the fact. Let Riona say her piece. Let's face it, we still know next to nothing about Riona or her motivations. If nothing else, defending herself in a trial might give Riona incentive to actually explain some things.

Click to shrink...

Don't try to justify Riona. Riona is a morally black, Evil with capital E magical girl by Word of QM.


By the way, can someonte throw a distraction to the thread? I think the vote was locked already and the mood around here is too gloomy.

 

[Kaizuki]

What I'm confused by is where @Kaizuki got the idea we were planning to torture Rionna in the first place.

Was there discussion to that effect that I missed? Because yes, solitary confinement without any recreational activities is torturous... so shouldn't it be self-evident that we wouldn't do it?

Click to shrink...

So, um... It's kind of denial-of-wish scenario.

We take away the shade of her sister's killer. We take her away from Edinburgh. We take her away from whatever she was doing.

Does whatever she'd be doing for recreation while imprisoned have any meaning to her whatsoever, in the absence of that? I initially leaned toward "no" for some reason, but I have no idea how to go about figuring that question, so... That's why I backtracked from that position.

 

[Sentient Tree]

No reliable and just system would let Rionna go with the weight of evidence involved. Period. This isn't something that gets to happen one time in ten thousand, it gets to happen *never*.

Click to shrink...

If there is enough evidence to convict Riona, then any court we make will convict her. Do you honestly believe that she would win her case?

Don't try to justify Riona. Riona is a morally black, Evil with capital E magical girl by Word of QM.


By the way, can someonte throw a distraction to the thread? I think the vote was locked already and the mood around here is too gloomy.

Click to shrink...

I was not trying to justify Riona, I'm sorry if it came off that way.
I'm trying to say that she requires a fair trial. Any fair trial should convict her, so there should be no issue. In modern society everyone gets a fair trial, matter how obviously guilty. If 10 police officers watch you gun down an innocent victim, with video footage to prove it, you still get a fair trial. Does this fair trial lessen the likelihood of you being convicted if you are guilty? No. No it does not.


Edit:
I was also trying to say that I want to know more about her and her motivations, so maybe that's what sounded like I was justifying her?

 

[Kaizuki]

If there is enough evidence to convict Riona, then any court we make will convict her. Do you honestly believe that she would win her case?


I was not trying to justify Riona, I'm sorry if it came off that way.
I'm trying to say that she requires a fair trial. Any fair trial should convict her, so there should be no issue. In modern society everyone gets a fair trial, matter how obviously guilty. If 10 police officers watch you gun down an innocent victim, with video footage to prove it, you still get a fair trial. Does this fair trial lessen the likelihood of you being convicted if you are guilty? No. No it does not.

Click to shrink...

The entire issue arose from Aris creating it:

Except that you implied, that even when we do have a legal system in place, we won't be accepting its decisions if we disagree with said decisions.

Click to shrink...

When he strawmanned Gadjo, who I defended.

He was the one to take Gadjo's "rionna could never win and if she did we wouldn't accept it" and turn it into... That.

 

[mCooperative]

I would like to note that every bit of evidence we are using to incriminate Riona was said in a privacy barrier. Everything we say to Homura, Mami, Sayaka, etc. to explain why we're gemming Riona will ideally be said under timestop. Therefore, there will be no evidence one way or the other to anyone outside of our group that we didn't just decide to gank Riona for no reason. Furthermore, the evidence that we will use to convince the group is a confession... made inside the privacy barrier. To an outsider, it would look like Sabrina's word against Riona's, except that we're not even giving her the chance to speak up against us.

The best way to fix this is to have a fair trial after the fact. Let Riona say her piece. Let's face it, we still know next to nothing about Riona or her motivations. If nothing else, defending herself in a trial might give Riona incentive to actually explain some things.

Click to shrink...

When we've got a system in place supporting a fair trial anyway; all this talk is right about the fact we just don't have a setup where a jury of impartial peers is even possible at this point.

Don't try to justify Riona. Riona is a morally black, Evil with capital E magical girl by Word of QM.

Click to shrink...

Yes, this is a thing that we are given to know. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear what she's thinking about all she's done, because whatever else Rionna is, she's interesting, and I'd like to know what the hell happened in Edinburgh. Just because people would like her to explain herself doesn't mean we have any expectation that explanation will change the outcome of things- and since we are given to know Riona has done wrongly, we also ought not be afraid that a fair trial, held for the purposes of publicly confirming that fact using fair and codified procedures, will find her innocent or justified in her actions.

As previously stated, when we reach the point we can have such a fair trial, the legal system better be robust enough to prove Rionna's guilt as we are professing it, otherwise we've screwed up constructing that system.

You guys are arguing against this hypothetical world where you can have both a functional legal system *and* have that same system let Rionna go, saying that in that scenario the destruction of that system is tyrannical and wrong because it's a functional legal system and comes with all these other benefits.

Click to shrink...

I say if Rionna is let go, it follows that the legal system isn't functional and so can't confer the benefits you guys are trying to say would be subverted by its destruction. I'm saying the setting you guys are arguing in cannot reasonably exist given PMMM's characteristics.

Click to shrink...

I'm in no way arguing that a functional legal system that would let Rionna go is what we could have, or that deposing a legal system that would release Riona is wrong because of the other benefits it would remove. And I'm not sure where you got that impression, because rereading my post has not directed me to any such section. Point it out so I can edit or clarify it? Because that's in no way what I was trying to argue. At all. In any capacity.

 

[Kaizuki]

When we've got a system in place supporting a fair trial anyway; all this talk is right about the fact we just don't have a setup where a jury of impartial peers is even possible at this point.



Yes, this is a thing that we are given to know. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear what she's thinking about all she's done, because whatever else Rionna is, she's interesting, and I'd like to know what the hell happened in Edinburgh. Just because people would like her to explain herself doesn't mean we have any expectation that explanation will change the outcome of things- and since we are given to know Riona has done wrongly, we also ought not be afraid that a fair trial, held for the purposes of publicly confirming that fact using fair and codified procedures, will find her innocent or justified in her actions.

As previously stated, when we reach the point we can have such a fair trial, the legal system better be robust enough to prove Rionna's guilt as we are professing it, otherwise we've screwed up constructing that system.





I'm in no way arguing that a functional legal system that would let Rionna go is what we could have, or that deposing a legal system that would release Riona is wrong because of the other benefits it would remove. And I'm not sure where you got that impression, because rereading my post has not directed me to any such section. Point it out so I can edit or clarify it? Because that's in no way what I was trying to argue. At all. In any capacity.

Click to shrink...

"While yes, a system that would free Rionna at this juncture would not be a legal system that we'd consider a legitimate system, given the weight of evidence we have the capacity to collect and the knowledge given to us by Firn, legal representation and the right to it is also relevant in the context of securing just treatment" -- you

Under an unjust legal system, this is not the case, and the paragraph went "While yes [that's true], [other thing]." I stopped there and quoted you for completeness' sake.

 

[Sentient Tree]

The entire issue arose from Aris creating it:



When he strawmanned Gadjo, who I defended.

He was the one to take Gadjo's "rionna could never win and if she did we wouldn't accept it" and turn it into... That.

Click to shrink...

Okay. Then we agree that if we give Riona a fair trial, it will find her guilty, correct?
Then can we please do that? I want fair and honest magical girls who come around looking for any skeletons in Sabrina's closet to be able to see that yes, we gave Riona a fair trial, and yes, Riona was guilty as sin.

 

[Filraen]

Okay. Then we agree that if we give Riona a fair trial, it will find her guilty, correct?
Then can we please do that? I want fair and honest magical girls who come around looking for any skeletons in Sabrina's closet to be able to see that yes, we gave Riona a fair trial, and yes, Riona was guilty as sin.

Click to shrink...

Ask when we have the facilities to contain her and not let her escape (moon base, etc.)... probably a few years from now IC-time.

 

[mCooperative]

"While yes, a system that would free Rionna at this juncture would not be a legal system that we'd consider a legitimate system, given the weight of evidence we have the capacity to collect and the knowledge given to us by Firn, legal representation and the right to it is also relevant in the context of securing just treatment" -- you

Under an unjust legal system, this is not the case, and the paragraph went "While yes [that's true], [other thing]." I stopped there and quoted you for completeness' sake.

Click to shrink...

Thanks, that's the place where my phrasing was awful, probably because I was bouncing off the previous discussion.

I've edited it; is it more clear now?

 

[Sentient Tree]

Ask when we have the facilities to contain her and not let her escape (moon base, etc.)... probably a few years from now IC-time.

Click to shrink...

Do we have reason to believe that she will be able to escape? Yuki + antimagic enchantments + shackles + someone holding her gem, ready to gemsplode during the trial? I would think that the only things she could use to escape would be her physical body (heavily manacled, and no more powerful than our own) and outside help (no more likely during a trial than during confinement). Technically, a fair trial could even reduce the chances of someone trying to rescue her, because for any rescuers who have morals we can just parade around all the evidence that she's guilty. Even better, we can call them in to serve as jurors, character witnesses, or lawyers (depending on how well they know her) for the trial.

 

[mCooperative]

Do we have reason to believe that she will be able to escape? Yuki + antimagic enchantments + shackles + someone holding her gem, ready to gemsplode during the trial? I would think that the only things she could use to escape would be her physical body (heavily manacled, and no more powerful than our own) and outside help (no more likely during a trial than during confinement). Technically, a fair trial could even reduce the chances of someone trying to rescue her, because for any rescuers who have morals we can just parade around all the evidence that she's guilty. Even better, we can call them in to serve as jurors, character witnesses, or lawyers (depending on how well they know her) for the trial.

Click to shrink...

We do need to actually gather that evidence first- that is, work out what's going on in Edinburgh, go see if we can track down any living testimony, see if we have the Shades' testimony or not, and probably get in impartial third party truth-verifier to verify our word about the conversation we just had. Also, we still lack that jury of peers or anyone that's impartial and not beholden to us in some way. Contacting those potential rescuers and convincing them to come lawyer with us instead of break down the door will also take time.

For both fairness and practicality, such a trial would probably need to wait for awhile, while we collect said evidence, and indeed also have more stringent security procedures than just 'what we came up with'. Also, better codified laws so we can have a definitive declaration of what we are saying she's guilty of. For the books, since again, what we do here is going to form precedent for our future solid legal system, and it would be better all around if it were as coherent beforehand as possible.

 

[Gadjo]

This all seems fairly academic at this point. We currently have no legal system and can't adequately make one until the effective population of our group increases drastically.

 

[Aris Katsaris]

When he strawmanned Gadjo, who I defended.

He was the one to take Gadjo's "rionna could never win and if she did we wouldn't accept it" and turn it into... That.

Click to shrink...

This is getting annoying. You're misrepresenting Gadjo's argument even more while claiming that *I* am misrepresenting him.

This is what Gadjo said:

Legal representation is irrelevant here, because we know the truth for a fact, and could not accept it if she were to win her case, so the trial would be a farce anyway.

Click to shrink...

Gadjo was NOT saying Rionna would never win, nor that it'd be a farce only if she lost. That's *your* argument, not Gadjo's.

The very opposite, Gadjo said Rionna *might* win, but since we wouldn't accept such a result, then the trial is a farce *anyway* (i.e. whether she wins or loses), because in either case the trial doesn't matter and won't affect her imprisonment.

You are in disagreement with Gadjo's position even more so than you're with me.

Other people have explained already why, even when a trial's outcome is assured, a trial is still necessary.

On my part I'd like to additionally note, that even if her guilt is assured, and even if detaining her is certain, then deciding the terms of the imprisonment is still a matter of the courts and a legal system in general. Is it life imprisonment or 20 years? Is she allowed communication with the outside world? What exactly are the limits of the penalty to be imposed here?

The penalty may even very well be "Gemming for 20 years, then 'rehabilitation' until verified 'rehabilitated'" or whatever. The penalty may even be the death penalty and the shattering of her soul gem. But either way doesn't she have the right to argue for *lenience*? Or are we gonna be using the "morally black" argument to say that nope, no lenience, no defense lawyer, she doesn't get to argue anything in her defense, because morally black by Word of God? Hopefully not.

Even if that had been the argument, then we'd need to put the 'morally black' term in the legal books, and define properly and indicate by what scientific test (probably developed by Nico) one verifies a person to be morally black.

 

[Kaizuki]

Okay. Then we agree that if we give Riona a fair trial, it will find her guilty, correct?
Then can we please do that? I want fair and honest magical girls who come around looking for any skeletons in Sabrina's closet to be able to see that yes, we gave Riona a fair trial, and yes, Riona was guilty as sin.

Click to shrink...

This is pointless, wrongheaded, and a dangerous sentiment. And it may not be obvious *why* that is the case, so I will try to be very careful here.

First: justification of our actions. In general, meguca can be said to be being coerced into doing harm to others. If you do not hold territory, then you do not hunt, and you die or witch. Much of what meguca do that is wrong can therefore be argued to be a form if self-defense, in a sense.

This is why we rarely initially care about a meguca's past actions. Remove the coercion by offering free cleansing, there's no reason to keep doing harm, just... Let the past go.

Problems usually arise when a meguca says "I will not stop doing unjustified harm, even if you offer me free cleansing." Why? Because that is nothing less than a declaration of intent to inflict uncoerced, unjustified harm on others. It is often not different from them saying "I'm gonna shoot people, and there's no acceptable reason for why."

Absent coercion or etc., declarations of intent to do harm by meguca tend to quickly enter justifiable homicide territory:

"homicide can only be justified if there is sufficient evidence to prove that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or well-being of another"
-- Wikipedia, "justifiable homicide."

We don't kill people, mostly, but justifiable homicide territory is also justified arrest territory, and as long as it stays in justifiable homicide territory we can't exactly let them go.

At that point we have to ask why they say no. Hijiri kinda-sorta said no because she didn't trust us, but we had no reason to believe she was going to go out and do harm to anybody, so she's still walking free. No evidence of imminent threat. Akiko said no for reasons we don't really understand, and was clearly engaged in and planning to continue doing harm (i.e., taking actions that could easily lead to deaths), so she was taken down, but is semi-free because we could trust others to contain her actions. Rionna said no and also gave us all kinds of reason to believe she's going to keep murdering people including innocents, so...

Essentially, justifying taking down Rionna to a reasonable person only requires that we convince them that we offered free cleansing for cessation of unnecessary serious criminal actions and she just completely declined and gave us reason to believe that she was going to threaten the lives of others, and that there weren't any apparent extenuating circumstances (ie any apparent decent reasons to express those sentiments -- like a hostage or something).



Second: why this is a dangerous sentiment you're expressing. Basically, there are too many puella magi who have done things that aren't particularly justifiable but who wouldn't do them if not for the coercive system. A good example is Akiko's group -- they were party to the extortion and threats, and agreed to fight us at Akiko's side in rejection of our offer, but they aren't hurting people anymore.

A trial would probably find them guilty of unnecessary harm. But it serves no-one to punish them for it, and would only discourage people in similar situations from reaching out, hence my assertion of a trial being wrongheaded and dangerous.

They're free because we don't have any evidence that they plan to do unnecessary harm, not because their pasts are clean.

 

[Aranfan]

It is the state of nature. There are no higher courts. Any man may kill a murderer.

Oh look, Rionna's a murderer.

 

[Kaizuki]

It is the state of nature. There are no higher courts. Any man may kill a murderer.

Oh look, Rionna's a murderer.

Click to shrink...

No. This is not an acceptable argument. Killing her would be acceptable, but not for those reasons.

 

[Gadjo]

This is getting annoying. You're misrepresenting Gadjo's argument even more while claiming that *I* am misrepresenting him.

This is what Gadjo said:


Gadjo was NOT saying Rionna would never win, nor that it'd be a farce only if she lost. That's *your* argument, not Gadjo's.

The very opposite, Gadjo said Rionna *might* win, but since we wouldn't accept such a result, then the trial is a farce *anyway* (i.e. whether she wins or loses), because in either case the trial doesn't matter and won't affect her imprisonment.

You are in disagreement with Gadjo's position even more so than you're with me.

Other people have explained already why, even when a trial's outcome is assured, a trial is still necessary.

On my part I'd like to additionally note, that even if her guilt is assured, and even if detaining her is certain, then deciding the terms of the imprisonment is still a matter of the courts and a legal system in general. Is it life imprisonment or 20 years? Is she allowed communication with the outside world? What exactly are the limits of the penalty to be imposed here?

The penalty may even very well be "Gemming for 20 years, then 'rehabilitation' until verified 'rehabilitated'" or whatever. The penalty may even be the death penalty and the shattering of her soul gem. But either way doesn't she have the right to argue for *lenience*? Or are we gonna be using the "morally black" argument to say that nope, no lenience, no defense lawyer, she doesn't get to argue anything in her defense, because morally black by Word of God? Hopefully not.

Even if that had been the argument, then we'd need to put the 'morally black' term in the legal books, and define properly and indicate by what scientific test (probably developed by Nico) one verifies a person to be morally black.

Click to shrink...

We dont have the time or people to create a legal system right now. Please, come off the damn topic, if we do ever try her it'll be post quest. It's not important right now and you're essentially having a big fit over magical girls not following due legal process. It'll matter when we're actually a government. Until then, only what we and our friends think matters to how we act.

 

[mCooperative]

A trial would probably find them guilty of unnecessary harm. But it serves no-one to punish them for it, and would only discourage people in similar situations from reaching out, hence my assertion of a trial being wrongheaded and dangerous.

They're free because we don't have any evidence that they plan to do unnecessary harm, not because their pasts are clean.

Click to shrink...

I agree with this, just want to point out, as we're the ones building the justice system we want to see in the world, our system should cover points like this, and any trial conducted should be conducted under codes that also cover and account for points like this. Even if it's "these are mitigating factors that, specifically, would negate the need for a trial; if these further codes are violated after the fact, then the trial has to happen", or something like that.

Whatever system we create would probably better be formed accounting from the get-go for the coercive system and the various factors of Incubator influence, and not simply basing the content of such things (e.g. trials) directly on their mundane counterparts (e.g. the definition of and ability to find meguca guilty of "unnecessary harm" for their past actions).

I'd figure a trial under our proposed system would be more "so-and-so did a thing, we can prove she did a thing, we can prove it was an awful thing, and we can prove that she's not willing to stop, and that we've given her plenty of alternatives and opportunities to do so" and the trial would serve the purpose to make sure we had offered all possible alternatives fairly, determined the accused is indeed both unrepentant and guilty, provide recompense if we fucked up the handling of the case, and determine the correct punishment for the accused after we have indeed found them both unrepentant and guilty.

Or something like that.

Though I'm just now realizing that was a rather large unspoken assumption, uh, whoops.

But yeah, basically: trial based solely on normal legal code, absent of factors that account for meguca facts of life is a bad plan, I agree, but a trial based on codes that do properly account for those facts of life is something I would rather have, when we can get it set up. Which may take some time.

...

It also feels like there's some talking over one another again? In that, can we at least all agree that we're not likely to be able to put together a coherent justice system within the space of this Quest, and a proper trial will have to wait until we have such a fair system put together, so if we want one, it's going to have to wait, but until then, we should try to hold ourselves to the standards of the system that we want to create, even if at the present time that's primarily based on what we and our friends think (particularly with respect to Sabrina consulting her friends to avoid being herself acting unilaterally)? @Gadjo @Aris Katsaris @Kaizuki @Sentient Tree @Filraen

Or am I taking this whole argument all wrong? Because that seems like the set of points that are fueling the continued discussion at this juncture.

 

[Aris Katsaris]

A trial would probably find them guilty of unnecessary harm. But it serves no-one to punish them for it, and would only discourage people in similar situations from reaching out, hence my assertion of a trial being wrongheaded and dangerous.

Click to shrink...

A legal/judicial system can very well incorporate amnesty for past deeds, or amnesty for some *types* of bad deeds and not others, or *partial amnesty*, or *lenience* or whatever.

Having an established such system that doesn't depend on our individual whims, if anything increases the likelihood of girls reaching out to us, if they know they can expect they can trust the established amnesty system, not that they need to trust just the individual personal evaluation of some random girl in the other side of the world.

E.g. could a magical girl Alice reach out to the system, even if they know that in the past they were forced to murder e.g. the sister of a girl Beth who's now another close ally of us? If it depends to just our whims and that of our allies, rather than an established system, then the answer is no -- because Beth is pushing for vengeance rather than forgiveness, and we might care about appeasing Beth, more than about lenience towards Alice.

 

[Gadjo]

Right now, we're already acting justly. We're subduing a threat to ourselves and society. We'll imprison her, and obviously inflict no undue harm on her. She won't be happy about it, but that's too bad.

But yes. The argument can be shelved for now- we have no legal system to be acting within, so all we can do is the right thing. Please let's stop having legal arguments about a system that doesn't goddamn exist yet.

 

[CornyBones]

What should our boss theme be?
I put "The Radience" from Hollow Knight, but I know you can find some better suggestions.

 

[Aris Katsaris]

But yes. The argument can be shelved for now- we have no legal system to be acting within, so all we can do is the right thing. Please let's stop having legal arguments about a system that doesn't goddamn exist yet.

Click to shrink...

The argument is about
(1) whether we want to eventually create such a system or not, in the future.
and
(2) whether, to the (admittedly limited) extent that it's currently feasible, we should start behaving in accordance with the hypothetical principles of that future system.

 

[Gadjo]

The argument is about
(1) whether we want to eventually create such a system or not, in the future.
and
(2) whether, to the (admittedly limited) extent that it's currently feasible, we should start behaving in accordance with the hypothetical principles of that future system.

Click to shrink...

Please for the love of god- of course we'll create a legal system once we're big enough to actually support one. Until then, we can't give this girl an unbiased jury of her peers or lawyers or any other shit that are both meguca and within our group (very few countries farm out legal decisions).

It's a consideration for later, and right now it's just a headache. Let's drop it. It has no effect on what we're doing right now.