samuraiprosecutor | 37: A tendency to overreact is not something I look for in a therapist.

Current Mood: irritated
Current Location: Office

Entry tags:

37: A tendency to overreact is not something I look for in a therapist.

Dr. Ellison appears to be unduly concerned. In spite of rather favorable results over the past months, he's seen fit to call on me multiple times in the past week. Often in the same day. At my office.

I might soon be in the market for a new therapist.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm surprised. Usually you try a little harder to figure out what happened before you jump to conclusions.

So far it seems like all you've done is seen a court document that you know is incomplete and talk to someone who you know has reasons not to want to talk.

Reasons? I've made it clear what I want to know. If he did face trial for murder, there's no reason not to give me that information. It would only serve to demonstrate what I'm asking for, and is a far better alternative to allowing me to believe he escaped judgment on a technicality.

Instead of the assurance and remorse the other shows, he gives me excuses. Whatever issue I take with his past, such tactics don't earn him any favor either.

((OOC: I'm sorry he's such a prick. ^_^;;;;))

But do you actually know anything?

Sometimes there's reasons people don't want to talk about certain subjects. And sometimes they'll try to hide something, even if it means looking worse.
Have you never seen something like that in your trials?

...

Ellison, they have killed. Willingly. Nothing they've done since can change that fact.

Really? Who died? What was the motivation?

One was an agent for the government. He killed on orders, without questioning the reasons they were to die. The other says he was raised into the lifestyle of a criminal.

If you're so intent about these cases, why don't you prosecute them? It seems like you want them to be, and you are a prosecutor.

Aside from the obvious reasons, including the fact there is no trial to prosecute because they've never been accused, both would be...out of my jurisdiction.

You aren't afraid they'll kill again?

...

No.

Why not?

I know them well enough to trust my own judgment of their character. Both have variables in their lives preventing any such relapse.

So you think the only reason they don't is because it would be inconvenient for them?

A child is hardly a mere 'inconvenience.' And the agent has a goal to meet, a purpose. Their motivations are binding.

That wasn't the question. The question was, "If they didn't have these other factors in their lives, do you think they would be killing people?"

If I did we would not be having this conversation.

Then what is it you expect a mother to do? Turn themselves in a risk losing their child?

I can't simply excuse this, doctor. Not-

If murder is so easily excused, what of von Karma? What of me?

There are different types of murder. Most people know that. There's a huge difference between a serial killer and a mother who kills someone protecting their child.

There are people who have killed that aren't necessarily bad people.
What's the point of being punished forever? What good comes out of it?

Maybe they're paying retribution by doing something useful with their lives instead of simply punishing themselves.

There are different types of killing. Murder is murder; whatever the motivations may be, whether or not you were the one to physically deliver the blow, if you killed intentionally and with premeditation it is murder.

The actions of the present don't excuse the actions of the past. I work towards changes in the judicial system that society needs to ensure justice is accomplished. This is not retribution for my crimes. The ones to whom I should pay recompense are no longer here to receive it. Punishment need not last forever, but it should be what society has deemed adequate. None of us knows yet what sentence that would be.

So what exactly do you expect them to do here?

...

There are responsibilities to be met, now. Neither of them can face what they should without causing grievous injury to people who aren't involved.

Doctor, to do nothing is to let them...to let us commit murder and face no punishment.

What punishment could a court of law dish out that's can possibly be more painful than what's already happened? For people who have lived on the streets and grown up in abusive situations, a place with shelter and three meals a day is hardly scary. There are even people who try to go to jail because it's better than where they are now.

If it wasn't for the baby jail would be a breeze. No one who has been taught to endure torture is going to flinch at that.

But the court of law isn't the only way people get punished.

In most cases prisons do what they're designed to. They remove criminals from society, keep them isolated, and keep people outside safe from their influences or harm. Regardless of the trappings, a complete loss of freedom can be a powerful form of punishment.

In any case, this is all irrelevant. I've made no claims about the prison system. My point is that they've not offered themselves to the court system for society to make that judgment, whether that judgment is truly sufficient punishment or not. We've all skirted our responsibility in that regard. Without judgment there is no closure for those people our actions injured. What other punishment could take that place? Nothing self-inflicted serves the same purpose.

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked] 1/2

[Locked]

[Locked]

[Locked]