one; anonymous

[bystandering]

[Hello, Deadman Wonderland. Today you get a brief message on your communication device of choice. Mitsuki is very well aware any of the higher staff could find out who she is but she's not going to say anything that would be too beneficial to them. No. She's aiming for the prisoners.]



Good day, Deadman Wonderland. It's been a little while since we spoke but a few of my thoughts were repeating themselves. I have another question:

What is the difference between a dog and a wolf? Metaphorically, speaking, of course. In this situation... Well. I wouldn't go so far as to accuse of everyone being guilty but a little paranoia may be forgiven when you're in prison. I suppose the better question is: does the vote of a judge define what guilt is? Is the person who did nothing but convicted a wolf? Or are they a dog, wrongly identified, and thrown in with the real wolves?

I admit it's a bit of a heavy subject. If you'd like to ask me questions instead, I'll answer them to the best of my ability. After all, we're all civilized people here. Conversation keeps our minds agile.

[Yes, she's pretending to be this anonymous person. I mean. She totally is that person, what are you talking about?]

Comments

video;

[dolosa]

[ She's going to reply, even though her body is trembling ever so slightly. ]

... Um, why are you asking such things?

anonymous

[bystandering]

Curiosity, I suppose.

[saimin]

A, about what...?

anonymous forever

[bystandering]

Guilt.

[saimin]

... Eh? I don't get it.

[bystandering]

If someone who didn't break the law ended up here, are they guilty?

[saimin]

I... don't think they're guilty. Since I think that they got here the same way I did. By mistake.

[bystandering]

You think you're innocent and so others must be innocent. Is that the line of thinking you have?

[dolosa]

Ah, um... I- I'm pretty sure not everybody... but there's a lot of people!

[Text]

[eraser_rain]

Classic civil law requires a judge to consider code, not precedence. As law is a social matter however precedence is inescapable. It's similar to the question of when to use of cladistic and Linnaean taxonomy: that is, whether the act or its context is what defines it. One may think of the various legal codes as phylogenies. Civil law, common law. Family law, criminal law, corporate law. They will have low values of hierarchical structure being only apparent, not inherent.

Good and bad people do exist as surely as wolves and dogs. Humans cannot observe anything like a genome of evil and so society will err in both directions, but a tamed wolf is still a wolf, and a dog driven to desperation is still a dog.

anonymous;

[bystandering]

I see. It can be argued that a crime can be based on the act itself or the context that led up to it. Both ways have their own strengths and faults. Then there's the fact that the judge may not be impartial. That thought, while complicating this exercise, cannot be overlooked. After all, they are human. They have their own biases and, of course, there's always the chance of bribery.

You do have a point. However, isn't it known that even a wolf raised by hand is still a wild animal? There are several cases that a tamed wolf has turned on their owner. While a feral dog, as dangerous as it is, can be rehabilitated back into being civil once again.

[Text]

[eraser_rain]

We agree; a wolf is a wolf. Many don't acknowledge that people are the same as dogs and wolves: ultimately good or bad; social or feral. A wolf may lay low its entire life but its instincts have not been bred out. A bad man may follow society's structure to the grave for fear of retribution, but he is not good. Dormant evil relies on the social, genteel, progress oriented nature of the good.

I also agree with your skepticism regarding claims of innocence in here. Bias and bribery are minimized by a panel of multiple judges, and prosecution is rarely attempted if the evidence is not conclusive.

Neither does innocence of a specific crime make one good. Regardless of a dog's potential for rehabilitation, once it becomes too dangerous it must be eliminated the same as a wolf.

anonymous

[bystandering]

It's a simple enough metaphor for this particular, I think. After all, wolves and dogs are very similar: they're social animals, they can look very similar, but their temperaments to humans are very different. Their similarity is the reason I chose them as the metaphor. Good and bad people can look very similar.

As you said, a wolf may live in a forest near a town and never harm anyone. Yet the threat is there. A bad man may never act criminally but may still harm society: there are a number non-criminal ways to be considered a 'bad' person. They may cheat on their spouse, may drink too much, or any other thing that isn't illegal. This might not even make him socially unacceptable. That doesn't mean he is good. He is simply there.

On the other hand, a dog simply just be in the wrong place or time. There's been dog attacks. A dog may be aggressive towards humans or even other dogs. A theoretically good person may be forced into a situation where the only reaction is to bite. A lapse of judgement, the influence of substances, or even in self defense.

It seems that you seem to think that the guilt of a crime doesn't determine whether a person is good or not.

[Text]

[eraser_rain]

Do you agree?

anonymous

[bystandering]

I think it's a valid viewpoint.

[Text]

[eraser_rain]

How noncommittal for someone already anonymous.

anonymous

[bystandering]

Admittedly, I'm trying to be impartial for the sake of this debate but I will say that I do agree.

[refinedvillain]

A dog can become a wolf, in ways, even if they're wrongly convicted. It's a name, used by others to judge and classify.

If you mean it's nature, a wolf will be a wolf, even if it's called a dog.

anonymous;

[bystandering]

I do mean the nature, of course.

Ah, but does the same apply to a dog? Even if it's mistreated and called a wolf, is it still a dog?

[refinedvillain]

Until, most likely, it becomes a wolf. Though a name doesn't necessarily define nature, it can lead to a change.

I also find most dogs have quiet a bit of wolf in them.

anonymous

[bystandering]

Not a dog person, are you?

[refinedvillain]

I like them well enough. I actually don't have much against wolves, either.

anonymous

[bystandering]

Was it my metaphor, then?

[refinedvillain]

No, I understood it well enough, but I've yet to find many people that didn't have a bit of wolf in them.

[He didn't say none but most seemed to, in one way or another.]

anonymous

[bystandering]

The lines can be blurred quite often, yes.