"Simple financial restitution doesn't cover the feelings of violation incurred from being a victim which is far more difficult to quantify and may vary wildly from person to person."

This reminded me of a line from The Reader (a Holocaust movie with some... questionable decisions, but let's not dwell on that). I might get some details wrong, but: A Nazi war criminal, feeling guilty, left some money to the family of one of her victims. The inheritor said she didn't need money and would give it to charity, but not a charity related to the Holocaust. She said doing that would seem like absolution, which she refused to do. That surprised me at first, but I think I get the logic- she didn't want anyone to think that massive crimes against the Jewish people can be wiped away simply by paying them off.
Jurgan - [jurgan6 at yahoo dot com]
"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss. But when it looked back at us- you blinked." -Batman, "Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths"
posted @ Thu, Dec 7, 2023 3:34:46 pm EST from 73.98.83.6

Happy Hanukkah to all those who're celebrating over the next eight nights! And to those who aren't, I hope you have a great week regardless!
Algae
'Nuff said.
posted @ Thu, Dec 7, 2023 11:25:13 am EST from 88.87.179.191

CRAIG - Given that those spammers are most likely bots, I suspect that it's another case of "The trouble with artificial intelligence is it's artificial".
Todd Jensen
posted @ Thu, Dec 7, 2023 8:06:27 am EST from 174.72.60.154

Todd > And they seem to have a penchant for country music, American football, and a certain former President. I wonder if they realize that we may not be exactly their demographic...

Ed > Your point about actual harm vs. potential harm reminds me of the classic Sideshow Bob quote: "Attempted Murder. Now honestly, did they ever give anyone a Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry?" This is of course why our system of justice considers not just the actus rea for a crime, but also the mens rea (mental state: i.e., negligent, reckless, knowing, or intentional). Therefore, even if someone fails at their intended crime (as the Magus arguably did--I suppose his turning the gargoyles to stone could be called attempted murder), there is still culpability, albeit a lesser sentence than there would be if the crime had been completed. The intent and the harm done are both important factors to balance in this equation, along with the potential for recidivism (another "re" word!) vs. the potential for redemption/rehabilitation.

I think my perception of the Magus beating himself up too much is mostly more an internal analysis as opposed to his actual physical circumstances. It seems like that guilt has been pretty omnipresent for him for the 40 or so years he's been on Avalon from his perspective, which is a long time in terms of a mortal human lifespan to be beating yourself up. There are many types of prisons, even when you're living in a relative paradise.
Craig
posted @ Wed, Dec 6, 2023 10:39:36 pm EST from 24.46.160.140

And they've all got the same IP (if I'm using the correct term for that - the set of numbers after their name that you can only see if you highlight it), strengthening the likelihood that they're all part of some scam.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Wed, Dec 6, 2023 7:52:20 pm EST from 174.72.60.154

ED - Yes, it's the last, though I might be looking for other poems for each month of the year next year. I'm glad you enjoyed them.

The advertising bots are now somehow incorporating avatars in their posts - unless these are humans posting here after all.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Wed, Dec 6, 2023 6:53:26 pm EST from 174.72.60.154

One year tomorrow since GARGOYLES #1 released. Don't those weeks just fly by? Since then, we've had fifteen terrific issues and we've got to know a whole bunch of great new characters. There's a real sense that the world of 'Gargoyles' has moved on. I think we've been really fortunate to have George and Drew on the books as well. By this time next year, the 30th anniversary will have passed - I can hardly imagine where the universe will be by then!

Craig: Fascinating post and great to hear your personal experiences factoring into this. I suppose the problem is that redemption or even rehabilitation is kind of an abstract idea to set against real challenges:

1. Simple financial restitution doesn't cover the feelings of violation incurred from being a victim which is far more difficult to quantify and may vary wildly from person to person.

2. For anybody, changing is really tough and a healthy scepticism about people's capacity to change is probably consistent with all our experiences of much less high-stakes matters (e.g. dieting, forming new friend groups, developing new habits etc.).

3. Irrespective, the deterrent effect of prison is lost if there's not a sense that there is a strong punishment element alongside a project to reform criminals.

None of which is to say that non-prison solutions aren't likely to be better in so many different ways. But I can certainly see why a theoretical belief in the potential of rehabilitation would not feel compelling when applied to individual circumstances.

I'm not sure either the Magus or Yama are necessarily too hard on themselves. I think they have a realistic sense of the weight of their crimes. The presumed murder of five people is a huge crime and an effective 40-year prison term in, basically, a paradise island probably wouldn't seem an especially savage punishment (especially to a mediaeval mindset where a brutal torturous death followed by an eternity in hell would be the likeliest punishment). Similarly, the betrayal of the clan to outsiders is something that violates the free choice of every gargoyle and human in Ishimura and of course risks the gargoyle species as a whole; plus it's a betrayal of his clan's most sacred code.

It's true that neither ultimately had the catastrophic impact they could have done but that's down largely to happenstance. If two people blindfolded themselves and repeatedly fired a gun in a crowded shopping area and the first killed three people while the second didn't hurt anyone, should the punishment for the first person be different from the second? Instinctively, it feels like the punishment should be different - prosecuting people for purely theoretical crimes seems wrong. But rationally there's no difference in the nature of the crime at the point of commission so in this scenario the level of punishment is essentially a case of luck.

In this case, if one were to seek not just rehabilitation but redemption and even forgiveness, it makes sense that one would need to address the potential as well as actual harms even if a strict legalistic approach would not take such concerns into account.

Alex: Interesting post. Must rewatch "Shadows" before the VftE episode on it drops.

Todd: Thanks as ever - I'll miss your "Poet's Calendar" posts if this is the last.
Ed
posted @ Wed, Dec 6, 2023 3:56:09 pm EST from 86.157.188.113

I kinda thought Todd meant Demona can't outlive herself.

Craig: Well. Victims shouldn't really necessarily be contributing to deciding the criminal in question's fate or punishment, they lack objectivity and often are probably never satisfied. I dunno if it's a New York thing necessarily, but a lot of American media and film is about retribution through violence. I dunno if that reflects on the culture of the states or not, I don't really wanna read too much into that.
Alex (Aldrius)
posted @ Wed, Dec 6, 2023 1:41:29 am EST from 70.48.45.124

Todd> You're right! I had totally forgotten about MacBeth when I wrote that. I wonder if he'd keep the stories about her alive for future generations.
Kate
posted @ Tue, Dec 5, 2023 11:03:03 pm EST from 208.102.156.56

KATE - [The only way I see her getting out on the other end of her actions in good graces is if she outlives everyone around her that remembers all the bad things she did. And that's pretty bleak to think about.]

Not to mention that there's one person who remembers Demona's dark actions whom she *can't* outlive.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Tue, Dec 5, 2023 8:36:55 am EST from 174.72.60.154

To add onto what everyone's been saying, I think there's value in both punitive and restorative justice, the problem lies in that it's hard to determine where exactly the balance between the two is. Obviously there's extreme ends of the spectrum like someone stealing a loaf of bread to survive, versus someone driving their car into a crowded street while sober. It's easy to draw the lines on those. But when it comes to cases like Demona I struggle to think what a character like her deserves considering all that she's done. The only way I see her getting out on the other end of her actions in good graces is if she outlives everyone around her that remembers all the bad things she did. And that's pretty bleak to think about.
Kate
posted @ Tue, Dec 5, 2023 1:45:49 am EST from 208.102.156.56

Quick addendum to add that my previous post was meant to solely be referring to crimes involving strangers. Obviously, crimes where the parties know one another are a very different beast.
Craig
posted @ Tue, Dec 5, 2023 1:25:58 am EST from 24.46.162.2

When I was working as an assistant district attorney in Brooklyn, we were a fairly progressive office (at least in comparison to other D.A.'s offices) in terms of favoring rehabilitative solutions, where appropriate and practical, as opposed to punitive (i.e., counseling programs dedicated to mental health, drug treatment, career and family help, etc., as opposed to jail...with a jail alternative, should the individual fail to meaningfully engage with the treatment). This was the main reason I was attracted to the job to begin with. We could have definitely gone further, and I was frequently frustrated by the roadblocks I continually ran into, which was also a major reason that I left. But one thing that I found is that victims of crimes are NOT very receptive to the "rehabilitation" approach. As a public servant, I would always remind crime victims that I was not their attorney, and had no duty to represent their interests; however, given that they were a party to the crime, their opinion IS an important factor that we consider before reaching a plea. And so, we would always run any potential resolution of the case by them. What I found is that even if a robbery or burglary victim was being fully reimbursed for their loss financially, they would still express extreme unhappiness with any resolution that didn't involve jail time. Maybe this is a New Yorker thing, but people--even liberals, who you would expect to be more open to alternatives to incarceration--are REALLY skeptical about the fact that people can change or experience growth. Maybe people believe in redemption/rehabilitation in principal, but as soon as they're the victim of a crime--even something as simple and stupid as having their newspaper stolen from their stoop on a daily basis--they're just out for blood and feel the offender should be locked away for as long as possible.

All of this to say that...this redemption thing is complicated. We can consider the victim (who may be either too hard or too easy on the offender). We can consider the offender themselves (who, likewise, may be either too easy on themselves or too hard on themselves--see Yama and Magus for the latter). We can look at the public interest/good, which in and of itself can have potentially a dozen perspectives easily. Redemption is almost like a kaleidoscope, where we can constantly keep shifting the viewpoint, and never come to a point of rest that feels objectively true or correct.
Craig
posted @ Tue, Dec 5, 2023 1:22:34 am EST from 24.46.162.2

Sorry I got more:

I think with restorative justice, there's also an element of disconnecting the victim from the victimizer. Where those two things need to be resolved separately. There being some sort of onus or requirement that the victim forgive the victimizer, or that the victimizer do things to make things right with their victims does two things I think are bad:

1) Forces the victim to continue to associate with their victimizer.
2) Puts pressure on the victim to forgive the victimizer for their transgressions which is incredibly unfair.
3) Sort of traps the victimizer in a cycle of needing to do things not for their own sake, or for the sake of doing good, but because they were bad, and they need to do good things until they're not bad anymore. And I don't think it leads to a healthy outcome.

I think the most just thing is to get these two groups as far away from each other as possible. I think that's just practical.
Alex (Aldrius)
posted @ Tue, Dec 5, 2023 12:33:26 am EST from 70.48.45.124

So on Restorative Justice vs. Punitive Justice from last week, I don't have a TON to say:

So obviously the idea behind restorative justice is the idea of... restoration. Someone lost something, or had something taken or some violence was inflicted upon them, and in restorative justice that thing would be restored. And in the latter case, I'd say measures are made to ensure said incident cannot be repeated.

Punitive Justice is like, the law or the court punishing a criminal. You did something bad and now you're punished for it. It's sort of criminal focused I guess.

The former, I think the perfect example is Batman: The Animated Series; Batman in that series is always trying to save people. And that's pretty much the main focus of the show. Very little storytelling is exerted on punishing the bad guys. Most of the villains are ordinary people who turn to crime through extraordinary circumstances or they have some sort of dogma or something that pushes them to crime and Batman will spend 22 minutes trying to save them from themselves (usually failing). There's obviously bigger, more sinister villains (Red Claw, Daggett, Thorne) but those characters are usually more a means to an end and less of a focus in the actual storytelling. The only exception is really the Joker. None of the follow up DCAU stuff really follows this example, and I think few other action cartoons do.

In terms of Gargoyles... Gargoyles isn't quite as focused on that sort of minutiae because it's so much more high concept, but in spirit I think it's something Gargoyles IS concerned with, but in much broader strokes, with a much longer game. Most of the villains, if there is a restoration to be had, come to that kind of on their own, and Goliath is just kind of there. Goliath isn't actively trying to see the best in Dingo for example or help him to be his best self but when Dingo kind of comes around, Goliath gives him a chance. I think MacBeth is the one exception, where Goliath *kind of* takes a role in his sort of epiphany moment in City of Stone. But MacBeth isn't ever a particularly bad guy anyway.

On the subject of Shadows of the Past (which... I think is a discussion I just completely missed somehow). It's one of my favourite episodes, but I think having Goliath logic his way out of Hakon's trap is *such* a missed opportunity. I think there're so many other angles to take there. There're so many ways to relitigate the Wyvern Massacre. Does Goliath feel guilty for not taking the clan with him? (As irrational as that is) Does he feel guilty for trusting the Captain and Demona? I can assume he does (and I mean, I'm sure he does), but here's an opportunity to lay that *bare* and hash it out with the literal ghosts of the characters responsible. And instead it's just "Demona never died, so these ghosts aren't real and this whole thing is fake". Which isn't a bad conclusion, it's a very logical one, but as I say, I just think it's *such* a missed opportunity.

In terms of the Captain, I dunno. I hope this doesn't start a fuss, but I think the Captain is largely backed into a corner, in terms of justice here. It's not a just situation that he's living with. He works his tail off protecting the castle alongside Goliath and he's treated with contempt and ingratitude by Princess Katharine. And when he tries to do something about it, Goliath kind of just undermines him and tells him not to bother. I think he and his actions are more morally complex than how they're usually read.

His actions as a ghost are... hard to read because he's kind of on the periphery until he finally stands up to Hakon. I think largely, his greatest failing as he sees it, is that he wasn't able to protect the stone Gargoyles in Awakening. He doesn't even have the strength of character to die alongside them. So while his behaviour towards his fellow humans is *maybe* a bit ambiguous (as is his moral justification therein), it's his absolute FAILURE to protect the gargoyles that makes me the angriest when watching Awakening and I think that haunts him the most.

So, when he's finally given another opportunity to finally protect a Gargoyle (in this case his friend Goliath) and he stands up to Hakon, it's sort of him... making up for the failure that he couldn't keep his oath (his oath to Demona actually, of all characters).

Of course it's done when he's already dead and has nothing left to lose. So, that does kind of take the punch out of it. But it's such a powerful, emotional moment and Ed Gilbert's so good in that scene. So even if the audience can't forgive him, or the humans who were captured, or the Princess and her people, or the actual ghosts of the dead Gargoyles -- I still think that moment where Goliath calls him his friend is pretty earned. The Captain did basically give up his life to save him. What more can he really give.

I dunno how to put this elegantly, but I think when it comes to redemption: something, eventually, has to be enough, or else what's the point.
Alex (Aldrius)
posted @ Tue, Dec 5, 2023 12:24:26 am EST from 70.48.45.124

Riding upon the Goat, with snow-white hair,
I come, the last of all. This crown of mine
Is of the holly; in my hand I bear
The thyrsus, tipped with fragrant cones of pine,
I celebrate the birth of the Divine.
And the return of the Saturnian reign; -
My songs are carols sung at every shrine,
Proclaiming "Peace on earth, good will to men."

"December", "The Poet's Calendar", Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Mon, Dec 4, 2023 7:36:05 am EST from 174.72.60.154

Goodness, Star Wars can certainly take us on some sidetracks.

Anyway, was watching Last Week Tonight and their main story was on organ donors, body donations for medical science and education and the sheer number of problems there are in the system. This actually got me thinking about the first season episode of Young Justice, "Coldhearted." It was thanks to this episode that I learned that Seattle Children's is one of the top pediatric centers in all of the U.S. and the episode's Seattle Medical Center in the episode is certainly influenced by that. With the plus of being located on the other side of the country providing some good stakes for the episode's conflict.

It actually got me thinking about what other real world influences helped shape the landscape in the show. Adaptations in DC properties tend to play fast and loose with basic geography much less the the way cities operate.

So I was curious if there was any real world locations or centers that would adapt easily into the show's story. Like whether Taos, New Mexico has something similar to what would eventually morph into the Meta-Human Youth Center. Or whether Taipei (besides being an economic hot spot that would attract the likes of Lex Luthor) had any history of hosting diplomatic events much like what happened in "Targets."
Matthew
Ain't nothing crazy 'bout me but my brain!
posted @ Mon, Dec 4, 2023 1:18:29 am EST from 64.85.245.77