2011-01-19, 09:52 | Link #21561 | ||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
To use your analogy, let's say there's a third person in this scenario. This person is not involved in the conspiracy, but one day while he's in the public area he happens to find the bomb sitting in a trash can, fully armed. He does nothing about it, wanders off, and it later goes off. You needn't debate his moral culpability in this case; he should have told somebody. The exact extent to which he's legally responsible, though, depends a lot on the law, why he didn't tell anyone, and whether he could have actually done any good if he had. Somebody like that could be charged anywhere from murder to manslaughter, depending on the circumstances. He could also be charged with nothing at all, believe it or not. Now, since it's hard to imagine this is anything but grossly irresponsible on Kinzo's part, consider that we still aren't entirely sure how he died or if he was even actually dead, at least on Rokkenjima Prime. It's entirely possible he intended to disarm it, or tried to disarm it, or told Genji to disarm it and Genji didn't (which would shift culpability somewhat). It's possible it can't be disarmed. It's possible he deliberately hid it and told Genji not to tell anyone where the mechanism is specifically so it wouldn't go off. In criminal law terms it would be hard to tell, and with most of the evidence destroyed, if Kinzo just keeps his mouth shut like his lawyers would tell him to it'd be hard to make a case against him, even for manslaughter. The civil proof standard is a lot lower though, and there's a lot of doctrines in property that may or may not apply in Japan, but the idea is that a person can be liable in situations where they may not be criminally guilty. If I own property, and there's a dangerous condition on my property (such as a big open hole twenty feet deep with no guardrails), I actually owe a duty to anybody I invite onto the property (such as my family members or employees) to tell them about it if I knew about it. So if, say, Gohda's family is suing Kinzo's estate for his death, even if Kinzo isn't criminally culpable for killing Gohda, they can argue (pretty convincingly) that he probably should have told Gohda about the hundreds of tons of explosives he was working over every day which could go off at any time. They would probably get a lot of money from that, if the estate had any money left... which it doesn't.
__________________
|
||
2011-01-19, 10:07 | Link #21562 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Stop there Renall.
This discourse starts from the assumption that what was told about this bomb was the truth. If that was the truth then Kinzo is responsible for setting up the device, and he created it for the very purpose of blowing up the mansion and all of his family should his gambles fail. If you bring up on the picture a "maybe he didn't know about the device" and so on then I can throw in a "maybe the bomb didn't exist in the first place" and then of course Kinzo is innocent. Ah and I'd like to point out that according to what was shown in EP8 the only "proof" of this bomb that people from 1998 have is Kinzo's tall talks about this device he created to blow off the island. If you question this, then you don't even have this "proof".
__________________
|
2011-01-19, 11:26 | Link #21563 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
He can't possibly have always intended it to blow up his entire family as Genji's claim of his use of it in ep7 is directly at odds with that. Most of the time, his entire family is not on Rokkenjima; at best, they are present one day of the year, assuming everyone comes to every conference. Anecdotally this appears not to be the case, and of course Battler wasn't attending for many years and Kinzo had no way to force him to return.
There's also the point of "Kinzo set it up to do x; Kinzo didn't do x; someone later came along and did x." Even if everything you say is true, Kinzo did not decide to blow the joint (if indeed he's dead, he can't). Should he have even put that stuff there in the first place? No, it's grossly irresponsible. But he didn't actually do it. He created a situation which gave someone an opportunity (assuming it was no accident). At best he's an accessory. At worst he was tremendously negligent (in not arranging for the dismantling of the system after his death). But he didn't push the button. The moral and legal culpability for any resulting deaths is squarely in the hands of the person who did so. Of course, if no one was actually killed in the blast, we have a weird situation where technically the bomber didn't commit murder at all. Reckless endangerment of Eva, perhaps, and definitely disruption of a crime scene, but no murder. Then again, you can't prove after the fact that nobody was killed, unless you want to come forward and tell everyone who really killed everyone and how...
__________________
|
2011-01-19, 11:33 | Link #21564 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
I think the real issue here is that Kinzo wasn't using the bomb as a way to commit murder, he was using the threat of dying to force himself to make important decisions. Likewise, Yasu probably wasn't trying to commit suicide and bring the family along with her, she was using the fear of death to propel her actions. Risky, but not necessarily murderous.
__________________
|
|
2011-01-19, 11:59 | Link #21566 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Endangering people isn't the same as murdering them. It's not even the same as attempting to murder them.
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-01-19, 12:05 | Link #21567 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-01-19, 12:27 | Link #21568 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
If it can be shown that he's had the 900t or whatever there since the early 1950s and nothing's ever happened, it's certainly plausible that no harm was intended. It's against the law to keep military-grade explosives (at least I assume so), but it's not against the law to be stupid. Foolish possession of dangerous munitions is not prima facie evidence that the owner ever intended to detonate them, let alone to detonate them and hurt anyone.
__________________
|
2011-01-19, 13:21 | Link #21570 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
You have a funny definition of "easy." Sure, it's easy to do if you know where it is and how to get to it. It's not like he put a big red button in the foyer. Well, I guess you could call the epitaph that, but not really.
__________________
|
2011-01-19, 13:24 | Link #21571 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Come on now, don't waste my time in pointless straw grasping. Right now we are discussing how it would be plausible that Kinzo created that device without the intention to use it himself.
It was easy for him.
__________________
|
2011-01-19, 13:35 | Link #21572 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
And he didn't use it, if we accept the notion that he's dead. What's the issue here? He was negligent in leaving it behind for somebody else to discover and use. But it's not the same degree of moral or legal culpability as doing it himself and actually going through with it.
__________________
|
2011-01-19, 14:25 | Link #21573 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Of course it's not the same culpability. But the intention to kill is by itself a crime pretty close to murder.
Now I actually don't know if the intention to commit a massacre is a more serious crime than the actual murder of a single person. At any rate what we have here is a person that, according to the facts as they were reconstructed by the witch hunters in 1998, planned to commit a massacre in case his gamble failed. Of course he always was successful so he never pushed the switch. But the volition to commit the act, should a certain event occur, was there.
__________________
|
2011-01-19, 14:30 | Link #21574 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
That just makes him a desperate jerk, not a murderer. No one is a murderer until someone is actually dead by their direct actions. It's always possible that Kinzo would wuss out and turn the switch back with one minute to go if it came right down to the wire. It's the same way with Yasu, assuming you don't go by the fake murder theory. She can make all the plans in the world, but we don't know what she would have done when it came to actually shooting the Ushiromiya family.
__________________
|
2011-01-19, 15:15 | Link #21576 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Maybe Kinzo just told her because she's Beato/Lion and he felt she deserved to know. Quote:
Kinzo does not have the intent to kill anyone. Legally, not even finding the easy switch (assuming Kinzo did put it there) is proof of an intent to use it, since he never used it. Moreover, all the evidence would be lost when the bomb does go off, so how could Kinzo be held legally accountable anyway? Kinzo can only be held to be an irresponsible, emotionally unstable old dude. He can't be tried as a criminal.
__________________
|
||
2011-01-19, 15:33 | Link #21577 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Where was the personal attack? I call that sarcasm.
I was very clear in my previous posts that I'm talking about the criminality of Kinzo's action while it being not necessarily a murder. Arguing that Kinzo isn't a murderer doesn't counter my arguments. Quote:
What does the law says in this case. Will this many simply get away with it with illegal possession of explosives? Will the people that were threatened to die simply accept this? Will they feel secure at the idea that someone that threatened to blow them off is free to roam and try it again, with the possibility that the second time he won't have second thoughts?
__________________
|
|
2011-01-19, 16:42 | Link #21579 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
I think we all agree with that. But it seems we do not agree on the amount of Kinzo's liability or on the fact that he has a share of guilt not only for the creation of the device itself but for the massacre that happened later as well.
In other words while I agree that Kinzo cannot be directly accused of being the culprit of the Rokkenjima incident, I claim that he's still partially responsible for that. And this kind of responsibility cannot be put on the same level of a butterfly effect such as Keichi's doll just to make an example. Kinzo's actions directly made the massacre possible and the possibility of such consequence had to be considered by a responsible person.
__________________
|
2011-01-19, 17:00 | Link #21580 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Really, like you said, it doesn't matter, but I wouldn't call him "directly responsible." He's proximately responsible; but for his rigging everything up, it wouldn't be there to explode. That's clear. However, without the intervention of an independent party, it would not have exploded (as far as we're told). That's the nuance. Legally, we call that a break in the chain of causation. If it was going to go off one way or another on Oct. 6, 1986, then he's the actual cause of the blast. Otherwise, he's guilty of recklessly creating a dangerous situation and failing to warn people. But it's the person who flipped the switch who is the direct cause and who we should condemn. Unfortunately we know little about the intentions of either.
__________________
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|