Re: Ryoko and the law [LONG]


to tenchi@usagi.jrd.dec.com
from Gregory Matteson <matteson@ccnet.com>
subject Re: Ryoko and the law [LONG]
date Mon, 1 Apr 1996 23:33:11 -0800
>>>        I have no idea why that should in way be seen as what you're
>>>claiming...  What legal theory are you basing this under?  
>>>
>>Part international relations theory, part practical philosopy. It could be
>[...]
>
>        No offense but I take this to mean that you have nothing concrete to
>stand on.
>
I never intended a detailed caselaw brief approach. International relations
is awash in the sort of broad and dubious de-facto assertions and
presumptions I suggested.

>        I don't know where you're coming from as far as guardianship, and
>even less of a sort of guardianship where civil or criminal liability would
>pass to the guardian.  Usually only state _organizations_ are held to that
>sort of duty.  Even then "duty, breach, causation, and damage" must be
>proven under modern tort standard.
>
Pardon my lack of clarity, I tried to keep my "broad philosophical"
responses to less than book length. Yosho and his tree(and behind her,
Tsunami), are accredited representatives of the Jurai State, even if their
actions are not authorized by the King. Their handling of Ryoko is precisely
a program for policy purposes. They are acting as agents of the State, in
what they believe are the interests of the State, in getting Ryoko to help
the fight against Kagato.

>>>space pirate she was.  I personally haven't seen anything from the anime (in
>>>OAVs as well as the TV series) where she had expressed regret over her past
>>>errors. 
Semantic detail, I have never asserted that she admitted or regretted
ERRORS. Contrarily, I believe that Kagato was acting, and was solely
responsible. A genuine instance of possession is something not really dealt
with by modern legal systems as a reality. I think Ryoko would change the
past if she could, but she didn't commit the crimes.
>
>>        I say no to equity courts, simply because I don't believe that Jurai
>>would pay the price. Someone would make the Japanese citizenship argument,
>>and it would go back to Yosho-Tenchi-Tsunami-Ryoko-Ryo-ohki-Washu versus
>>Jurai. Not a desirable confrontation from Jurai's standpoint.
>
>        Huh?  Plucking her away from Kagato is one thing, but are you
>suggesting that the cast of characters you mentioned above would violently
>or otherwise oppose a legal proceding?  I remember no one raising an
>objection to presentation of the bill in OAV 13.  And what price would Jurai
>pay for equity courts?  I'm confused.
>
Figure of speech, "pay the price". Tenchi has both killed a man and himself
died, to protect Ryoko, despite his protestations against the assumption
that he feels for her. Even if he wasn't a rather decent boy, brought up in
our modern social mores, I am certain that he would not stand by idlely and
watch Ryoko be dragged of to debtor's prison, when so many arguments are
ready at hand regarding citizenship and sovereignty. The price Jurai would
pay for trying to take Ryoko would be an irrepairable rupture with Tenchi,
and I would bet on Tenchi winning; and yes, with the help of everyone
present, with the possible exception of Aeka.

You (Chae), and I do indeed have almost globally irreconcileable views of
the characters, and haven't moved one another far: but I think the exercise
has streatched our minds a little. I am not a serious student of the Law, I
took a couple of courses, with high grades, and pretty much decided that my
character and personality was not terribly compatible with that of the legal
profession. (Please try to read that without malice. I try not to be prejudiced)

                                Greg M.



Search field Search string

archive list

unauthorized access prohibited
MLtools V3.1 Copyright (c) Usagi Labs