Pride

Aug 28, 2008 18:30

In keeping with the mandate of the prison, I am resuming the upkeep of this journal. The staff, feeling that I have been comparatively inactive in the past, have seen fit to give me "primers" concerning subjects which make for appropriate entries. They have suggested using two prompts per entry ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 77

wrightswrongs August 28 2008, 22:44:23 UTC
You... did what?

Reply

absolutekarma August 29 2008, 00:30:44 UTC
Would you have me send you a recorded message?

Reply

wrightswrongs August 29 2008, 03:42:40 UTC
No.

I guess I'm not all that surprised, really--that you'd do something like that, and then boast about it.

Reply

absolutekarma August 29 2008, 03:47:48 UTC
Then you have taken the first step towards making something of yourself: correlating different sets of previously obtained information in such a way as to be able to predict future behavior.

I assume you have some interest in the law?

Reply


rookiekiller August 28 2008, 22:53:41 UTC
I remember reading about that case. The media seemed to think you'd done it in cold blood, which is preposterous.

Reply

absolutekarma August 29 2008, 00:31:53 UTC
An apt choice of words for such an inept man. I trust you know the reason that I did do it, then, since you saw fit to grace my journal with your years of experience.

Reply

rookiekiller August 29 2008, 00:39:56 UTC
You did it to win. Winning is everything to a man of perfection, is it not?

Reply

absolutekarma August 29 2008, 00:58:26 UTC
No, fool. Winning is a side effect of perfection, a consequence of a job performed perfectly. To aim for a "win" is to attempt something which should happen on its own.

I did it because I could. That is all.

Reply


lunar_skye August 28 2008, 23:32:39 UTC
I recall reading over the case in my first year ethics class. I wondered at the time what sort of monster would push for a twelve year-old to be tried in such a manner, and for what reason. I remember the surprise, upon further research, to see that it was a man who had a daughter nearly as old as the defendant at the time.

Reply

absolutekarma August 29 2008, 00:30:19 UTC
I believe you would have benefited from the same degree of familial perspective, girl.

Reply

lunar_skye August 29 2008, 04:26:07 UTC
If my sister had been tried for murder-- I still hold firm that the thought that she might have committed such an act would have shattered her life.

But you're right. The chances were not high, but with the proper attorney, and a good prosecutor on the case--by which I mean, not you--it's quite likely the truth of the matter could have been uncovered, and two years of misdeeds stopped before they began.

Reply

absolutekarma August 29 2008, 04:30:42 UTC
You misunderstand.

That was your case, just as State vs. Edgeworth was mine. If you had done your job, getting your sister convicted would have been a matter of course. But you didn't. Instead you managed to fail spectacularly, giving Damon Gant the power that ended up sending many more "innocents" to prison than would have happened otherwise.

I admit to my curiosity: what is it like, knowing that your selfishness gave power to the man responsible for the convictions of so many? Particularly when so many of them would have been "innocent" in any other case.

Reply


[[please teach me how to kill 12 year old girls ._.]] autodidakt August 29 2008, 03:39:56 UTC
A twelve year old girl tried as an adult? I shudder to think of the half-witted defense attorney that allowed such a case to go through.

Reply

[[first: stop sucking]] absolutekarma August 29 2008, 03:43:50 UTC
I have done you the service of looking up the name for your reference, boy, as you are apparently so concerned with whatever triviality binds you to LiveJournal that you are unable to educate yourself.

Robert Hammond was a fool, but in no way unusual for a defense attorney. The result would have been the same regardless of the fool who cared to act as my opposition.

Reply

[[but it's so tasty! :9 ]] autodidakt August 29 2008, 04:56:41 UTC
Aha, of course. I'm glad to see your wits are as sharp as they've always been, Sir von Karma. I'll be sure not to intrude on you so carelessly in the future.

Reply

[[well okay keep on then]] absolutekarma August 29 2008, 05:14:57 UTC
Your expressed familiarity intrigues me. I assume you have followed my cases before.

Reply


0000ff August 29 2008, 04:10:09 UTC
If the murder was run-of-the-mill, how were you able to justify the death penalty? That doesn't compute...

Reply

absolutekarma August 29 2008, 04:14:26 UTC
All murder justifies the death penalty. Even accidental ones... which this was not.

Reply

0000ff August 29 2008, 04:22:55 UTC
But even if the death penalty is available in such cases, it may be very difficult to obtain, especially if the defendant is sympathetic.

Or did you find some way of making the defendant somehow less sympathetic?

Reply

absolutekarma August 29 2008, 04:33:04 UTC
"But even if the death penalty is available in such cases, it may be very difficult to obtain, especially if the defendant is sympathetic."

The operative word here is "may", and that is never a factor when a case is handled properly.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up