Himegoto Kakushigoto - Ch. 11 - The one behind the threat letter

[finalm]

This is the thing, nothing happened in the end, so there is nothing I have to answer you about. You are making an scenario in your head to be mad at and crying about anyone calling your bullshit because you want to be morals police. And the letter said "don't get close to her, I know your secret", there wasn't even a direct threat. And here you are, clutching at your pearls because someone made a vage note and it was resolved.

Also, you probably have read enough manga to know how bad bullying in Japan can be, right? The kind of bullying of writing awful stuff and litter someone's desk, right? Can you look at me in the eye and tell me this is even on the same level as that? Are you really that thin skinned to consider this a crime? How can you read manga in general in the first place?

When I made that comment about Ranma I truly mean it, you couldn't watch that show with that morality obession some of you people around here have.

Awfully combative and eager to throw blanket statements, like "you people", for someone who "has nothing to anwser about", aren't you? Honestly, it sounds like you have something quite serious on your conscience, for a hypothetical question about a fictional character to ellicit such a rant and accusations about being "moral police". Whatever it is, hopefully you'll anwser for it after all, even if you continue to kick and scream like this.

A crime is a crime. You seem interested in absolving it by comparing to even worse crimes, but no one will take you up on it, especially since the reasons for it were petty, with no redeeming circumstances at all.

 

[finalm]

The threatening letter is a nothingburger. What did it actually threaten at the end of the day?

Japan has the equivalent of 18 U.S. Code 876 (as it has most of similar US legislation). Sending threatening communication is a crime and the threat does not need to be about violence or anything alike. Threatening someone's reputation ("I know your secrets, I'll tell everyone!") is enough.

 

[ipmanvsthemask]

Japan has the equivalent of 18 U.S. Code 876 (as it has most of similar US legislation). Sending threatening communication is a crime and the threat does not need to be about violence or anything alike. Threatening someone's reputation ("I know your secrets, I'll tell everyone!") is enough.

So what if it's against the law? And what secret was she gonna tell everyone? The one that her entire family was in on?

It's not that serious.

 

[ipmanvsthemask]

A crime is a crime. You seem interested in absolving it by comparing to even worse crimes, but no one will take you up on it, especially since the reasons for it were petty, with no redeeming circumstances at all.

A crime is not a crime. That's why courts exist. The letter of the law isn't strictly enforced because sometimes the person does not need to be punished.

There's also something called generosity of the heart. Something that Naoomi has and you dont.

 

[finalm]

So what if it's against the law? And what secret was she gonna tell everyone? The one that her entire family was in on?

It's not that serious.

First you argued it's not a crime, now you say "so what if it's against the law"? Just admit you don't care, no matter what she'd do, bro. Also, you mean the whole family that stressed NO ONE outside of it is to know about them being related, since it would lead to the father's infidelity being public knowledge? It seems serious enough for them.

 

[finalm]

A crime is not a crime. That's why courts exist. The letter of the law isn't strictly enforced because sometimes the person does not need to be punished.

There's also something called generosity of the heart. Something that Naoomi has and you dont.

It's in the definition, bro. Just because there are various severity of crime does not mean one is not a criminal for commiting one of the lesser ones.

Yes, there's the letter and the spirit of the law. What she did may not be comparable to say, murder (and neither is the punishmment), but there are absolutely no mitigating circumstances to it either, not even the freebie of being a minor. There's no reason for her not to be punished for it, were it to end up in court.

That sure is some "generosity" on your part to assume this of a stranger that simply quotes you facts that you don't like. Anyone endorsed by that kind of person would be suspect by default, really. Good thing it's a fictional character, isn't it?

 

[mug3n]

Awfully combative and eager to throw blanket statements, like "you people", for someone who "has nothing to anwser about", aren't you? Honestly, it sounds like you have something quite serious on your conscience, for a hypothetical question about a fictional character to ellicit such a rant and accusations about being "moral police". Whatever it is, hopefully you'll anwser for it after all, even if you continue to kick and scream like this.

A crime is a crime. You seem interested in absolving it by comparing to even worse crimes, but no one will take you up on it, especially since the reasons for it were petty, with no redeeming circumstances at all.

The fuck is this shit? What is this therapist larp you are doing here? XD

Hope you never crossed the street where there wasn't a crosswalk or throwing batteries in the bin, law boy. I don't know if you can live with the weight of those very bad things in you conscience .

 

[finalm]

The fuck is this shit? What is this therapist larp you are doing here? XD

Hope you never crossed the street where there wasn't a crosswalk or throwing batteries in the bin, law boy. I don't know if you can live with the weight of those very bad things in you conscience .

Hardly anything worthy of a therapist. I told you, it was a simple matter in response to your oh so sarcastic little passage. Not even direct critique, just a question to see if you're aware of the logical implications. You didn't have to flip out about it nor make it so desperately personal, yet you did so what am I, or anyone else, supposed to think? Now, unless you have something else on topic to say other than describing how I'm apparently crying and clutching, or needlessly worrying about my sensitivity, I suggest you take your humble pie and snarf it down with what little dignity you have left.

 

[ipmanvsthemask]

It's in the definition, bro. Just because there are various severity of crime does not mean one is not a criminal for commiting one of the lesser ones.

Yes, there's the letter and the spirit of the law. What she did may not be comparable to say, murder (and neither is the punishmment), but there are absolutely no mitigating circumstances to it either, not even the freebie of being a minor. There's no reason for her not to be punished for it, were it to end up in court.

That sure is some "generosity" on your part to assume this of a stranger that simply quotes you facts that you don't like. Anyone endorsed by that kind of person would be suspect by default, really. Good thing it's a fictional character, isn't it?

I'm not the one malding over a fictional character here, dumbass.

 

[finalm]

I'm not the one malding over a fictional character here, dumbass.

Sorry, I'm not fluent in brainrot so I'll go ahead and substitute it with something like salty loser noises, that's still quite hip though, isn't it? Anyway, since we've established you've no points to make and are already scraping the bottom of the barrel for personal insults, it's high time you hug your L and I'll tuck you in.

 

[Samhill]

How did she not notice the camera?

 

[AzrefReza]

Oh, all those times you insulted or hit me?
Nah, that doesn't matter, we're best friends now obviously...

Some people really don’t understand the concept of forgiving, huh?

So you're telling me you'd have no reservations against "getting along" with someone who showed enough hostility towards you to actually commit a crime?

Apparently, some people don’t get the difference between a crime and dumb teenagers doing dumb stuff either…

there are absolutely no mitigating circumstances to it either, not even the freebie of being a minor. There's no reason for her not to be punished for it, were it to end up in court.

Actually there is. Specifically the very fact that she’s a dumb teenager. There’s a reason why every civilized country has specific courts for minors, which include mitigating most punishments into educative answers. But then again, you seem to be an American Savage™, so I wouldn’t expect you to understand such advanced concepts…

 

[finalm]

Apparently, some people don’t get the difference between a crime and dumb teenagers doing dumb stuff either…

Word, apparently they're so allergic to reading, they prefer to base their notion of legality on vibes, even when you throw the actual book at them. Hello there

Actually there is. Specifically the very fact that she’s a dumb teenager. There’s a reason why every civilized country has specific courts for minors, which include mitigating most punishments into educative answers. But then again, you seem to be an American Savage™, so I wouldn’t expect you to understand such advanced concepts…

If being dumb was a mitigating circumstance the penal system would probably start renting it's facilities on Airbnb, just so they see some usage. Still, I suppose that makes sense for someone that argues getting thrown into juvie is an "educative anwser" rather than a punishment and celebrates it as a sign of great culture, rather than the standard even in the worst shitholes. I'm certainly starting to see the appeal of a vibe-based perception of reality. While I obviously can never forgive you for the insult of assuming I'm American, it would feel irresponsible not to straighten one thing out: the school shootings they so enjoy there are NOT their substitute to juvie court, m'kay?

 

[AzrefReza]

If being dumb was a mitigating circumstance the penal system would probably start renting it's facilities on Airbnb, just so they see some usage. Still, I suppose that makes sense for someone that argues getting thrown into juvie is an "educative anwser" rather than a punishment and celebrates it as a sign of great culture, rather than the standard even in the worst shitholes. I'm certainly starting to see the appeal of a vibe-based perception of reality. While I obviously can never forgive you for the insult of assuming I'm American, it would feel irresponsible not to straighten one thing out: the school shootings they so enjoy there are NOT their substitute to juvie court, m'kay?

You do know juvie is not the only option for teenage delinquents, right? These other options are what are called educative measures. It’s the point, you don’t send them dumb teens to jail, not even a jail specifically for minors, unless they’ve done something truly unspeakable.


Also bro, you’re able to cite a precise reference to some obscure ’Murican law, I won’t believe you aren’t a Yank until I have solid proof of the contrary!

 

[finalm]

You do know juvie is not the only option for teenage delinquents, right? These other options are what are called educative measures. It’s the point, you don’t send them dumb teens to jail, not even a jail specifically for minors, unless they’ve done something truly unspeakable.

These options include: home confinement (punishment), fines (punishment, though probably mainly for the guardians), forced community service (no doubt a punishment), limiting of freedom via non-incarceration methods, like electronic monitoring or probation (guess what?) and probably the only measure actually meant as non-punishment: changing the legal guardian of the child to someone else. Not a lot to work with, don't you think? Also, it's really not hard to get juvie since it's usually a temporary measure followed by probation. The serious crap gets you juvie until adulthood (possibly followed by regular incarceration). The "truly unspeakable", as you put it, gets you locked up with other hardened criminals in regular slammer, minor or not.

Also bro, you’re able to cite a precise reference to some obscure ’Murican law, I won’t believe you aren’t a Yank until I have solid proof of the contrary!

Bro, you don't want to see obscure. It's crap that has been on the books since people resolved conflicts via flintlock pistols and used as hillarious loopholes to issues even veteran lawyers would not think of. This is everyday legislature and I can all but guarantee wherever you live has something very similar, if it's a developed country (probaly still true even if it isn't). As for your concrete proof, let's see... About 2 years ago I was hospitalized for close to a month with a life-threatening condition. Didn't pay a dime or even know how much that would bill for. Surely you need no more

 

[AzrefReza]

These options include: home confinement (punishment), fines (punishment, though probably mainly for the guardians), forced community service (no doubt a punishment), limiting of freedom via non-incarceration methods, like electronic monitoring or probation (guess what?) and probably the only measure actually meant as non-punishment: changing the legal guardian of the child to someone else.

Still don’t know what country you’re talking about, but it is not at all how it works in mine (France, to stop playing guessing games). I’m not going to get into every detail because that would take a fuckton of time, but here’s the gist of it.

1. There is no punishment (in the judiciary sense, aka peine as opposed to punition) if the minor is under 13 or if the infraction they committed would be punished by less than 3 years of prison, were they an adult.

2. Except in some very specific cases (over 16 year old AND considered mature enough to be treated as an adult AND already well known from the judiciary system AND committed something truly awful like murder), there is a transitory period of 6-9 months between being declared guilty and the decision on whether or not to pronounce a punishment, during which the minor is subjected to some form of educative measure (I’ll get back to that later). At the end of this trial period, the court decides whether this was enough, or the educative measure must go on, or some kind of punishment is necessary : in that last case, the punishment cannot be more than half the maximum punishment for an adult.

3. The lighter form of educative measure is “judiciary warning”. Basically, you get lectured by a judge about what you’ve done and why it’s shitty behavior.

4. The heavier form of educative measure is a combination of one or more modules.
4a. “Insertion module” aka some sort of special class to teach you some basic civic concepts you seem to be lacking.
4b. “Reparation module” aka any form of atonement by repairing the damage you’ve done, e. g. washing a wall you tagged, or simply having to write an excuse letter to the victim.
4c. “Health module” aka getting medical help, for instance in cases of drug use or if there’s clearly something psychiatric going on in your behavior.
4d. “Placement module” aka changing your guardians.
4e. A somewhat lengthy list of interdictions, like getting forbidden to meet specific people or to connect to a social media account, etc.

5. Minors above the age of 16 can get community service, which is indeed a punishment.

6. In some cases, the whole educative measure can also get forgone completely (art. L111-6 of the Code de la justice pénale des mineurs).

En matière contraventionnelle ou correctionnelle, une dispense de mesure éducative peut être accordée lorsqu'il apparaît que le reclassement du mineur est acquis, que le dommage causé est réparé et que le trouble résultant de l'infraction a cessé.

In matters of misdemeanors or felonies, exemption from an educative measure may be granted when it appears that the rehabilitation of the minor is guaranteed, the damage caused has been remedied, and the disturbance resulting from the offense has ceased.

I chose to cite this clause specifically, because we are exactly in the situation depicted here: Shuuka would be considered a good kid by any standard, she made up with the victim who forgave her, and there is no beef between them anymore. The “crime” of having sent a threatening letter would, most probably, be completely dismissed and no sanction nor educative measure would be taken. Even though a “threat with an order to do something” is a felony punishable by 3 years in prison and a 45000 € fine under French law (art. 222-18 of the Code pénal ).

Also note that everything I just described only applies if the whole thing does go all the way to a court. It can be stopped at the level of the parquet (more or less the district attorney’s office), which can decide that this shit is not worth going to court and dismiss it entirely (once again, I oversimplify).

This is everyday legislature and I can all but guarantee wherever you live has something very similar, if it's a developed country (probaly still true even if it isn't).

Soooo… I stand by my point that the Yanks and whatever your country might be are uncivilized backwaters if they truly believe the only way to deal with dumb kids is to thoroughly punish them as if they were adults.

 

[finalm]

Still don’t know what country you’re talking about, but it is not at all how it works in mine (France, to stop playing guessing games). I’m not going to get into every detail because that would take a fuckton of time, but here’s the gist of it.
[...]

You got into every detail, so I'll just say that talking about things that don't apply here, like very young age, infractions that would basically be misdemeanors even for adults etc. is a waste of time. You yourself admit none of that is the topic here.

In matters of misdemeanors or felonies, exemption from an educative measure may be granted when it appears that the rehabilitation of the minor is guaranteed, the damage caused has been remedied, and the disturbance resulting from the offense has ceased.

I chose to cite this clause specifically, because we are exactly in the situation depicted here: Shuuka would be considered a good kid by any standard, she made up with the victim who forgave her, and there is no beef between them anymore. The “crime” of having sent a threatening letter would, most probably, be completely dismissed and no sanction nor educative measure would be taken. Even though a “threat with an order to do something” is a felony punishable by 3 years in prison and a 45000 € fine under French law (art. 222-18 of the Code pénal ).

Also note that everything I just described only applies if the whole thing does go all the way to a court. It can be stopped at the level of the parquet (more or less the district attorney’s office), which can decide that this shit is not worth going to court and dismiss it entirely (once again, I oversimplify).

That's really the thing being adress here: yeah, he brushed it off, so there's little ground to stand on, but what if he hadn't? It's not like that is an unreasonable stance to take here, for both the victims, given all that happened. At the very least, this could be made into a bad case of bullying if they wanted to and I'm sure you know your country criminalizes that rather seriously. The fact that she had no prior contact with the judiciary system would play in her favour, but when the court hears of her reasons and the fact that she neither apologized nor attempted to fix the damage, I'd like to see the judge that lets it go, as you're suggesting, given the motivation for updating the relevant legislation not that long ago.

As for the prosecution not wanting to proceed - here's the kicker, they can not only be made to do so by a judge, but also easily pressured simply by letting the matter blow up at school and among the public. She's a member of a plutocrat family, the news would eat up the chance to report on a "two tiered" system the jurisdiction has going on for not even letting it get to court. You know as well as I do that's not happening here.

Soooo… I stand by my point that the Yanks and whatever your country might be are uncivilized backwaters if they truly believe the only way to deal with dumb kids is to thoroughly punish them as if they were adults.

I see you insist on continuing this sort of strawmanning. If she were to be punished as if she was an adult, then you yourself already quoted the likely sanction. Neither I nor the Americans believe this is what should happen, otherwise it would, at least in the latter's case. For all the faults of their system (of which there are many and serious), legislation pertaining juvenile penalties isn't one of them. France itself admitted in 2022 that "dealing" with dumb kids actually requires doing something, so please get back to solid ground.

 

[AzrefReza]

[Moving the goalpost but with lots of words.]

Yep, I’m done trying to be reasonable: you’re the infamous pigeon in a chess match.
The procedure I described applies in all cases regarding minors, not just misdemeanors like you pretend. It is completely relevant to the topic, and you are a plain liar when you affirm with no guilty conscience that I supposedly admitted to the contrary.
All the rest of your post is just blabbering with the preconception that there’s some sort of alternative punitive system for felonies and other grave offenses, and makes absolutely no sense in regard with the facts, so I’ll just let you turn in circles in your little delusion.