Tears of Madeira

The following is a summary of Max's internal examination of what is happening within the ratcatchers.

I was brought up with a strong sense of Right and Wrong and a desire to help people. This lead me first into Medicine, then into law. The purpose of Law, as I was brought up to understand, was to protect people, all people. As times changed, Law evolved to deal with things previously unheard of. Consider now the most recent developments.

Jack, a known serial killer who was being magically held slipped his bonds without those holding him knowing. This brings forth the question of how one holds a person so magically gifted that they cannot truely be held if they decide to escape. If this same person is a danger to society, how can the public be protected. I have long been against capital punishment, and was particularly disgusted to learn this was practiced by Ottawa's Fey court. The case of Jack highlights a limitation of Canada's current legal system; it assumes any person can be incarcerated indefinitely if need be. However, we now have the situation of a person that cannot be incarcerated. Perhaps, as we learn more about the shear power of some mages, we need to rethink our stand against capital punishment and agree to apply it in situations where it is impossible to protect the public from this individual without killing them. Perhaps, in this case, we have something to learn from the Fey? Much as I would advocate removing a gangrenous limb, I would advocate a policy of "shoot on sight" for Jack. In this, I agree with Ms. Danson's assessment and disagree with how it appears the RCMP will be handling it. He cannot be held, and nothing in his profile indicates that he will stop killing.

This leads to the situation under which Ms Danson has left or was removed from her position. The facts of the case are that she had been involved in originally bringing him in at great personal risk and was physically, and no doubt psychologically, scarred for life. The days immediately after his excape she appeared to have had little or no sleep, focusing on finding him. When we did encounter him, she was willing to order her team to kill an innocent victim to ensure he no longer posed a danger. (As a side note, the fact that her team, myself excluded, willing fired on an innocent victim is particularly troubling). In this action she demonstrated herself to be a danger to society so I expect she was released from duty. Legally speaking this was a logical response to her actions; knowing her profile, she knew that would be the outcome and would accept it as a consequence of her higher calling to protect the public. In my professional opinion she should have been released from duty at that point and remitted for physchological councilling.

Here, however, we are presented with a problem. Although she was willing to sacrifice an innocent victim to rid society of a greater risk, she had accurately assessed the risk he posed. Indeed, she is currently the only person connected to the DTA who is likely to find him. From the perspective of society, the risk she poses is small with respect to the risk Jack poses. She should, under supervision, be permitted to continue in the investigation, perferably in an "unofficial" capacity. One can hope that some in the DTA have opted for public censure while placing her into a position to quietly continue her investigation. Time will tell if reason has won out over blind adherence to Law.

This then leads to the last point; should one continue to blindly follow the Rule of Law when following it will only result in more deaths? The Rule of Law states that Ms Danson should be arrested and tried for public endangement as should all of her team. The Rule of Law also states that Jack must be captured and incarcerated. The latter is not possible given our current resources, and the former removes from the case a significant resource. When the Law fails in its stated goal of protecting the public, should it be followed?