1. Narito Disappearances: Blueprint
2. The Invention of a Crime
3. Confessions & The Idea of a Confession
4. Joo & How It Went in Practice
Narito Disappearances: BLUEPRINT
1. The abduction of individuals from their homes
2. The confession of a person
3. The trial of that person
4. The execution of that person
5. The reappearance of the various individuals
6. Public acknowledgment of wrongdoing on the part of the governing mechanism
The first should be accomplished in total secrecy. There must be no intervention of law enforcement at this time. It should be easily accomplished, but must require elaborate and long-standing plans, as well as the use of specific resources.
The second must involve either: a. an unbreakable person (dedicated to the cause and understanding it thoroughly); or b. a person who will prove unbreakable based upon arbitrary reasons, reasons of peculiarity, i.e., an eccentric.
The third will proceed naturally, as should the fourth.
The fifth is an artificial event, prompted by the announcement of the fourth.
The sixth may be hoped for, and can be accomplished by the pageantry and spectacle of the fifth, particularly by the directedness of the fifth, and the manner in which it places blame.
The Invention of a Crime
The invention of a crime is a special matter. A crime does not exist, and then it is invented. It is not executed. Never is the crime executed; it is merely invented. It is not carried out, but it appears to have been carried out. This appearance of execution creates the crime in the eyes of the populace who beg for enforcement. The individual who accepts guilt for the crime that never occurred is then caught (or comes forward) and is punished. The punishment, of course, is real. Should the society have sufficient resources to detect that the crime is an invented crime, and marry it with an invented execution, similarly un — carried out, though appearing to have been, then the crime would be un — carried out, would be revealed in its un-carried-out-ness and the criminal released. The system would have proven efficacious in the extreme. The chances of such an event are nil.
The invention of a crime is not the province of the criminal mastermind, as it does not, in its essence, involve any crime at all. The principals, both the victims and the agents, are complicit in the event. Some have said that this is always the case (in nature). We do not accept or make that point here. Here we simply say: all involved in the “invented crime” are a part of an organization created for the purpose of arranging the “invented crime,” and all have knowledge of the enterprise in which they are embroiled. The single exception may be (and must be) the confessor, if he be of the second type (spoken of previously).
The action of the crime must be such that it involves tremendous fear on the part of the populace with little reason for that fear. In other words, the fear that is generated must be archetypal, must not be truly causally connected with the crime. The fear must be inspired. Any direct connection between the fear and the event of the crime could serve as an infraction of sorts, and would, at the end of all events, prove to be a true crime, actually punishable.
The organization must have within it members capable of long silence and great discretion. The gathering of such individuals is the principal difficulty that faces any organizer at the founding of such an organization. It is most especially problematic when the ethical problem the organization has been created in order to combat is itself vague and full of complication.
To that end: a discussion of confession.
Confessions & The Idea of a Confession
It is at the heart of our human enterprise, that is to say, at the heart of society, to allow consensus a power it ought not to have.
This is to say, if a man makes a soup, a patently bad soup, and another tastes it on the end of a spoon and says to the first, “This is good soup,” the soup then is known as good. It is acknowledged good. It fulfills its purpose as soup. The consensus regarding the soup is that the soup is good. It perhaps will be made again in the same way. Others arriving on the scene, perhaps with doubt in their hearts as to their ability to accurately judge a soup to be good or not, they hear this verdict of the soup. They taste the soup and know it to be good. They are not judging the soup themselves; this power they have not obtained: rather they listen to that initial agreement.
When a man has committed a crime, it should be prosecuted in a fair society only if the evidence of that crime may be seen. No imaginary documents, that is to say, documents that are the province solely of the human mind unconnected with the world, should be used toward a prosecution or conviction.
That we as humans believe we see things we do not see.
That we will stake our lives and reputations on the above.
That we as humans believe we have done things we have not.
That we will stake our lives and reputations on that, too.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the mechanism of the law cannot discover all ends. They cannot find all evidence. It is the nature of the world that all evidence is ground into nothing, sometimes in mere minutes. It is the nature of the world that this grinding of evidence into nothing does not proceed (always) with malice or intention. The world simply renews itself. Chaos and order rear their alternate heads as two winds that tear at each other’s cheeks.
This being the case, it was soon determined (early in the course of law) that an element, a freeing element, might be obtained in the search for justice. This freeing element may be divided into two parts:
1. The first: eyewitness testimony.
2. The second: the confession.
That a person saw something, himself or herself, has long been accounted a part of the judicial process, however, it never was given the pride of place that it enjoys today, principally because the opinion of any one individual was never accorded respect on the basis of an individual being an individual. This is to say, in previous times, one’s office as a human did not accord one the full opportunity to both claim something and be its proof.
In previous times, such proofs were made thusly: by appeal to the gods.
That agency was then made known through various trials: trial by combat, trial by fire, trial by water. This then was the proof. The proof was not the accusation, nor the statement of an individual.
That said, it has generally always been the case that a person willing to confess to a crime may be acknowledged to have performed that crime. Such a position is mistaken: one cannot know that a person has the truth of a thing, most particularly in the manner in which he/she is affected by it. Our knowledge about ourselves is our least reliable knowledge. Yet, so thoroughly do we ordinarily champion our own cause that it is acknowledged effective to believe that a person who deems it impossible to any further champion his/her own cause must be guilty. Else, why would he/she not continue to declare innocence?
It is primarily through a judgment that favors efficiency over truth that confessions are deemed viable.
All true convictions should proceed from a scientific investigation the results of which can be replicated (and which should be shown to be replicable). A particular person should not necessarily have any involvement whatsoever in the investigation into or trial of their offense. The world itself should provide all details and all evidence. If such evidence is lacking, then a crime cannot be proven without a doubt, and a person ought not to be convicted or punished.