Hobgoblin2012

If so, how did one woman I read about get only 4 years with a suspended sentence for killing the man who raped and murdered her daughter and laughed while describing to her the details? In many real-life situations, yes. But in those I have seen in DC the "victims" who took over somebody's business and forced others to suicide were either too powerful, so the police would simply be bought off or intimidated, or were too clever to ever be convicted for what they did. Whatever happened, only the "avenging" criminals have to pay by the law in 90% of the cases.

Yes, but in Agatha Christie's detective stories the murderers aren't like in DC at all. At least, I never had any impulse to sympathize with any of them, they usually are just plain evil like the victims in DC, except "Murder in the Orient Express". In Erle Stanley Gardner's books the murderers often are former accomplices of the victims. Well, that's the matter of opinion. I don't think so. I am too sorry for the the suicides to be able to justify the ambitious individuals who drive them to it. Thanks for explaining about the quote, that has been quite a puzzle for me for some time

AndrewA, I am not talking about psycho killers. I am talking about Gosho very rarely using killers who are at the same time sane and cold-blooded and without scruples, who kill for power or profit. Contract killings, robbery killings, murders for inheritance etc. It's true not all victims have committed crimes, but for example forcing someone to suicide isn't really murder, but morally it's no less heinous. At least, for me forcing an innocent to suicide is worse than killing a serial killer. Somebody can well not be a criminal, but still be at the same level from the moral point of view. And I agree with you if Conan REALLY does lecture them to try to reform them. I would like to hope it's so, but I always get the impression that the only thing he thinks about is punishment. P.S. By the way, how you do multi-quote? On my computer it doesn't work, when I press multi-quote and mark a sentence, it quotes the whole post, not just this sentence.

I think he should at least stop giving them lectures and say that he is sad for what happened to them or their relatives. He could even visit some of them in prison (I know it's not his duty, but I surely would have done that) and assure them they won't be discarded like trash by the society AFTER they have done their time. He could have publicly said the victims were more guilty or at least not less guilty from the moral point of view than the "avengers". All of this WOULDN'T have meant as if he was justifying them, it would just make him more human and less droid-like. As for Gosho, I know he said he doesn't want people to think murder is acceptable, but then why does he do exactly the contrary by always presenting murderers as rather sympathetic and the victims as the scum of the earth? Doesn't that make it more difficult to see everything in black and white? But I agree with you this kind of murderers should be brought to justice for THEIR OWN good. Good of society has nothing to do with that, they don't hurt society as they kill only people who DO hurt society. Again, I am not saying this to justify them.

I am not talking about "using it as an excuse" for murder. I am simply saying that in my opinion not feeling sorry makes him a worse person. Feeling sorry for this kind of killer isn't the same as justifying what they did. I think the author made much to show that the situations aren't black and white, that if somebody deserves the title of "monsters", it's the victims in first place. I am not forcing my opinion on you, but I am genuinely saddened and depressed some people don't feel sorry for somebody, murderer or not, whose life is ruined and who has suffered without deserving it before becoming a murderer.

Still, not feeling compassion is a horrible thing in my opinion. He sends them to jail, but jail doesn't solve every problem. If creatures like the "victims" aren't prosecuted, the revenge killings will never end, and Conan never pays much attention to those characters until they are killed. How can somebody be cold and indifferent when he has a person in front of him who genuinely cry, and still be able to have positive feelings like love for Ran or his parents is a weird and warped combination in my opinion.

But being like that is plain cruel, that makes him no better that the criminals he is after. How can he pretend to be better than them, if he doesn't want to understand their motives? How can he be so arrogant to allow himself to judge them WITHOUT EVER HAVING BEEN IN THEIR SITUATION? As I said, it's like justifying what the victims did. What would be the point of the juridical concept of extenuating circumstances and the defense lawyer profession if the motive didn't matter? And please don't tell me that the only possible extenuating circumstance is self-defense. And I don't agree the very nature of ANY murder is foul. While I agree it's a bad thing, the most foul things are those people who create the situations in which somebody ever wants to commit murder out of revenge. They are the masterminds and the source of evil in DC, the avenging murderers are just the consequence of their horrible actions. If the "victims" did nothing, there would be no desperate and violent reaction. Of course, I am talking about fiction, because in real life such crimes are quite rare, that would be a different story. Nor Conan nor the police in DC realize that, had they punished ALL criminals in time, not just those who kill for revenge, many crimes wouldn't have happened. Otherwise, the impression I get is something like "it's ok when a murderer of a child isn't punished, because there was no proof, therefore he isn't guilty, but if somebody DARES to take revenge, then the whole justice machinery will unleash its wrath at him at once". It seems to me Conan's logic is warped. I am not saying he is a bad guy, but this particular characteristic of his seems extremely hypocritical to me. I still think that not having a feeling of compassion for somebody who cries about the injustices is a behavior worthy of satan himself.

I agree that murder shouldn't be justified, at least in the majority of cases, and I agree not all killings are revenge for murder. My point wasn't that killing is right or wrong, but that most of the murderers in DC deserve compassion from the human point of view, even if the right thing is sending them to jail. Sending them to jail may be the right thing, but not having compassion is wrong in my opinion. At least I got the impression that the author wants us to think about the situations not being "black and white" at all.

Honestly, I am very saddened you think like this. Saying this is like justifying what the victims did. You or Conan say "you can't commit murder", yet you seem to apply this only to "avengers", not to their "victims". There ARE extenuating circumstances in laws, even from a judiciary point of view, not just the moral one, otherwise people would get life sentences for ANY murder they committed, both for killing a child or killing a terrorist. And, as I said, not feeling any compassion for somebody who cries for the murdered family, makes us no better than criminals. How can somebody just say "Conan is right, they don't deserve compassion" is beyond my comprehension. This is cruel, and I think we shouldn't be cruel. You can't judge people who have suffered without ever having been in their situation.

Conan does never criticize the victims though, and they are always the n.1 murderers in the stories, because they kill innocents, unlike those who kill them. Conan seems to criticize only those who kill for revenge, never those who started the whole mess. Sorry for the off-topic, but this is one thing that has bothered me forever, as much as I like the series.

Nice people can also be killed. For example, witnesses to crimes, businessmen who "annoy" their business rivals, house owners who surprise thieves during burglaries, people get killed during robberies, for jealousy etc. I am asking myself why Gosho (and many other Japanese writers) tend to avoid such plots. And, even when the victims aren't nice people, why are they never eliminated by accomplices, but always by people whom they made suffer?

This makes sense, but why are the victims almost always much worse than the murderers then? If the morals are to teach the value of human life, why are almost all the victims extremely hard (if not impossible) to sympathize with?

Yes, but not feeling compassion also makes us as bad as they are. In my opinion, a detective should arrest criminals, but shouldn't humiliate or kick down (in a figurative sense of the word) the arrested ones, they have already suffered enough without deserving it. Have you seen the series "Kindaichi shounen no Jikenbo"? This series is very similar to Conan, but the detective feels sorry for the sad situations of the guilty ones. He arrests them, but he is sorry for them, he visits them in prison sometimes and assures them they aren't just discarded by society.

It's not really justice if the ones who started everything by killing innocents are never punished by the law in DC and only those who "dare" to take revenge are punished. Also, I think that we should feel sorry for people who cry because their fathers/mothers were killed by the "victims". I felt sorry even for the Canadian mafia boss Vito Rizzuto whose family and friends were slaughtered while he was in prison in the USA, but that doesn't mean I like the mafia. I mean, if somebody cries for his family, it's quite grotesque to treat him harshly, the fact that he will go to jail is perfectly enough. Most murderers in DC act out of despair, they either go crazy or kill, and ending up in prison won't be a punishment, but a sort of relief for them I think, as their life isn't really "life" anymore after what happened to their dear ones.

I agree, the thing that annoys me is just that Conan often reads morals to the criminals in a harsh tone. In my opinion, just arresting them would be enough. Most of the real guilty ones in DC are never touched by the law until the "avengers" kill them. It's not like they kill them because they think they are above the law, in most of the cases they initially try to obtain justice legally, and turn violent only after they know 100% that the law enforcement won't help them.

But the colonel Sebastian Moran wasn't executed, I think in a short story Holmes said to a client that “If your man is more dangerous than the late professor Moriarty ot than the living Colonel Sebastian Moran, then he is indeed worth meeting.” So this means Moran wasn't executed, or does this mean he was acquitted?

I like Lupin more because he seems less arrogant and also find himself in funny or humiliating situations more often than Kid, that makes it easier for me to sympathize with him. Or do you mean whose stealing skills are better?

This has been talked about a little in other threads, but I suppose it deserves a separate topic by itself: What do you think about the tear-jerking stories of the murderers in most of the DC cases? I mean, they are almost always reduced to such a pitiful state by the “victims” who often massacre their families or friends that I really have an extremely hard time to understand how does Conan (and therefore, Gosho) and some fans manage to stay cold and indifferent when the murderers confess the crime and tell about their dear ones, dead because of the so-called “victims”. In my opinion, it’s too simplistic and convenient for some irresponsible people to just say “murder is wrong and everything else doesn’t matter”. I understand that, if somebody is unable to feel pity or compassion, it’s useless to tell them this attitude is no better than the act of murder, but still, putting ALL murderers in the same category, like a terrorist who blows up schools full of children and a desperate mother who takes revenge on who raped and killed her daughter is a logic from another planet to me. I am not saying that killing somebody is a right thing to do, but simply saying “my job is only to discover the truth, expose the guilty one and who cares about the rest” in my opinion is an extremely egoistic approach to the matter. Sorry if somebody feels offended, I am not attacking any fan personally, but lately I happened to read and watch too many detective stories that ended in this way. The fact that many people seem to make the wrong conclusions from the stories, not those that the author probably would have wanted (at least it seems so to me) makes me very sad. I personally am completely unable to remain cold and heartless when somebody cries while talking about their loved ones being dead, I always feel sorry even when I read that a mafia boss cries because his father has been killed. To sum it up, does anybody else think that Conan would be a better character if he at least acknowledged the fact that the situations he is investigating are very unjust, and not because the scumbags have been killed, but because good people's lives have been ruined and they became criminals themselves out of despair? One doesn't have to justify the act of murder to feel pity for the guilty ones. Life has punished them when they didn't deserve it, and they will go to prison, so what's the need to treat them like dirt while talking to them at the end of the stories? I hope you will understand what I am saying, as this subject is very important to me.

I disagree. I am very saddened by the common stereotype "if there is a couple already formed from the start it should NECESSARILY be ruined during the story for the sake of character development", as if there were no other ways to develop characters apart from splitting couples apart. I admire very much those characters who stay together forever, especially when they are childhood friends. Unfortunately, such stories are so rare, in the modern fiction there are always love triangles, cheating, polygamy, multiple marriages, etc. It depresses me, seriously. As for Ran, I would really like to have a friend like her in real life: open, honest, with a good heart. And I would never be able to trust Haibara. I am not forcing my opinion on anybody, but still...

What you are saying is just dry logic, while I also consider the emotional aspect of the story. Most of the cases in Detective Conan are quite tear-jerking, and not caring about the sufferings of people who became criminals OUT OF DESPAIR shows Conan in a bad light. You can send them to jail, but at least have the decency to admit that people who lost their dear ones deserve compassion at least from the human point of view, if not the judiciary one. Don't know about you, but I personally am sorry even for a mafia boss who cries when his brother has been murdered. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished for his own crimes, but that doesn't nullify the fact that criminals are still living beings who often have good in them (at least they surely do in DC). I am sure it's not casual that in DC the victims are always much worse than the murderers. As for "murdering is bad", this should be applied to the victims in the first place, since it's always them who start the whole matter by killing innocent friends or relatives of the "avenger". Judging "avengers" too harshly would be disrespectful towards the memory of people whom the so-called "victims" have brutally murdered. And yes, if there is a guarantee that the criminal won't commit another crime if not imprisoned and will become a repeat offender if imprisoned, then it's surely better to let him go because the security of society is MUCH more important than punishment just for the sake of it. Of course, such cases are very rare in real life, but we are talking about fiction. Also, not caring about people's sufferings and extenuating circumstances just because "you don't have to" and "it's not your job" is quite egoistic. Prove me wrong if you can. If you think there is nothing wrong with being egoistic, then I understand you (but not agree with you). But if not, then please explain. Anyway, in all honesty, I am really saddened some people are able to remain emotionless when they see somebody who cries because of the loss of his/her dear ones because of the actions of the so-called "victim". If we are against murder, it doesn't mean we should kill natural human emotions in us. It's really depressing that people don't have pity for anybody nowadays.

Genta is my favorite character, he makes me laugh too much and is physically similar to my cat.

I voted: Genta, because he is the funniest and is similar to my cat, both physically and psychologically. Ran, because she is a faithful, courageous, open and simple person. I would really like to have friends like her in real life. Yamamura, because he is the funniest after Genta. Vodka (didn't really want to vote for him, but the poll requests to put a vote for the black organization), because he has the most classic mafoso-Al Capone-like appearance, and his stupidity is funny. By the way, where is the cat Goro option? He is one of my favorite characters too, I like cats.

I definitely vote ShinxRan, I like Ran's character more than Ai's and childhood friend pairings are so touching. Some people don't like ShinxRan for this very reason, that they are childhood friends, and this dislike for childhood love depresses me very much.

Sherlock Holmes is better, because he is more mature in his view on criminals: there have been cases in which he let them go because he understood that by putting them in jail he will only create monsters, while otherwise they would be too scared of committing crimes again. Also, Shinichi doesn't acknowledge the juridical concept of "extenuating circumstances". He never even says he is sorry for the murderer's situation even when the victim had exterminated their family, and this does in no way make him look as a good person. On the other hand, I trust Ran's judgement about his character, meaning that if Shinichi hadn't good in him, I doubt she would have fallen in love with him, but still, Sherlock Holmes is better in my opinion.

There is also the third type I am rather familiar with: the ones that hate Ran simply because they think childhood friend pairings stink (usually without giving any explanation or saying people who remain forever with their first loves are immature). I strongly suspect such people would root for Ran instead of Ai if Ai was Shinichi's first love. I usually try to respect other people's opinions (even Ran-haters), but this particular kind of people just depresses me to the point I don't even want to argue with them