Morality in Detective Conan cases

[Hobgoblin2012 49]

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.

[DetectiveKir 6]

Both Conan and I would definitely feel sorry for a person whose life has been ruined by someone else's cold actions. I would even help, them try to find justice. But the second they make the decision to murder, they're no worse than the person they're taking revenge on.

[AndrewA 5]

What precisely are you considering to be an example of "not feeling sorry"?  What do you think he should be doing to express "feeling sorry"?

I think that Kudo's appreciation of the tragic circumstances of the many murders is there, but it is expressed rather subtlety, in his body language after he finishes his deduction and hears the culprit breaking down in tears.  However, he clearly feels that it is necessary to bring murderers to justice, not only for the good of society but also for their own good.  He also seems to feel it necessary from time to time to help make the murders clearly understand how horrific and unjustified their acts were.  I think he does this for their benefit  because their first step towards repentance and reformation is to stop making excuses for your crimes.  

Also, it is worth noting that Gosho Aoyama is on record in his interviews as saying that he does not want to ever make murder look like an acceptable option.  Kudo and the other detectives are lecturing as much for the benefit of the audience (many of them impressionable children) as for the in story characters.  

 

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.

[Hobgoblin2012 49]

What precisely are you considering to be an example of "not feeling sorry"?  What do you think he should be doing to express "feeling sorry"?

I think that Kudo's appreciation of the tragic circumstances of the many murders is there, but it is expressed rather subtlety, in his body language after he finishes his deduction and hears the culprit breaking down in tears.  However, he clearly feels that it is necessary to bring murderers to justice, not only for the good of society but also for their own good.  He also seems to feel it necessary from time to time to help make the murders clearly understand how horrific and unjustified their acts were.  I think he does this for their benefit  because their first step towards repentance and reformation is to stop making excuses for your crimes.  

Also, it is worth noting that Gosho Aoyama is on record in his interviews as saying that he does not want to ever make murder look like an acceptable option.  Kudo and the other detectives are lecturing as much for the benefit of the audience (many of them impressionable children) as for the in story characters.  

 

 

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.

[AndrewA 5]

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.

 

 

If Kudo visited a prison, it would just result in someone at the prison getting murdered.

 

There is an episode in the Anime (I don't know if it was in the manga) where it is shown that Mouri had some communication with someone he had put away for manslaughter (back when he was a cop), and Mouri meets him when he is released from prison.

 

always presenting murderers as rather sympathetic and the victims as the scum of the earth? 

 

Except, you know that he doesn't do that all the time.  Is someone the scum of the Earth just because they want to name a star after their girlfriend instead of their co-discoverer?  Thoughtless perhaps, but hardly a capital crime.  Is someone the scum of the Earth because he wants his comedy partner/lover to retire for medical reasons and get married to him, only to have the partner mistake his intentions and kill him the day he was going to propose?

Anyway, this has already been answered.  It is hard to come up with reasons to kill people that have never offended a soul in their lives.  Especially when Gosho has said that he doesn't want to use pyscho killers that kill just for the thrill of it.

 

 

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".

Except, of course, that this almost never true.  Very, very few of the victims had committed capital crimes.  In 99.99% of the cases, that victim was either innocent of any crime, or had committed a crime that was not deserving of death, even if you agree with capital punishment, which not all people do.

Also, what is the point of lecturing the dead?  More often then not, Kudo has already spelled out whatever it is that was done.  He doesn't need to say "So and so robbed from him, And That's Terrible."  We know it is terrible.  There is a benefit of lecturing the living, because the first step to reforming them is getting them to stop making excuses.  

Also, there are practical concerns.  Gosho doesn't have time and space to go into a detailed moral after action review of every case. 

[Hobgoblin2012 49]

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.

[fangirlwhocanspell 3]

Hmm... Perhaps it's a defense mechanism.

Doctors can't possibly have feelings over every patient that died. It's better to harden yourself to everything, to treat them like numbers,  otherwise you'd be crying all the time, and it'll wreck you to pieces. How many times a day will you have to tell family, friends, the one they loved most is gone forever? "I"m sorry... but there was nothing we could do..", "There were some... complications, in the surgery," and watch as your words break their hearts into little pieces?

Conan similarly, how many tragic cases have he encountered? He can't visit every one of them in a jail. He just can't break his heart over every single case that was sad. I think you would kill yourself soon if you did that.

Of course basic human sympathy and compassion, is, well, human. You're not wrong to find that you care about these people who were in sometimes unimaginable situations. It lies in the very fabric of what makes people people.  But does the fact that Conan decides not to feel for the murderers, does it undermine his own humanity... or does it make him, in contrast, more human? In order to heal hearts, do you consequently... have to be heartless?

[AndrewA 5]

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 killers and without scruples, who kill for power or profit. Contract killings, robbery killings, murders for inheritance etc.

 

For starters, contract killings and robbery killings simply aren't the standard stuff of the tradition of detective fiction that Gosho usually writes in.  With the exception of the Black Organization and the occasional robber gang, he doesn't write hard boiled detective fiction full of gangs and mafias and strangers killing strangers or criminals killing criminals.  Instead he writes in the tradition of Holmes and Poirot, where murders are generally committed by otherwise normal people who have a personal reason to target the victim.  That's simply a genre thing.  

 

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.

 

 

That really depends on what you did.  I mean, taking over someone's business might cause them to commit suicide, but unless you are doing so illegally, it is just competitive business practices.  Not equal to murder.   If they did do it illegally, go to the police.  Don't take the law into your own hands.  But ultimately, suicide it the fault of the person that committed the act.  

 

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.

 

 

I think that the Japanese, or at least Gosho, views taking responsibility for your actions, feeling and expressing true remorse, and accepting the punishment to be the first step to reform.   

http://japanese.about.com/od/Grammar/a/Expressing-Apologies.htm

 

The Japanese typically apologize far more frequently than Westerners. This probably results from cultural differences between them. Westerners seem reluctant to admit their own failure. Since apologizing means that admitting one's own failure or guilt, it may not be best thing to do if the problem is to be resolved in a court of law.

 

Apologizing is considered a virtue in Japan. Apologies show that a person takes responsibility and avoids blaming others. When one apologizes and shows one's remorse, the Japanese are more willing to forgive. There are much less court cases in Japan compared to the States. 

 

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 don't press the "multi-quote" button.  Instead I use the Quote button in the "Reply to this topic" workspace.  The button is between the "Code" button and the Twitter button, and looks like a speech bubble.  

EDIT PS

http://books.google.com/books?id=qIHNWWx0ZOIC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=japanese+culture+crime+remorse&source=bl&ots=tUXofyH9dd&sig=Lse7s1Z2r3Fpm4KyTtZu1xX8euo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CFzsUcfDCvje4AOkloD4Ag&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=japanese%20culture%20crime%20remorse&f=false

 

"Discovering the truth, invoking remorse, rehabilitating offenders, treating likes alike, and repairing relations between offenders and victims are more primary to prosecutors in Japan than in America."

http://books.google.com/books?id=qIHNWWx0ZOIC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=japanese+culture+crime+remorse&source=bl&ots=tUXofyH9dd&sig=Lse7s1Z2r3Fpm4KyTtZu1xX8euo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CFzsUcfDCvje4AOkloD4Ag&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=remorse&f=false

 

"Prosecutors aim to invoke remorse in offenders because they believe that penitence is the essential first step to reform.  In their view, rehabilitation requires repentance."

[Hobgoblin2012 49]

For starters, contract killings and robbery killings simply aren't the standard stuff of the tradition of detective fiction that Gosho usually writes in.  With the exception of the Black Organization and the occasional robber gang, he doesn't write hard boiled detective fiction full of gangs and mafias and strangers killing strangers or criminals killing criminals.  Instead he writes in the tradition of Holmes and Poirot, where murders are generally committed by otherwise normal people who have a personal reason to target the victim.  That's simply a genre thing.  

 

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. 

 

But ultimately, suicide it the fault of the person that committed the act.

 

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 

[fangirlwhocanspell 3]

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.

Maybe we are just misunderstanding each other. First of all, we can define the term, "murder" used in law.

 

1. The act of unlawfully killing a human being with premeditated malice, by a person of sound mind. To constitute murder in law, the person killing another must be of sound mind or in possession of his reason, and the act must be done with malice prepense, aforethought or premeditated; but malice may be implied, as well as express.

 

Let's take an example. A woman who is about to be raped defends herself. She grabs the lamp next to the bed and clobbers him in the head. The man is killed. In this case, it is neither premeditated or in an act of malice, so it is not murder.

Manslaughter is the killing of a human being that is not premeditated, though still with intent to kill (though I believe it does not include acts that are in self-defense).

Killing a terrorist. Since this implies that it is to follow out on law, it is not unlawful, and so it is not still murder. I think you are describing just the act of killing a human being, which may have very different circumstances, and not murder as described here. So no, there really aren't any extenuating factors in a murder charge.

[Hobgoblin2012 49]

 So no, there really aren't any extenuating factors in a murder charge.

 

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?

 

If they did do it illegally, go to the police.  Don't take the law into your own hands.

 

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.

[AndrewA 5]

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. 

 

Do we really know that?  How often has the victim said "I tried going to the police and nothing happened."  Pretty much never.  Gosho is pretty positive about his depiction of the integrity of the police, and even if the police can't solve the crime, there seems to be a surplus of hyper competent private detectives in this setting.

 

Whatever happened, only the "avenging" criminals have to pay by the law in 90% of the cases.

Hard to get someone to pay by the law when the police were never made aware until after you murdered them for the alleged offense, and I say "alleged" purposefully because we often only get the murderer's point of view on most of the alleged offenses,see how the victim is no longer around to offer a defense.  Gosho has shown that sometimes the murderer is wrong and their victims were in fact innocent of whatever it was that motivated the murderer.  

Anyway, I see you ignored all the counter example of cases where the murder victim was not in anyway responsible for the death of another person, which is the majority of the cases.  You also did not respond to what I said about the cultural connection between invoking remorse and rehabilitation.  On the occasions were Conan does in fact lecture someone instead of simply lay out the facts, it is always because the person, instead of showing proper remorse and taking personal responsibility (as the first step to rehabilitation), instead started making excuses.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=qIHNWWx0ZOIC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=japanese+culture+crime+remorse&source=bl&ots=tUXofyH9dd&sig=Lse7s1Z2r3Fpm4KyTtZu1xX8euo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CFzsUcfDCvje4AOkloD4Ag&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=remorse&f=false

 

"The aim to elicit remorse... motivates prosecutors to pursue not merely a confession but the right kind of confession."

[Hobgoblin2012 49]

Anyway, I see you ignored all the counter example of cases where the murder victim was not in anyway responsible for the death of another person, which is the majority of the cases.  You also did not respond to what I said about the cultural connection between invoking remorse and rehabilitation.

 

I didn't ignore the counter examples, it's just I got the impression that in most of the cases (70-80%) the victims were plain evil, even when they didn't directly break the law. I apologize if you feel offended. It's just my opinion is that people who create the situations in which others go desperate to the point of breaking the law are morally much worse than those who actually break the law out of despair.

Of course, I don't apply this to real life as in real life I never saw a situation which contained BOTH these elements (the murderer being pitiful and the victim being a complete scumbag), but in DC there are many. Maybe not 99%, but still many. Like Conan can't justify murder, I can't avoid feeling sorry for somebody who is completely ruined and cries because of it. 

[AndrewA 5]

I didn't ignore the counter examples, it's just I got the impression that in most of the cases (70-80%) the victims were plain evil, even when they didn't directly break the law. I apologize if you feel offended. It's just my opinion is that people who create the situations in which others go desperate to the point of breaking the law are morally much worse than those who actually break the law out of despair.

Of course, I don't apply this to real life as in real life I never saw a situation which contained BOTH these elements (the murderer being pitiful and the victim being a complete scumbag), but in DC there are many. Maybe not 99%, but still many. Like Conan can't justify murder, I can't avoid feeling sorry for somebody who is completely ruined and cries because of it. 

 

You are creating a false dichotomy.  One can sympathize with being a victim without sympathizing with or justifying murdering because of it.  But Conan's role in the story isn't to express sympathy.  It is to expose the truth, which will hopefully result in getting the victim to confess.  And not just any confession, but the right kind of confession.  One that expresses remorse and personal acceptance of responsibility for one's own deeds, not just bitterness at what others have done.  If someone does this with convincing sincerity, Japanese culture views the person as a candidate for rehabilitation, not someone to be "discarded like trash by the society AFTER they have done their time."  But that is long process and the DC stories don't have time to follow any one case much past the arrest of the criminal.

[Hobgoblin2012 49]

By the way, correct me if I am wrong: weren't there cases in which the murderer actually tried to seek justice by the law before killing?

Like in the episode about the karaoke bar where the victim was a child murderer who wanted to kill Sonoko and the father of the murdered child killed him because he had been released for the lack of evidence (he also saved Sonoko's life by doing it).

Or the case where a mother killed the murderer of her son and the corrupt lawyer who made him acquitted? She tried to seek justice legally and was denied.

And the case of Ayumi's dentist where she killed the murderer of her little brother who has been acquitted because "the testimony of a child was not reliable"?

 

Sorry I don't remember the numbers and names of the episodes.

 

 

And about murder and manslaughter: maybe in many DC cases they will be charged with manslaughter instead of murder. For example, here:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2012/04/05/sk-kim-walker-parole-120405.html

 

the father was charged with manslaughter even though it was intentional, as far as I got it.

 

But anyway, do you or Fangirlwhocanspell really feel that shooting a newborn baby in the head for pleasure and shooting a serial killer to save his future victims is the same, just because it was premeditated? I am asking in all honesty, not to provoke (I don't want anybody to feel insulted, but I admit I take DC stories very seriously, maybe TOO seriously).

[AndrewA 5]

By the way, correct me if I am wrong: weren't there cases in which the murderer actually tried to seek justice by the law before killing?

Like in the episode about the karaoke bar where the victim was a child murderer who wanted to kill Sonoko and the father of the murdered child killed him because he had been released for the lack of evidence (he also saved Sonoko's life by doing it).

Or the case where a mother killed the murderer of her son and the corrupt lawyer who made him acquitted? She tried to seek justice legally and was denied.

And the case of Ayumi's dentist where she killed the murderer of her little brother who has been acquitted because "the testimony of a child was not reliable"?

 

Sorry I don't remember the numbers and names of the episodes.

 

 

And about murder and manslaughter: maybe in many DC cases they will be charged with manslaughter instead of murder. For example, here:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2012/04/05/sk-kim-walker-parole-120405.html

 

the father was charged with manslaughter even though it was intentional, as far as I got it.

 

I think is is safe to say that the motivation of the killers will make a difference in what they are charged with and what their sentence is, if for no other reason than it reflects on their character and their potential for rehabilitation.  But it won't keep them from a guilty conviction.  They are still guilty of something, which is what Kudo wants to get them to acknowledge (and what Gosho wants the audience to learn) by refusing to express anything that sounds accepting their motivations as being actual justifications.  

 

But anyway, do you or Fangirlwhocanspell really feel that shooting a newborn baby in the head for pleasure and shooting a serial killer to save his future victims is the same, just because it was premeditated? I am asking in all honesty, not to provoke (I don't want anybody to feel insulted, but I admit I take DC stories very seriously, maybe TOO seriously).

 

I think know who will be a serial killer as early as their infancy is so outside the realm of possibility both in Real Life and in DC that this is not a comparison which is possible to make in this context.  I also think that were time travel possible, using it to trying to change the past by killing people before they kill others would be a terrible idea because of the whole Butterfly Effect and Temporal Paradox problems.  

 

Like in the episode about the karaoke bar where the victim was a child murderer who wanted to kill Sonoko and the father of the murdered child killed him because he had been released for the lack of evidence (he also saved Sonoko's life by doing it).

 

I'll grant that example, and there are a few others but it is a rare one.  I would characterize them as the exception rather than the majority, where you are talking as if these are the majority.  I doubt the father in that case will get the max sentence.  But under the law, he can't get off completely.  Doing so encourages vigilantism and lynch law, which often results in the wrong people being killed.  At any rare, Conan didn't do any lecturing in that case.  Just laid out the facts and got the confession.  A confession where the parent calls his own actions foolish.  Then it moved on to the next plot development (Eisuke's confession).  Like I said, Gosho rarely has time for a detailed moral After Action Review.  

But consider also that he was willing to risk others getting blamed for the murder he had done. Consider also the murderers that ended up hurting people that had nothing to do with the offense that had been done against them.

EDIT PS:  Even in that one example, the father was never able to provide proof that the person he killed was the same one that killed his son.  It isn't like the father had been a eye witness and no one else believed him.  The person that the father killed might have been a more harmless sort of pervert that was guilty of nothing more than following around school kids and taking pictures.  For all we know, the real child killer is still out there.

[Hobgoblin2012 49]

 

I think know who will be a serial killer as early as their infancy is so outside the realm of possibility both in Real Life and in DC that this is not a comparison which is possible to make in this context.  I also think that were time travel possible, using it to trying to change the past by killing people before they kill others would be a terrible idea because of the whole Butterfly Effect and Temporal Paradox problems.  

 

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about babies who later become serial killers or time travel. I just made the "baby" example as the most innocent victim possible and the "serial killer" example as the worst victim possible. Just to express my opinion that even if both murders are premeditated, we shouldn't put them at the same level from a moral point of view. Meaning, that if you kill an innocent person for pleasure it's different from when you kill a dangerous killer to save others, even though both actions are premeditated.

[AndrewA 5]

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about babies who later become serial killers or time travel. I just made the "baby" example as the most innocent victim possible and the "serial killer" example as the worst victim possible. Just to express my opinion that even if both murders are premeditated, we shouldn't put them at the same level from a moral point of view. Meaning, that if you kill an innocent person for pleasure it's different from when you kill a dangerous killer to save others, even though both actions are premeditated.

 

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate.  I've already stated my view on the effect of motivations and remorse on sentences time and time again.  

There are certain circumstances where homicide is legally justifiable and will not result in criminal charges.  I don't know of any DC cases where these circumstances have been applicable, although there might be a few cases I haven't seen yet.

[Hobgoblin2012 49]

I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate.  I've already stated my view on the effect of motivations and remorse on sentences time and time again.  

There are certain circumstances where homicide is legally justifiable and will not result in criminal charges.  I don't know of any DC cases where these circumstances have been applicable, although there might be a few cases I haven't seen yet.

 

I agree, the point I was trying to make from the beginning wasn't about "dropping the charges", but about "doing less time in prison" than other kind of criminals (and also about "feeling compassion", but I think that discussion can be closed now, as I think we don't disagree about it that much). But I agree with what you said about remorse, repentance etc and the following effect on the sentences. 

[Quaterofseabass 0]

I bet this has ben said many times and many ways but people deal with things like murder differently. Some people like Conan have seen so much muder that they are used to it and may become desensitized to deal with what they witnessed. Others like Ran who have not seen so many murders may be able to feel more emotional about the sitituation they have witnessed. Because people process things like murder differently in emotional, mental, and physical ways it is understandable that Conan would see murder in a different way than Ran. Who is to say that Conan does not get emotional about a case. He is trying to be brave, calm, and collected in during a case and tries not to let personal thoughts and emotions get in the way of solving a case because those thoughts and emotions cloud ones judgement causing them to pick sides and skew the clues to solve the case so that it leans one way or the other. Conan is trying to be impartial in the case so he can see it in a way others may not. Conan is also trying to keep others from panicking during a case and help them think more rationally and logically so that don't make rash choices about who is guilty like the police or Ran's dad does.

To me while watching Conan I thought for awhile that the police want to catch the culprit as soon as possible without seconding guessing whether he or she is guilty so they go home quicker and rest. I know Conan slips up but in the end with help the guilty are arrested.

Detectives and police like lots have said are not the judge or the jury the are the ones who find the culprit and bring them in. To me any they (detectives ie Conan and Ran's dad, Police ie Beika police) can't let their personal emotions or actions get in the way of solving a crime. That could hinder the case and may end up arresting the wrong person. Since people are not all unemotional robots I can see how a police officer or detective can get upset by a case especially if it hits close to home.

I know this may not pertain to this topic but it might in some way. A question has been asked of surgeons which is, could/would they (the surgeon) operate on their own child? That question can be asked of a detective or police officer. Which the question could be, could/would they (police officer/detective) work on a case if a close personal friend or family member is involved in the case? For example if the (police officer/detective) loved one was being accused of murder could they solve the case without letting their personal emotions get in the way of solving the case?

I ask this one last question could Conan not having any relationship with most of the accused and guilty having something to do with how he solves a case?

For Pete's sake they are fictional characters holding them to your standards to me is weird and makes no sense what so ever. It is not their fault they are like that is they way they were created to act. They are there so the viewer or reader has a way of interacting with the story. Saying you would do something is one thing but if u have not Ben in a certain situation how would u know if that is what u would really do? If u were actually in Conan's shoes that u for certain would be able to do what Conan does better than he can. The debate that is going on this topic could go in circles for a long time without reaching a conclusion. Yes all of u have reasonable points but in the end no one is going to get any where especially while reaping the same argument over and over but wording it differently. It is a tv show for Pete's sake at some point it is best let it go, let it be. I get that this topic is important to all of you in some way and that I am a hypocrite for what I typed but I stand by it.

Seriously I am sorry if what I typed hurt any one in way or offended anyone. What I type is just one point of view. I cant or won't be held responsible to how anyone reacts to what I type. As they say don't shoot the messenger, it is not his or her fault the message upset anyone they are there to deliver it.

[EllanPoe 0]

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?

I'm always wondering that too.  I noticed that almost all of the murders that occurred in the series were by people who knew the victim and believed they had a reason to kill the person. It's rare to find just a random crime where the victim and criminal were strangers.  

[38cutie 1]

in my personal opinión and point of view 95% of the murderers feel grief and remorse about their flaws, while the other 5% are despicable freaks that have fun killing and tried to kill intentionally theprotagonists.

[38cutie 1]

according to tvtropes, all of the sympathetic culprits are grey characters due to their moral ambiguity, so it's no wonder why some people think they're bad guys and some people think they're good guys.