I still fail to see how setting up a situation designed to 'scare' Beecher is "no better" than torturing and murdering a bunch of people (or the other horrific acts that the other actual convicted criminals have committed). We'll have to continue to disagree on that!
It's murky territory, fortune-telling. There are a lot of things that Taylor knows about Keller, and there are the things that Taylor thinks he knows, and also a lot of theories that could hold threads of truth or be total horseshit. There's also all of the stuff that we know but Taylor doesn't, and all of the nuances in Keller and Beecher's relationship that can't be captured in pat answers like 'he sucks m[y cock],' and 'prison love.' (I'm reminded of a delightful Oz icon that reads: Looking for love? Try prison. *g*)
It was also stated that Heekins may have made the whole thing up as a way to lighten his third strike conviction sentence. Beecher may have a theory about Taylor's input, but it's unproven (he even says that he can only imply it). Beecher might also be putting things to Keller in a certain way. We can't know for sure. If it had been proven that Taylor had coached Heekins to that extent, there would have been consequences; doubtful that Taylor would still be hunting down criminals at Oz.
I don't think that Taylor is squeaky clean -- I don't think *anybody* is squeaky clean -- but in this situation Beecher is not a defenseless victim. Given their past interactions, I think Taylor crafted his approach so as to make an impression. (Twofer special!) Maybe Taylor was putting Beecher at more risk. Maybe that can be construed as unethical. Maybe it's ideal. But the people who investigate these kinds of crimes... it's drilled into them to look at every angle and then look again, to re-examine everything, and to pursue every scrap of a lead to its furthest conclusion. I would like to think that the police would work that hard to help me, if I had need for it. Laws are circumvented all the time for the purpose of obtaining other goals/bigger fish. Plea bargains immediately spring to mind, granting immunity, protecting sources/witnesses, and even laws for which the prosecutor (or judge(!)) has unwritten policies.
Blackstone is simply inferring that courts should err on the side of innocence, and in the United States, they do. In this case, we already know who in Oz is guilty of the crimes they were jailed for, from the canon flashbacks. Whether or not Keller committed the crimes that Taylor is accusing him of is moot; I'm not presenting an argument for Keller's guilt or innocence here. (POI: I detest the serial killer storyline for him, omfg.) I'm disagreeing that Taylor's actions in this particular scene with Beecher are on par with proven felonious acts from the "criminals [Taylor] was chasing."
Slightly off-topic -- funny that you mentioned the Blackstone ratio! I took a great ethics class where we explored the origins of his words, and then debated the follow-up question, "Better for whom?"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2016-02-19 09:49 pm (UTC)It's murky territory, fortune-telling. There are a lot of things that Taylor knows about Keller, and there are the things that Taylor thinks he knows, and also a lot of theories that could hold threads of truth or be total horseshit. There's also all of the stuff that we know but Taylor doesn't, and all of the nuances in Keller and Beecher's relationship that can't be captured in pat answers like 'he sucks m[y cock],' and 'prison love.' (I'm reminded of a delightful Oz icon that reads: Looking for love? Try prison. *g*)
It was also stated that Heekins may have made the whole thing up as a way to lighten his third strike conviction sentence. Beecher may have a theory about Taylor's input, but it's unproven (he even says that he can only imply it). Beecher might also be putting things to Keller in a certain way. We can't know for sure. If it had been proven that Taylor had coached Heekins to that extent, there would have been consequences; doubtful that Taylor would still be hunting down criminals at Oz.
I don't think that Taylor is squeaky clean -- I don't think *anybody* is squeaky clean -- but in this situation Beecher is not a defenseless victim. Given their past interactions, I think Taylor crafted his approach so as to make an impression. (Twofer special!) Maybe Taylor was putting Beecher at more risk. Maybe that can be construed as unethical. Maybe it's ideal. But the people who investigate these kinds of crimes... it's drilled into them to look at every angle and then look again, to re-examine everything, and to pursue every scrap of a lead to its furthest conclusion. I would like to think that the police would work that hard to help me, if I had need for it. Laws are circumvented all the time for the purpose of obtaining other goals/bigger fish. Plea bargains immediately spring to mind, granting immunity, protecting sources/witnesses, and even laws for which the prosecutor (or judge(!)) has unwritten policies.
Blackstone is simply inferring that courts should err on the side of innocence, and in the United States, they do. In this case, we already know who in Oz is guilty of the crimes they were jailed for, from the canon flashbacks. Whether or not Keller committed the crimes that Taylor is accusing him of is moot; I'm not presenting an argument for Keller's guilt or innocence here. (POI: I detest the serial killer storyline for him, omfg.) I'm disagreeing that Taylor's actions in this particular scene with Beecher are on par with proven felonious acts from the "criminals [Taylor] was chasing."
Slightly off-topic -- funny that you mentioned the Blackstone ratio! I took a great ethics class where we explored the origins of his words, and then debated the follow-up question, "Better for whom?"