Here's the situation. My main character has to make a decision that requires a lot moral maturity (I think). Specifically, her friend, to whom she owes quite a bit of loyalty, is going to be executed in a public execution. MC is guilty of the same "crime" for which her friend is being executed, and she chooses to risk her own life to stand up for her friend. She basically calls out all the spectators, demanding that they personally kill her instead of just letting a public figure carry out their will. She is demanding that, if they it's right, they do the dirty work themselves instead of just being spectators and pushing the blame off of themselves. This seems like a pretty advanced/developed sense of morality to me. The MC is only 14 years old. Would it strike you as implausible for a 14-year-old to make a move like that?
 

What you are proposing sounds a lot like "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". (That's not a criticism, just an observation.)

That said, here are some question I have:
- Are you saying she's asking the people to kill her instead of her friend?
- Is she asking the people to kill her friend rather than letting the public executioner do it?
- Why isn't she trying to convince the crowd not to kill anybody at all? Or is that the ultimate goal?
- Does she consciously understand the ramifications of 'outing' herself in this manner, or is she doing this spontaneously out of emotion? It is brave either way, but much more mature if she has considered and accepted the consequences.

Hope this helps.
 

I'm not quite clear on what is so advanced about the moral reasoning involved, nor what the point of her protest is supposed to be. I'm sure that she'll manage to get a few of the younger people to throw rocks or whatever. Depending on the median age of the crowd and the general cultural level, the stoners should be suppressed by the law and order types fairly quickly. Otherwise, stoning would probably already be their preferred form of execution.

If she's trying to stop the execution, I don't think this is an effective tactic. If only ten out of a crowd of a thousand decide that they really agree with the execution, that's enough to kill her friend, right? And there are probably mechanisms in place to keep protestors, of whatever apparent stripe, from disrupting the execution anyway. Unless a large majority of the crowd feel very strongly that the execution should be stopped, and a few of them are willing to stake their own lives on stopping it, she isn't going to help her friend by doing this.

If that many people were opposed to the execution in the first place, it would be better to enlist them as allies rather than push them around with some silly reverse psychology trick. Because the people that agree with the execution will be roused to direct action by the tactic you're giving her.
 

You can't appeal to a mob who are already bloodthirsty - its a poor choice of audience and it would be nigh impossible to reach the masses on an intellectual appeal.

Everyone there came expecting to see death. They are not there to protest the execution or offer support for the doomed. They are there to see how the body twicthes.

All it takes is for one person to throw a pebble at the speaker, and someone will, and then the rest of the mob will throw bigger and bigger stones until the speaker gets what she asked for.

Any other result is probably inplausible.
 

So the girl understands the moral implications of what she's doing, that she's making each member of the community take responsibility for what it, as a community, has been doing. I'm just not sure if that level of understanding is plausible from a 14-year-old.
 

Yes, 14 year old girls can think of consequences. More importantly 14 year olds (male or female) can do something totally rash with a high degree of risk because it is easy for them to feel a sense of righteous indignation without that indignation being tempered by experience. She's not going to be worried about group think or mob mentality.

Part of the reason confronting the Salem witch accusers resulted in fewer death sentances is that the accusers were a handful of teenage girls. Your MC is going to ask whom exactly to behead her friend? The person who accused her? The people who convicted her? The judge who sentanced her? The crowd who just watched and were happy to come and see the sentance carried out? I don't see that the Salem analogy works in the setting you've described.

I think her challenging the crowd is plausible but not the result of the challenge. In a "realistic" setting, the MC would die right next to her friend. It would also make for a very short story.

You might want her challenging the accusor before the matter is taken to "trial." Convincing him/her to not bring the charges would be easier and more plausible than what you propose. Another alternative is that the MC can challenge the jury who convicts the friend. A bit harder to do because you have to create a legal system that would give the MC the right to make what would be in effect closing argument. Research the concept of jury nullification. In short, it is when the jury declines to convict because the JURY believes that the law would be unfair in this circumstance or just plain unfair in general.

IMHO, by the time the headsman is there the MC is too late to save her friend.

(edited for typo)

[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited September 01, 2006).]
 

Even if people think that the execution is wrong, they will give in to mob mentality and lynch/stone/beat to a pulp the moral protagonist.

She would need to find a single person with the recognized authority to stop the execution and she would have to reach them emotionally. But, keep in mind that these people have already come to terms with the fact that they personally won't kill anyone - that's why they pay executioners.

Your premise, as it is, is very unplausible. As a writer, it's your job to take that and prove me wrong, if you can.

I think the answer is probably that it is not the best idea for the story simply because the majority of people who posted had plausibility issues with it.

Maybe if it was a "crime" that was routinely committed by most of the members of the village the "those without sin cast the first stone" approach would work but, I'm not sure I'd buy it outside of the Bible story.

Again, it is your story, write it the way you want and see who people react to the actual scene rather than just the concept.
 

quote:

---

True but have you ever heard of someone other than Jesus beating out the mob mentality?

---

Yes. Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
 

quote:

---

On the notion of stopping a mob from executing a victim and implausibility, I refer you to the story of Jesus and the Adulterous Woman ("Let he among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.")

---

What they forgot was that, according the relevant sections of Mosaic law (which they hadn't been living under Roman rule), there is never any case in which you would stone a woman for adultery without also stoning the man. I can't be certain why they forgot that little detail, but I can guess

Anyway, the point was that it would have been a capital crime for Jesus to tell them that they should stone her. The Romans had already killed a lot of Jews making this policy clear. On the other hand, if Jesus didn't uphold the law given by Moses in preference to the law imposed by Rome, he would lose all claim to being the Messiah. Jesus, as usual, merely pointed out that they weren't following the law properly even when they pretended to enforce it.

Anyway, the men who did this weren't planning on stoning the woman in the first place.

Returning to the question at hand, how can you assert that a crowd assembled to watch (not protest) a criminal's execution is not "bloodthirsty"? For your scheme to work, the crowd has to have some effective means of preventing the execution. If such an option is readily available, and they don't exercise it, then they are demonstrably in favor of the execution. If such an option is not readily available, such that they might plausibly feel they don't have any responsibility for the execution, then how can it help to appeal to their sense of responsibility?

The "let him first cast a stone at her" argument is going to be doubly ineffective here, because if nobody in the crowd does anything, the execution will go on unimpeded.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for her to change the crowd's mind, but doing it at the execution is stupid. It could only work if the crowd came prepared to somehow stop the execution. If they already have a way to stop the execution right that minute and they're not doing it, it means they really want the execution to carry forward. If they don't have a way to stop the execution it's too late for them to do anything but feel bad about it.

So appealing to the crowd's sense of responsibility is no good. If they can stop the execution, it might make sense to change their minds about whether her friend deserves to be executed. If she were to organize an uprising the night before the execution she might give a helpless crowd the power to express its determination that the crime is not worthy of death. But what you are suggesting just won't work.
 

quote:

---

Didn't I say that already?

---

Missed the reference. That's what comes from posting when tired out...
 

That's what would be going through my head.
 

But:

• More likely for a 14 year old to do this than someone older. (More likely for a fourteen-year-old than someone younger for that matter, whole adolescent ego structure formation phases blah blah blah.)
• It seems like the character would have to have a genuine misconception about the way people and societies work. (Supports the 14 year old theory).
• Strikes me as the same sort of thing as when a 14 year old decides they are becoming vegetarian and eats only the broccoli their mother serves up at dinner time.
• When I said more likely, I meant more likely than an adult. In my opinion, however, it is unlikely that a fourteen year old kid is going to do something like this if they have no 'group' of friends who all know the truth.
• I doubt if a kid would do this without a clear escape route in case things turned against her.
• I think it's a dumb move on her part.
• The 'lecture' will be way more effective while the executioner is holding up the severed head for the crowd to see than before he kills her. It's the way all lustiness works, including bloodlust, it is followed by feelings of remorse, almost immediately. (Unless they are hardened to it through frequency, which I doubt considering they are all turning-up to see the spectacle precisely because it is unusual.) The crowd will be vulnerable to criticism at that point. In 18th century England there was a similar case where the crowd's mood changed the minute the convicted (young woman) was executed. When before the exectution, they were baying for her blood, after the execution they beat the executioner almost to death. IMO after your MC's friend is so far entwined in the judicial machine, this is the only way the MC can drive home her point to the crowd.
  

Is the MC's main objective to 'wake up' the people to what she perceives as hypocrisy or is it to save her friend's life?

Edit: Having said all that, who is your audience? If you are aiming at 14-year-old girls then I think you're probably okay to go.

Hope that helps.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited September 03, 2006).]
 

Having been a 14-year-old girl myself, there were a few times that I did something entirely stupid because it was the "right" thing to do. Injustice bothered me more than it does now, I'm sorry to say, because I believe I've become a little more jaded as the years go on and I see more of the world.

If your MC truly cares for her friend and is willing to stand up to the Mob Mentality, then it would not be out of character for someone of her age. However, I do agree that the crowd ready for an execution may be a little more bloodthirsty than they let on, and rather than be shamed by a child they may prefer to do away with both of the annoyances. Also, if her friend is listening to all this, I would assume he/she would protest against her friend's would-be sacrifice, since he/she would care whether your MC lived or died because of her actions. More of a "save yourself, not me!" complex, I suppose.

If you want readers for your story, I'd love to have a look at it. The Salem Witch trials always fascinated me, and I'm a sucker for teenage heroes and heroines. (Might have something to do with the fact that my MC is only 15 when the story begins, but who knows?) Good luck!
 

Generally, growing up involves the realization that doing the right thing is difficult and involves significant personal sacrifice. You can't get by with just mouthing platitudes about doing the right thing, you have to actually get out there and do it yourself. Most teens are fine with "idealistic" morality because they don't have to deal with the practical consequences. Once they are asked to take responsibility for themselves, they suddenly discover that doing what they previously regarded as morally loathsome is eminently plausible.

In other words, morality isn't and never has been an issue of age. When you look at those who actually live a high moral standard while accepting the personal consequences, teenagers only have an advantage in wartime, and then only if they happen to have grown up on the "right" side.

But the problem for a teenager isn't whether or not a teenager could make a moral determination and hold to it. The problem is for an individual teenager to actually do anything meaningful. This is particularly the case when it comes to persuading a large group of adults that they are mistaken about something pretty fundamental, like the justice of their system of government. The experience that adults have both of teenagers generally and of their own teenage years tends to insulate them against the danger of paying too much attention to a teenager with a radical "new" idea. Especially if it's just one teen who doesn't seem likely to live to adulthood.
 

And if you've seen the episode, you know that it may or may not have bearing on the "plausibility" of this scenario. It would depend on if we are talking indeed about adultery or if it is Wesley Crusher walking on the grass.

[This message has been edited by pooka (edited September 06, 2006).]
 

If I remember right it took Mal and the rest of the Serenity crew to rescue both of them.
 

In "Safe" the crowd was going to go ahead and burn them both, until the director resorted to a gratuitous Jayne ex machina.

"Dear Diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy. Today we were kidnapped by hill folk never to be seen again. It was the best day ever."
 

[This message has been edited by pooka (edited September 06, 2006).]