JeffEngel wrote:n7axw wrote:The current policy with repect to inquisitors was declared from the pulpit of the cathredral in Telesberg by no less than the ultimate good guy, Archbishop Maikel, in the aftermath of the murder of Manthyr and his people. Presumably that was worked out in the inner circle by the initiative of the crown.
I understand the why of the policy. But I am uncomfortable with it. I think it should be changed. Punishment should be restricted to actual criminal behavior.
Don
I agree. However... Are there likely to be inquisitors who are not conspirators to the summary execution of people for the "crime" of exercising freedom of thought or conscience? I have to think there's a serious presumption of guilt that's fair on Safehold at this time for inquisitors that way. And they are unlikely all to be practically able to be kept in custody with specific evidence gathered before a court that can deliver all the niceties of the law.
There's a war on and the rule of law is going to get bruised pretty badly, where you don't just suspend a lot of the expectations of it.
If and when the ICA can find the one honest inquisitor out there who is doing his best not to be Clyntahn's hand on Safehold's throat, I hope that they can suspend that judgment in his case. But if it should happen that, say, Staiphan Maik really shouldn't be lumped in with so much of the rest of the Inquisition, it may be asking too much of Charis' tolerance and access and availability of the information to exonerate him to spare him what too many others deserve.
Justice is going to have to be a rough approximation here, at best.
What I keep thinking is that most of the inquisitors serving with TL armies are merely urging the troops to do their duty as soldiers. That's not criminal.
But still, as I said before I understand the why of the policy and how it happened. I just think it's not really right and should be changed.
Don