Torchwood Sins and Virtues Prologue: Justice in Torchwood

[crabby_lioness]

Torchwood Sins and Virtues Prologue:  Justice in Torchwood

I'm going to post about the various sins and virtues of the Torchwood characters, starting with Owen.  It didn't take me long to realize I first needed to post about justice in Torchwood.

There's more than one system of justice in the world.  Anthropologists sometimes distinguish between "village justice" and "imperial justice".  Village justice is used in relatively small, isolated villages.  Imperial justice is used when  the area is part of a larger empire.  In village justice the emphasis is on restoring harmony within the group as quickly as possible.  In Imperial justice the emphasis is on demonstrating the Law of the Empire (and by extension the Power of the Emperor.)

In village justice a criminal is punished by paying their debt to the group in front of the group.  In Imperial justice a criminal is punished by the Empire demonstrating it's power to take them far away and punish them somewhere out of sight.  In village justice the worst punishment possible is exile, banishment from the village.  In Imperial justice the worst punishment possible is death.  The villagers fear exile as a fate worse than death.

Torchwood 3 works on village justice, not on Imperial justice.  It is "outside the government" so relying on the government for justice would be allowing another party a toehold into their affairs.  The emphasis is on getting back to normal as quickly as possible.   The criminal is not sent away to be punished, but must work out their punishment by serving the group in front of the group.  And the most feared punishment, the one that terrifies Suzie, Ianto, Gwen, and Owen, is not death but exile.

No one who works for Torchwood fears death that much.  They face death every day.  But the thought of being banished from the Team almost drives Suzie into hysterics in Everything Changes.  Ianto shows no fear of dying in Cyberwoman, but voluntarily shows up to work out his punishment afterwards, an act which Jack accepts.  In the End of Days Owen fears exile far worse than death or Weevils.

In Combat, when Gwen is told to spend more time with Rhys, she reacts as if she is being punished by the group.  Jack obviously doesn't intend it to be a punishment.  He's trying to help her.  But Gwen has already assimilated the values of the group and takes is as if it were a punishment, for banishment is the worst punishment of all in the village.

Of course part of this is retcon.   With banishment comes losing their memories, and that's something to fear.  But Suzie wasn't afraid of retcon in Everything Changes.  She was reacting to leaving the group, not losing her memories.  And Gwen didn't even know that exile = retcon when she clearly suffered from her time spent away from the Team in Combat.

The reason I spell this out is because some people have said that there is no justice in Torchwood, that no one is ever punished for their crimes.  That is incorrect.  They are punished according to a village justice system.  But people who have only seen Imperial justice, and who only recognize Imperial justice, sometimes miss what's going down.

Comments

[eumenidis.livejournal.com]

I'm not familiar with anthropological classes of justice systems, & I'm sure the definitions are more complex than the brief description you're able to give here, but I agree that a village justice system is applied to the members of Torchwood. I can see, though, why some people would feel that there was no justice in Torchwood; long before the junior members' mutiny, each one had committed offences for which a less lenient village chieftain (ie, Jack) could have applied the maximum penalty.

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. The maximum penalty was usually reserved for multiple murderers, and I can think of one case where it was only used for serial killers.

[eumenidis.livejournal.com]

I assume you're referencing actual field studies. I'm more familiar with archaeology, & civilizations populous enough that the Imperial form of justice would be the one applied, but I seem to vaguely recall that different cultures varied in the strictness or imposing penalties. However, I can't recall anything specific, so I defer to your more definitive knowledge.

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

Multiple murders or blasphemy, I should have said. It would be interesting to see what Torchwood would consider blasphemy.

[eumenidis.livejournal.com]

What would Torchwood consider blasphemy...now THAT is a scary thought. (& do I detect plot bunnies lurking in the high grass?)

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

Ooo, bunnies!

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

Which group of societies are you referencing here? That "maximum penalty" thing seems very limited in scope - I can think of archaeo/historical societies where sexual offences also received the severest penalty.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

Okay, this is facinating. Pretty much, through most of humanity's history 'village justice' was the only justice that mattered. It's only been then last couple hundred years or so that imperial justice mattered.

This idea is really brought up in "EOD", as you mentioned. Owen gets REALLY pale when the idea of him getting fired is brought up.

[eumenidis.livejournal.com]

Most of human history, certainly, though only the last couple hundred years...not so sure; humans have been organizing themselves into complex civilizations with central locations of populations in the thousands for the last 5-6,000 years. Probably, yes, most of the time even up to the present, village justice was the only relevant form of justice, but there might also, depending on where you lived be an Imperial form that could come into play. Example: 1600s Boston colony vs. 1600s London.

Re: Owen--pale? The little creep was more upset at being fired than when Diane left or almost winding up as Weevil chow. (That boy just *ain't* right.)

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

I'm not about to defend Owen! But you do have a point, villiage vs imperial justice did depend on where you lived. There are some places today that it still is, basically, the only justice (i.e. the "shunning" for an Amish person who breaks the law. No jail time or anything like that, but no one in the community will speak to you)

[eumenidis.livejournal.com]

Didn't think you were defending him; just emphasizing that Owen did regard exile from Torchwood as possibly THE worst thing that could happen to him.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

You're right though, it was odd, he look at losing his position at Torchwood as something WORSE than dying.

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

So did Suzie.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

Thanks so much for bringing this up! It hadn't even occurred to me before!

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

It first occurred to me after watching Cyberwoman, especially listening to the complaints from some quarters that Ianto "wasn't punished". But he is punished. It's just that Jack, acting as village headman, allows Ianto to work off his punishment in front of the group instead of making him leave the group.

I have to agree with Jack, I'm not sure Ianto deserved the ultimate penalty of banishment. While his actions did result in the deaths of two people, he did not kill them directly and he was acting in the honest belief that Lisa could be saved. Torchwood hadn't dealt with enough Cybermen for there to be a large body of evidence stating otherwise.

[eumenidis.livejournal.com]

Ianto looked pretty punished to me. The last scene in Cyberwoman, where Ianto comes into the Hub, looks up at Jack--while standing almost at attention--& at Jack's terse nod, begins cleaning up the Hub, was very suggestive to me of an offender receiving--& accepting--his sentence.

However--it has just occurred to me that the form of justice could be entirely at Jack's discretion as commander of Torchwood 3. We don't know if there is a "Torchwood Central" laying down rules for all the Torchwoods to follow, or if each commander is free to choose their own methods. Jack did tell Ianto when he ordered him to execute CyberLisa that if he didn't, he'd execute him. I don't see Jack making threats he's not prepared to carry out, which suggests to me that he could have chosen to play Emperor Jack instead of Elder Jack.

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

However--it has just occurred to me that the form of justice could be entirely at Jack's discretion as commander of Torchwood 3. We don't know if there is a "Torchwood Central" laying down rules for all the Torchwoods to follow, or if each commander is free to choose their own methods.

There aren't many Torchwood branch commanders and above left to tell Jack what to do, and I got the impression that TW always valued results over methods.

Jack did tell Ianto when he ordered him to execute CyberLisa that if he didn't, he'd execute him. I don't see Jack making threats he's not prepared to carry out, which suggests to me that he could have chosen to play Emperor Jack instead of Elder Jack.

That was Soldier Jack, not Emperor Jack. At that point it wasn't clear if Ianto was or was not an enemy combatant. Jack wanted to salvage him, but that might not have been possible. It was a combat situation, you do what you have to do.

[eumenidis.livejournal.com]

"There aren't many Torchwood branch commanders and above left to tell Jack what to do, and I got the impression that TW always valued results over methods."

No, & with there apparently having only been four branches to begin with, there never were. We only have what we've seen of the Cardiff & London branches to infer how TW is organized--& what we've seen is certainly intriguing: TW commanders are apparently sufficiently powerful to take the Prime Minister of Britain to task. As to TW valuing results over methods, I have to wonder who's doing the evaluating & what criteria are used to judge success or failure.

"That was Soldier Jack, not Emperor Jack..."

You're right; thanks for clarifying the context. Though I don't doubt that if Jack thought that the Imperial form was necessary, he'd put on the crown.

What a very intriguing subject you've introduced; I hope you've cross-posted in a lot of places.


No, & with there apparently having only been four branches to begin with, there never were. We only have what we've seen of the Cardiff & London branches to infer how TW is organized--& what we've seen is certainly intriguing: TW commanders are apparently sufficiently powerful to take the Prime Minister of Britain to task. As to TW valuing results over methods, I have to wonder who's doing the evaluating & what criteria are used to judge success or failure.

That was Soldier Jack, not Emperor Jack. That was Soldier Jack, not Emperor Jack.

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

Well in terms of the entire planet, yes, but you had Empires as far back as the Neolithic. I think the earliest known records of the difference come from the Roman era. Bandits who had been driven from Rome would sometimes prey upon the villages at the outskirts of the Roman territory, but if those villages asked Rome for help, Rome would annex them and take over everything. It was quite a dilemna at times.

One of the more insightful works I've read on the Medieval Witch Trials, and I'm sorry but I can't remember the name right now, points out that the Witch Trials tended to occur at a time when the central governments were trying to exert stronger control over the outlying areas of the territory, which previously they had not tried to control beyond taxing. Under the village justice system, witchcraft was often punished with a heavy fine. Under the Imperial justice system, with the King/Pope/Emperor flexing his muscles, the punishment was a pretty horrible execution to "make an example" of the perpetrator -- and of the "King's Justice". Thus many an accused witch confessed thinking they'd get nothing more than a heavy fine, only to find out to late they were slated for execution instead.

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

I have to say this doesn't match any information I have on witch trials, most of which weren't "mediaeval" anyway. Perhaps we're looking at a different set of witch trials.

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

It's amazing the information that's turning up now that historians are examining the records in greater depth.

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

Are you referring to the difference between Tudor and Stuart treatments of witchcraft, or are you referencing some much earlier Continental society?

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

Not true, unfortunately. The Chinese Imperial justice system, the Roman Imperial system, and the Egyptian system (which gets you back to around 2500BC) all aimed at having most/all "crimes" dealt with by the "imperial system". In the Egyptian system, village headmen were left to sort out domestic disputes and small disputes about field boundaries, water, straying animals etc. In the Chinese system, even this were supposed to be dealt with by the magistrate.

At the same time, Owen's terror at being thrown out is pretty much an exact rendition of mediaeval Icelandic society. Exile (outlawry) was the worst punishment that could be inflicted: the Grettisaga (which also contains probably the first ever description of post traumatic stress disorder) details the effects that outlawry has on the strong man, Grettir; and a great deal of the Saga of Burnt Niall is taken up with the efforts of the burners to regain access to their native land, having fled or been banished as a result of the burning.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

You're right, sorry, I was thinking mostly european's way of dealing with crime.

Eeep, sorry, reposting comment because I forgot to close a tag

[starfirenz.livejournal.com]

Interesting thoughts - thanks for these.

I'm a newcomer to the Torchwood-verse (I'm here via your post writeup on torchwood_three). I'm watching it from the beginning, and have just made it to "Small Worlds", although I've read a fair amount of fic, so I don't generally mind happening upon spoilers.

I've been pondering the way Jack handled Ianto's "betrayal" in Cyberwoman, and your post adds some interesting pondering-fuel. I'd been thinking that seen from one (modern, western, civilian) point of view, Jack's reaction is totally OTT - seen from the point of view of a leader who views himself as on the frontlines of a war, and who can't afford any hint of divided loyalties, it makes a lot more sense.

Plus, I get the distinct impression from the various fic I've read that there are emotional angles to the interaction coming to bear as well (although one of the reasons I don't mind getting spoilers from fic is that you never know what's cannon and what's not ahead of time, so you don't know if you're *really* being spoiled or not)

Your thoughts on the different kinds of justice add an extra couple of interesting factors to the musings.

Blessings


Starfire

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how relevant theoretical views of societal justice systems are in this context, and I'm not convinced that only mass murder and blasphemy attracted the ultimate punishment. After all, there are enough instances of villagers stoning adulterers and families murdering family members who have committed "sexual sins".

Jack is entirely pragmatic. He kills Suzie because she'd become a menace - she shot him in the head. He doesn't kill Ianto - perhaps he knew he'd overstepped some mark. Perhaps he thought Ianto's threats weren't serious. He lets Jasmine goes because the fairies are stronger than he is. He believes their threats.

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

Of course Jack is pragmatic. All of the Team are pragmatic. I'm talking about the ways in which their pragmatism manifests and interacts.

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

But that's different to "village justice". "Village justice" works over the long term by consensus, not by the will of the headman - if the village does not agree with the punishment, the whole system breaks down. As (for example) has happened recently on Pitcairn, where up till recently the sexual abuse of young girls by older men was considered acceptable, until a young girl was raped by a visiting New Zealander. The elders considered the case and sent the young man away, but this prompted a number of other young women to complain of abuse.

None of Jack's team agreed with his decision about Jasmine - I don't think they believed his explanation (at least that was how it appeared to me) - but they had no-one else to turn to, and and organisation that doesn't work by consensus.

If anything, TW3 is more like a robber barony, with Jack as the robber baron whose word is law.

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

I would say that consensus was exactly how TW3 worked in S1. On several occassions (Day One, Small Worlds, Countrycide, Combat) the Team takes a moment to look at each other before making their decision. In Small Worlds the Team didn't agree about Jasmine, but none of them could come up with a better idea. They still shunned Jack afterwards.

In EoD we see the consensus break down. Not only does the Team disagree with Jack as they did in Small Worlds, this time they think they have a workable alternative. Even then, they are willing to accept Jack's plan instead of their own until he tells them flat out he doesn't have one. It's only when the Jack fails to act as the deaths start mounting that they turn against him.

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

I don't think small worlds represents a consensus, although I agree with you that they couldn't think of anything else to do.

I don't think the consensus broke down in EoD - I think what we were seeing was a classic paradigm shift. No-one believed in the old paradigm (Jack) any more, it was time to get a new one.

I think that is different to village justice, where the headman only rules with the consent of his tribe. I think it is closer to robber barony (or any other form of tyranny) where the leader remains the leader for as long as he is *strong* enough to do so. Jack showed weakness in EoD, and the pride replaced him.

We're obviously looking at the same set of events, but putting different interpretations on them, which is interesting in itself. Given that the cast couldn't understand why Owen shot Jack, and had to take itself off for a long discussion before they could come back and play those scenes, I think that the possibility that there is one consistent theme being played out over the whole series is perhaps overoptimistic.

[eumenidis.livejournal.com]

"I think that is different to village justice, where the headman only rules with the consent of his tribe. I think it is closer to robber barony (or any other form of tyranny) where the leader remains the leader for as long as he is *strong* enough to do so."

I'm not sure that a "robber barony" isn't an extreme & in the long term self-destructive form of a village system. In both the village & robber barony, there is no higher authority than the headman/chief elder, or else the higher authority is too remote to be very relevant in local matters--the latter situation was the case during the European conquest/colonization of the Americas. To some extent, even the robber barony is governed by consensus, even if it's only that the "baron's" people will go along with him because he'll kill anyone who doesn't. & the village headman must be "strong", ie, able to convince his people that he can cope with any situation that arises & make the correct decisions, otherwise he'll be replaced one way or another.

I agree that it's probably too much to believe there was a consistent theme running through the series; actually, it seemed to me that the writers were floundering at times.

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

I think there was a definite theme, but I don't think they were consistent in the way they put it across. Things weren't that random, except for the final episode.

[eumenidis.livejournal.com]

They had a major ongoing *plot*, but as for *theme*, I don't think so.

[coffeegirl18.livejournal.com]

Ah good way to put it. I took anthro last year at uni....

[silverotter.livejournal.com]

That's a fairly brilliant way to put it. I really do get ticked at the people who complain about the way that Torchwood runs.

(P.S. Did you get my story? I wasn't sure, because sometimes my email provider gets finicky with whom I can send email too.)

[crabby-lioness.livejournal.com]

Yes. I need to look up the quotes in Ralph Ellison.

[silverotter.livejournal.com]

Brilliant. Thanks so much. If you don't want to bother to go to the library (sometimes they don't even have it.) you can use the "Search Inside" function on Amazon for quotes.

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

Given what he's seen (and what he's *now* seeing) I don't think Jack would consider death a punishment as such.

He can't. Most of what he's seen dying stay dead, but a sufficiently significant proportion Come Back -- implying it's not that final a solution. And there's the Glove.

And he needs his people -- unless he recruits the pizza delivery people, where else would he get his replacements ?

And, anyway, killing people just lets them off for all eternity. Making them face the consequences of what they've done (morning, Ianto -- any more locked-off bits of the basement you'd like to tell us about ? Tosh -- any more computer back-doors you've left ajar ?) might even make them Better People.

What I find out

[(Anonymous)]

I like you site - crabby-lioness.livejournal.com

If you are looking
free for all
exciting
domain.
Take a look
banners 1:1 exchange system
for your needs.