I believe the problem in maintaining order in this town is that the residents have become used to the punishments. Upon arrival, everyone is informed of the general consensus on who should be avoided, the milk being contaminated, the loss of abilities and unusual bodily features, the droning process, and what to do to avoid this. They are aware death does not last. While there is still some instinctual fear of these things, while those who are left sentient when one is droned are still unhappy at the droning, they expect them. Anything can be adjusted to, and your community has adjusted to these. The criminal element enough so that they are willing to overlook the punishments in favor of their own desires, desires which run counter to the desires of Mayfield.
I propose, then, that punishments vary. These punishments work well for minor crimes and first offenses; they provide proof that the punishments are real and will be handed out to those who need them. However, should there be evidence that there is a repeat offender who seems to ignore the punishments, or if someone commits a particularly terrible offense, the punishment should be customized. Perhaps someone who does not mind dying occasionally would change their attitude if taken and killed and revived repeatedly, in various ways, in rapid succession. Perhaps being partially droned, in that they cannot control their actions but are still aware of them, would work. That could be extended into forcing the offender to participate in town activities--helping to clean up the town or aiding in the capture of other subversives. It would not be difficult to have each first offender to sign an affidavit truthfully stating the punishment they would dislike most. Even knowing it is on file to be possibly levied against them may deter them. Additionally, those who are tagged as repeat offenders should have their houses marked in the station, and patrols should be sent there more often. Those they associate regularly with should be investigated as well, as this could easily lead to more subversives working with the primary offender. This will also make those willing to commit crimes less willing to organize, lest they be caught by their partner's folly.
The other problem I see is that the police office needs perhaps a friendlier face. Some may be more willing to aid the town in exchange for small rewards--something from home in exchange for information on a criminal that leads to arrest, or monetary gain. If the people of Mayfield believed were shown that they could improve their town in this way, surely they would be more willing to help?
The police should make themselves more actively known around town. There were officers who refused to do their duty in catching communists, after all. If this persists the police will be seen as ineffective. A monthly quota of individuals brought in for punishment may help assure the town that the police are there to keep the town safe, and not to play at cops and robbers like the children might. In addition, a more proactive role would help the town--catching criminals before they commit their crimes is always superior to catching them afterward.
In addition, perhaps the police could arrange a dairy-sponsored bake sale on behalf of the station. It would be a friendly thing to do, right? Every officer should sell a certain amount of baked goods and milk.
I propose, then, that punishments vary. These punishments work well for minor crimes and first offenses; they provide proof that the punishments are real and will be handed out to those who need them. However, should there be evidence that there is a repeat offender who seems to ignore the punishments, or if someone commits a particularly terrible offense, the punishment should be customized. Perhaps someone who does not mind dying occasionally would change their attitude if taken and killed and revived repeatedly, in various ways, in rapid succession. Perhaps being partially droned, in that they cannot control their actions but are still aware of them, would work. That could be extended into forcing the offender to participate in town activities--helping to clean up the town or aiding in the capture of other subversives. It would not be difficult to have each first offender to sign an affidavit truthfully stating the punishment they would dislike most. Even knowing it is on file to be possibly levied against them may deter them. Additionally, those who are tagged as repeat offenders should have their houses marked in the station, and patrols should be sent there more often. Those they associate regularly with should be investigated as well, as this could easily lead to more subversives working with the primary offender. This will also make those willing to commit crimes less willing to organize, lest they be caught by their partner's folly.
The other problem I see is that the police office needs perhaps a friendlier face. Some may be more willing to aid the town in exchange for small rewards--something from home in exchange for information on a criminal that leads to arrest, or monetary gain. If the people of Mayfield believed were shown that they could improve their town in this way, surely they would be more willing to help?
The police should make themselves more actively known around town. There were officers who refused to do their duty in catching communists, after all. If this persists the police will be seen as ineffective. A monthly quota of individuals brought in for punishment may help assure the town that the police are there to keep the town safe, and not to play at cops and robbers like the children might. In addition, a more proactive role would help the town--catching criminals before they commit their crimes is always superior to catching them afterward.
In addition, perhaps the police could arrange a dairy-sponsored bake sale on behalf of the station. It would be a friendly thing to do, right? Every officer should sell a certain amount of baked goods and milk.
Reply
Leave a comment