@ribbitribbitsaga nice assumption. Trust me when I say that where I come from people being armed is not an issue, a lot are, legally or otherwise.

@ribbitribbitsaga

"1.The offended should decided the fate of the offender. "

Wrong. I am offended by you. You have offended me. Should I now decide your fate? Is it right for me to decide whether you live or die? You are literally allowing people to impose their completely subjective views on others.

At the very least, with a public legal system, the issues are, by definition, public, and there is at least more certainty. I'm not saying it's necessarily just or good. I'm saying it's more predictable when you have clear public standards.

"2. Yes, because they were the ones who got deceived."

See above. Just because they subjectively feel wronged doesn't mean that they're right. It's usually better to have it done publicly so that we don't have cases like me feeling wronged by you and deciding to kill you as a result.

"3. No, he shouldn't have laid hands on them at all, since this is just another example of cause and effect."

I don't understand. Please elaborate.

"4. You're proposing that."

No, I'm not. I'm saying we should be advocating for better law enforcement. I literally said that above.

"No. We know that corruption exists within the court system so this legal system you present is moot. "

You completely missed the point. I said very clearly that the current legal system is not the issue. I completely recognize that it is flawed. I said that above! I said that the issue is what we should want, not what we have. We should want better law enforcement. The alternative is not wanting any law enforcement at all.

Again, this is the second time I have to say this now. It is about what we should want, not what we actually have.

"It's funny you conveniently ignore my detailed law book proposal but go ham on the idea of giving law abiding citizens gun rights, bootlicker indeed."

Are you dumb as shit? I said the idea of gun rights is irrelevant. I said your comment does not matter. I never said I agreed, nor did I say I disagreed. I said your comment is meaningless. It's disturbing how much of a troll you're being.

@givemersspls
"In previous chapters, I specifically talked about how Seto's actions were really bad."
Turn on moderated comments and go back 6 months ago, I was there from the start what's your point? I called out the thottery too.

"Yes, she probably deserves to be punished in some way as well based upon the severity of her bad actions. You know who should make those decisions? Should these random teenage boys make that decision? Should Yuuhi make the decision of whether to punish those people? Should random people make the decision of whether to punish others?"
1.The offended should decided the fate of the offender. 2. Yes, because they were the ones who got deceived. 3. No, he shouldn't have laid hands on them at all, since this is just another example of cause and effect. 4. You're proposing that.

"I'm saying that a legal system system should make the decision as to whether and to what extent to punish them, Seto included."
No. We know that corruption exists within the court system so this legal system you present is moot. It's funny you conveniently ignore my detailed law book proposal but go ham on the idea of giving law abiding citizens gun rights, bootlicker indeed.

"The mother could've defended herself? Yeah, the mother could've also been killed more easily by the same gun. It is irrelevant to the issue."
fair point

@ribbitribbitsaga Wow your comment is such complete shit for the reasons that you don't know.

You're probably thinking oh, I'll get replies about how right to carry is bad and blah blah blah. No, you're stupid because you didn't read.

In previous chapters, I specifically talked about how Seto's actions were really bad. Yes, she probably deserves to be punished in some way as well based upon the severity of her bad actions. You know who should make those decisions? Should these random teenage boys make that decision? Should Yuuhi make the decision of whether to punish those people? Should random people make the decision of whether to punish others?

I'm saying that a legal system system should make the decision as to whether and to what extent to punish them, Seto included.

And you call me a bootlicker while you're over there just circle jerking like oh, gun rights are so great! So obvious! It's so obvious that they have nothing to do with anything. The mother could've defended herself? Yeah, the mother could've also been killed more easily by the same gun. It is irrelevant to the issue.

Your comment on gun rights is so completely irrelevant that it's laughable. Who the hell cares in this specific case if they had gun rights? No, it's not the answer to anything! You can have gun rights without having a good law enforcement system. You can have gun rights WITH a good law enforcement system. Your comment means nothing.

@givemersspls
You conveniently forget the reason why they raped her is because she was 6 timing them. Yes, It is an extreme case of thot patrol but if she wasn't 6 timing them, it wouldn't have happened. The fact that you think the rapists should've been dealt with by police tells me you are not in the position to judge other's actions since you can't and won't look at the cases as the complex matters they are and judge it off as crime and justice is black and white.
The answer is simple to handling issues like this, write a detailed law book and give law abiding citizens the power to carry. As a bootlicker you should already know that most killers are not mentally ill. This is the dilemma I present to you: Do you rather prefer to create a police state or give the right to carry to citizens? The mom could've defended herself in self defense and she wouldn't be charged in a reasonable legal system.

@MacMeaties
You never considered the possibility of gun rights in this dilemma. That's the answer, literally.

Author won't give us a vengeance chapter full of correcting wrong doing. Seems like this will be a wholesome manga full of neuterement instead of actually creating pleasant memories from justice.

We have a wrongful death, which lead to our FMC to suffer from sociophobia which had hinder her from progressing in life normally but finding the secret meaning of some paper will surely right these wrongs.🙄

And this is why I laugh at some countries marketing their law enforcement as "crime stoppers". Law enforcement responds to crime and under ideal circumstances prevent further crime from being committed, prosecute the offenders and potentially deter future offenders by doing so but they cannot act unless a crime has already been committed. Hell in some countries even the act of planning a terrorist attack is not a crime so the police can't do a damn thing until the person actually puts that plan into action... but then if we start arguing for preemptive law enforcement we start treading into Orwell and Minority Report territory :/

Mini tangential rant from a person who has/is working in Law Enforcement in one of said countries and has multiple family members who also either were or currently are.

@istvan90623 Have you read my comment? Don't make me laugh. I explicitly said it's about what we want, not what actually exists. You clearly didn't read what I actually said.

And yes, I have studied the Japanese legal system. I know it is widely criticized by legal experts. That's literally not the point, as I said.

@givemersspls Japanese justice and law system? Police? Don't make me laugh. Do you know the case of Junko Furuta? If you don't, read up on it, that will show you how effective is the police and legal system in Japan.

@WeaWeab I honestly think you're missing the point a bit. It's not about what the police force would end up being. It's about what people should want, what people should look for in a society. I am saying we should be advocating for better police. I am saying we should not be glorifying self-imposed justice and vigilantism (especially when it's unlikely to actually do anything).

Unless you're actually saying it is fundamentally impossible to ever have a police force that is able to address the concerns we have talked about, then what actually exists, either in the fictional setting or in real life, is almost completely irrelevant. What actually exists is not relevant to what we should want.

The only way to support what you said is to either argue 1) it is fundamentally impossible to ever improve the police, or 2) it is actually bad to ever want to improve the police. Those are your options.

@givemersspls

I can see your point, but ultimately we're just going to go around in circles speculating about a fictional police force.
You're just going to keep advocating optimistically to fix the system, whereas I'm just going to keep talking nihilistically on how that system can't/won't be fixed.
I don't see any real point in going any further when we're just going to reinforce our own opinions.

I have no real issue with the small-scale self-imposed justice that's on display here.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@WeaWeab Call it spoiling the fun, but at the very same time, you have to take note that what I said is still true. A lot of the random background characters have the exact same design. You can look at the very first chapter of Blue Hearts for confirmation of that.

"The way that both the domestic violence that killed Sachi's mother and the bullying that killed Sachi escalated" No. Pause. Again, as I mentioned in my previous post, I may have missed it, but I am fairly certain that there had never been a history of domestic violence. "Things got heated during a dispute, and her father became violent, accidentally killing her mother" That is from chapter 23. There is no proof that I have found of any escalation. Again, I am open to being proven wrong on this, but until such time, I have to say that you are making up the issue of "escalation".

And that proves something there. The police apparently responded promptly to the murder of Sachi's mother. There's no evidence of that being wrong. If there had been actual reports of domestic abuse and the police had failed to act, then that would be a reason to criticize law enforcement. As a factual mater, even if there had been domestic abuse, it is SEVERELY under reported in many countries, Japan included. To criticize law enforcement on that front would be ridiculous as they would have no reason to suspect anything wrong. If you're going to say that law enforcement was ineffective in terms of the actual killing of the mother, you have to show 1) they had any reason to suspect that something was wrong and 2) they failed to act properly after such reason was brought to their attention. You have so far not shown that.

"and the bullying that killed Sachi" There's also no evidence of how long the bullying took. This one I'm willing to give more leeway. The series suggests that it was over a further length of time. Guess what, though? Bullying is also severely under reported, including in places like Japan. You're criticizing the law enforcement for something that they may have had no reasonable ability to prevent.

Note that there is almost certainly something to be said about the school administration of the middle school. That is very much separate from law enforcement.

"neither the characters in the story nor Yayoi Sou have any real way of doing that" False. Insofar as this series is supposed to be about a criticism of Japanese society, your statement is false. The story could easily be about how effectual law enforcement can be a good factor in society. Instead of doing that at all, Yuuhi explicitly takes it upon himself to go vigilante. In addition, that is explicitly portrayed in a good light. Heck, look at the second comment in this thread. That person views taking justice into your own hands and setting people on fire as a good thing! The fact that the author makes the conscious attempt to make self-imposed justice good is what I am criticizing here.

And yes, Yayoi Sou, as author of a series that is criticizing [Japanese] society, can do something by, at the very least, not showing vigilantism as a good thing. Again, look at the rape issues. Do you honestly think none of those people who got beaten up will do the same or similar things again to someone else? With law enforcement, that chance might not be eliminated, but it is substantially less likely.

And I want to make clear that I did not criticize the characters as characters in this story. They bend to the will of the author. The author is who I am talking about with these comments. For the most part. There are some points where I criticize the characters, but it is to the same extent as is common by other people. For example, some people may say oh, Yuuhi is so stupid for getting into the school just to chase after a girl. That's a perfectly normal thing for a comment to say. Your view would criticize that. I criticize the characters themselves in a similar way (depends on the situation).

And finally, on your very last sentence, that's the exact mentality that I criticized. Oh, law enforcement is so bad considering things like innocent people getting killed by them, so...you're literally going on the side of no law enforcement. That's exactly what I said was bad. The solution to bad law enforcement is not no law enforcement as I already said very clearly. The solution is to make better law enforcement.

@givemersspls
Eh, I consider it close enough that it could be Arata given that it's the same author penning both works. If anything, there's really no need to be adding that it might not be since you're really just aiming to spoil someone else's fun. Call it realism, but I'm not interested in it when we're talking about entertainment.

The way that both the domestic violence that killed Sachi's mother and the bullying that killed Sachi escalated speaks to just how ineffectual law enforcement and similiar voices of authority are.
Sachi's bullying took place over at least a few months with the change in seasons.

As far as fixing law enforcement goes, that's a fine goal but neither the characters in the story nor Yayoi Sou have any real way of doing that. You're effectively asking a bunch of hormonally charged teenagers to continue watching other students get emotionally, physically, and sexually abused to the point of suicide, and just hold it in, in the hopes that they might fix it when they're adults. You may consider that to be admirable, but I personally think that that's idiotic. They're not fighting to end bullying and rape as a whole, just to stop the cases that directly impact their own friends and family. That may be hypocritical, but it's far more practical than fixing an entire system of beliefs and problems. Hell, we've got police killing innocent citizens these days, and that hasn't resulted in any major change.

@WeaWeab You misinterpreted what I wrote. Yes, I know that Kaizaki did work at a convenience store. I'm saying that given the fact that a lot of "generic" characters in Blue Hearts look exactly like that AND given that a convenience store is a common enough setting for series like these, it's completely possible for the person shown in this chapter to be a completely different person, not Kaizaki Arata.

"what meaning does justice have in a world where those tasked with enforcing it clearly stand by and watch?" That's just a reason to criticize the law enforcement until they actually do what they're tasked with doing. The problem is ineffectual law enforcement. The solution is not to ignore law enforcement and take justice into your own hands. The solution is to make the law enforcement better.

In the case of the rape, do you personally think that getting beaten up one time is going to stop all of the perpetrators of the rape from ever doing that or similar actions again on other people? At the very least, punishing the rapists in a court of law puts society on notice. There is a public aspect to it. This is explicitly private.

"In both cases, it was made clear that the situation escalated over time" I may be mis-remembering, but I don't think it was made clear that the situation escalated over time. It's not that important, though.

I can agree with you that it's a strong criticism of Japanese society. I think it's going about it in a bad way. That was literally my last sentence in my first post. I said that already.

@givemersspls
But Kaizaki did work at a convenience store. It's what he did prior to joining ReLIFE.

And as far as the work's view of society goes, I'd argue that the justice depicted is rather fair. Justice in and of itself is subjective, and collectivist values, where the status quo is held above all else, extend to the police as well. You're right in that the work is saying that Japanese society is rotten, and then extends that to police and authorities as well by showing that they clearly ignore danger signs, which fits with Yayoi Sou's depictions of Japanese society.

While beating up someone else shouldn't be considered just, what meaning does justice have in a world where those tasked with enforcing it clearly stand by and watch? They couldn't stop Sachi's father from hurting her mother, nor could they prevent those students from harming Sachi. In both cases, it was made clear that the situation escalated over time, and authorities did nothing to stop it. For that matter, the series shows numerous cases where nobody intervenes in clearly violent confrontations, so in that kind of world where's the problem in just standing up for yourself and your friends?

You can always argue with that, but that's my interpretation of what the author is trying to say. I personally think it's a strong criticism of Japanese society.

@Tron65 Also completely possible to be someone entirely different considering a lot of the male characters look like that and a convenience store is a common setting, even if Kaizaki did work at a convenience store at one point.

The casual Kaizaki cameo

Lol! The mc is an idiot buy he's like us about the burned letter.

Yeah, I'll say it again. This basically teaches that in Japan, society is so horrible that you either straight up can't go to the police or you just wouldn't for fear of reprisal from society. The actions of those children were straight up criminal (at the very least the burning of the note). We see literally no mention of any legal punishment.

Refer back to the previous arc where beating up the rapists was supposedly justice. That's stupid as hell. They were too afraid to go to the police before, and they're still unwilling to go to the police after.

And then in this chapter, they talk about how the police could've confiscated their phones. So police did get involved...and apparently no one was punished. The girls who lit the will on fire are attending high school like normal.

And Yuuhi even talks/thinks about the overwhelming voice of society.

Honestly, if the author didn't make Yuuhi's action of beating up the rapists seem like the right thing to do, I would say that this series is all about how messed up Japanese society is. Now, the author still might be trying to convey that, but it's in a bad way considering that's the form of "justice" that the author thinks is good.