pilin li pona

For Yuno, they may say that it's considered murder because Japan has a negative view on abortion and argue against the framing of it as murder because abortion isn't murder.

For Mahiru and Kazui, they may say 'but being in love isn't the issue!'/'but it's the partner who killed themself!'

People are less generous for Fuuta because he's indirectly killed a middleschooler to satiate his boredom, but it's still surprisingly different compared to the definition of murder - Yuno, Mahiru, Kazui, and Fuuta are being considered murderers by Milgram, despite not aiming to directly kill their victims.

Milgram doesn't care about the indirectness of all these crimes. This much is obvious. But, if not about the legal widespread definition of murder, then what does Milgram consider murder?

These past 3 trials suggest that it's dependent on what the prisoner considers a murder.

Yuno has already said multiple times that she considered her abortion a bad act because she feels like she should have been punished for taking life for granted (as many women like Mahiru aren't able to have that happen in their lives). This doesn't make her logic right, but it explains why she might see it as murder.

Kazui feels guilt about not having been open about his attraction with his wife and considers him coming out of the closet as what pushed her to do it.

Mahiru, even if she's confused and can't understand what she did wrong, feels as though her love for her boyfriend had played a part in how he died.

Fuuta felt guilt even from T1 - the end of his MV shows it, regardless of how much he hides his feelings to Es and to himself, and then T3 confirms that he has the habit of running away from his problems. Even if he refuses to acknowledge it as a murder at first, his emotions were firmly set on considering it a murder.

'But then, why was it written this way? The Milgram Project writers could have used a legal definition of murder instead.'

The confusion surrounding their definition of 'murder' is evidently on purpose by the time Trial 3 started. These characters consider their actions to be murders, which adds to the amount of discussions that voters can have. For example: The discussions for Yuno's trial had helped some people to understand that abortion isn't murder and Kazui's may have led people to re-evaluate why they thought he should've stay closeted/told her sooner.

Rehabilitation can be a testy subject. There's always the chance of someone never changing. There's always the chance of someone hurting others again.

Likewise, there's always the chance of someone growing. Someone who could realize their wrongdoings, try their best to atone, and then live their life with minimal harm. It's a fact that this duality is possible in everyone, regardless of whether people like or dislike the outcomes.

That tense duality is exactly why it's such a testy subject. In law, there's even large variances in how wrongdoings handled. People hurt people sometimes because they were in pain, sometimes because their mental health was shaky, sometimes because they thought they were right, and so on. How long should someone be imprisoned and for what reasons? Is it right to be overly cautious and cast away the potential for redemption? Or, is it right to give people the chance to prove themselves helpful to society?

It makes sense to be concerned. Depending on the gravity of their wrongdoing, it could lead to worse outcomes if someone is let off the hook without scrutiny. Someone could say they'll do better without showing it.

But if you (general you) somehow take the wrong turn and do something bad while thinking you were right, it would be good to have an opportunity for growth. There can be nuance, where someone isn't outright denied redemption yet can only be given leniency if they show they're willing to change. That nuance is what people would strive to understand if they wish to minimize harm.

From T1 to T3 so far, Es' character growth seems to reference this rehabilitation view to the point that I feel convinced they were written with that in mind. They started off defensive and violent because they consider the prisoners to be equally harmful - then, as they got to know the innerworkings of the prisoners' minds, began to feel hesitant about being in a place of power because they don't feel equipped to judge or exact violence.

The Milgram Project prisoners have been swept off from their lives and placed into an unknown confined area with strangers. On top of that, they've been told that everyone there is a murderer without any details. When Milgram shows their MVs / voice dramas / interrogations, the details of their murder & life are often muddled with their own coping mechanisms and projections. In all cases, you and Es are only viewing snapshots of their life trajectories.

Some prisoners had been let down by a society that doesn't support their issues enough. Others had been let down by not growing up in a loving environment. A few had been let down by their own perceptions of themselves.

Kotoko's a strange case. She has done vigilante work against harmful people in the real world, yet she attacked these prisoners without knowing their stories in Milgram. I'm not one to judge anyone for voting any way, so don't take this to persuade the reader in either direction, but I think she's a good example of a final prisoner precisely because she's hard to vote for with regards to rehabilitation.

She possess a similar attitude to T1 Fuuta, except stubborn enough to physically assault people in Milgram. Her logic had been flawed from the get-go: "if it's okay to attack Milgram prisoners because they're all murderers, then why does she think she's exempt from her own judgment?"

Kotoko immediately assumes (1) that she must be the special exception to murder out of self-defense, and (2) that Milgram's judgment of the prisoners is all she needs to follow. She tells Es that she is worth forgiving due to murdering out of self-defense'¹', yet in T2 she admits she had plans to attack all prisoners deemed Guilty.

These assumptions serve her ego: T2 both implies and outright states she liked the power she holds when she's morally right. She likes black-&-white thinking because it gives her a way to hammer so-called justice onto others deemed lesser. Her logic being flawed is not something she cares about.

While it's true that she once targeted people who were harmful in society, her black-&-white view led her to attack even people who were harmless within the walls of Milgram. Kotoko's views put her on the side of anti-redemption - she doesn't believe in examining nuance, as she believes that being overly cautious about the prisoners prevents more harm. She implies that violence towards those who have enacted violence is always justified. There is no room for weighing the pros and cons, truths and lies.

Granted, the audience doesn't know much about Kotoko's past. In the Trial 2 voice drama, she mentions having felt like Es before. She states that she knew what it's like to be guarding alone. It's possible that she has her own traumas and such, yet Kotoko having her own reasons for attacking people doesn't mean she's in the right for her actions. She had still physically hurt and indirectly killed other prisoners, never trying to understanding their perspectives before acting.

In fact, her T2 MV lyrics state that she seeks a reason to start attacking the prisoners who'd been deemed innocent by Milgram as well. She rattles off pejorative titles, despite not laying a finger on them before.

Yet again, Kotoko's actions aside, she's not exempt from potential redemption herself. She has a tendency to sidestep nuance and attack others without asking questions - but Es & the audience are only seeing a snapshot of her life so far. Violence-seeking does not define a person as a whole.

Violence-seeking does not define a person as a whole. I wanted to repeat that for emphasis.

There are many outlets for violence that does not involve what she does. Martial arts, boxing, and so on - there are activities that involve violence consensually and with safety nets. Having a desire to hurt others is not harmful in of itself, as it's only a desire. It did not need to be acted on. Thoughts and feelings are not crimes to have. Many people, especially those who have trauma, have had states of rage wherein they felt like they wanted to hurt others... but that doesn't mean they always need to go through with it. There are resources for dealing with rage. Kotoko has had anger issues and there are ways to circumvent anger into productive means.

But is it okay to bank on a possibility that she could change?

That's a hard question that the voters and Es must face. If Es was partially written to explain the reasons for pro-rehabilitation, then Kotoko's refusal to believe prisoners can be redeemed is there to be the foil for Es.

The way Milgram Project is written so far has led Es to question the views of people like Kotoko who believe in a black-&-white justice. They hadn't yet made a decision on whether to destroy Milgram, yet all-throughout T1 to T3 has Es seeing the ways that anti-rehabilitation has led to Milgram prisoners suffering without changing their ways. The large conflict of stances between Es' budding understandings and Kotoko's stubborn closemindedness is likely to influence their final decision.

---