Kittyhawk wrote:

I suspect that was one reason. He might also have hoped that Eurus's genius mind would prove useful one day - as it did.

Placing her in a facility under his own control he can assure that he as free access and can utilise her intellect to his own gain. He is a bit arrogant so I think he underestimated her and never suspected that he may end up being a pawn in her elaborate game of human chess.

Vhanja wrote:

I haven't been following this thread, but I do sometimes feel that death would be preferable to the "life" she is being forced to live inside those walls.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree that she is too dangerous to be let out. And she can't be treated. But wouldn't death be preferable to living your whole life behind blank walls with nothing to do?

Quite possibly. It does raise serious questions though as to who decides if life is worth living or not. There are many patients in UK nurses in seclusion for years. It is not a good quality of life but to go ahead and euthanise them would be difficult. I know I would not volunteer for the job. Interestingly there is not mention of Euros ever trying to end her life. She does not seem depressed in the slightest by her circumstances and is keeping herself occupied creating elaborate master plans and playing complex mind games. She may not be that bothered about isolation. Psychopaths don't really care for other humans or crave company although they can find other people useful and genuinely enjoy a shared activity. 
 

It is an interesting debate if psychopathy and other personality disorders are a mental illness or a character flaw. Law of different countries has a varied take on if personality disorder can be a defence in a way other mental illness is.

I think people find it easier to accept that someone did not know what they were doing because they were psychotic for example and lost touch with reality influenced by hallucinations and delusional beliefs. On the other hand, a psychopath knows exactly what they are doing and that it is considered to be wrong. They are incapable of empathy and the only consideration for them is if they are going to be caught. There is no capacity for remorse. You can argue that it is not their fault to have a brain wired in that particular way but on the other, they can make choices and it is their choice to do bad things for personal gains. 
 

Liberty wrote:

I think Sherlock can be very forgiving.  Look at how he is when Mary shoots him - he seems to go straight from being scared of her, to trying to reconcile her with John and protect her - there's no stage where it seems he resents her putting him through that. 

I think with high intelligence often comes the ability to see the situation from multiple angles and way up pros and cons of multiple decisions at the same time. A bit like playing chess and evaluating the outcomes of many possible moves and their consequences beyond the immediately obvious. He can see the logic in Mary's of Eros actions and is able to see it from their perspective, stepping out of his own pain and hurt that those decisions created. It goes beyond the social norm and law and into abstract moral reasoning where things are usually grey as opposed to black or white and murder isn't always the wrong choice.

This thinking process can be done very quickly and may seem like immediately forgiving someone but in my
headcanon there was a lot of careful internal deliberation on the part of Sherlock as opposed to just letting go.

 

SusiGo wrote:

This is all very true.

My problem with this reading of the story is that adult Eurus is never actually made responsible for what she did. And I am talking about Moriarty and his campaign, blowing up 221b, torturing Sherlock, torturing poor Molly, killing the governor, his wife, the three Garridebs, and the therapist from TLD (those are the deaths that we know of). Sorry but the end does not work for me. Too easy, a hug, family visits, Sherlock playing the violin with her. For me, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. 

The way I see it has been decided that she was not compos mentis to stand trial. This would not be far fetched in case of someone held in constant seclusion in a highly secure facility. Clinically I believe that she knew exactly what she was doing. However, in my headcanon, Mycroft pulled his strings to make sure that it is all put down to her mental disorder and she continues to receive 'care and treatment' under section 37/41 of MHA with not much prospect for release. Those sections come through high court and are an alternative to sentencing for seriously mentally disturbed offenders. In many ways, section 37/41 judgement it is a greater punishment than many as there is no fix tariff, no parole and essentially in equals to life in secure hospital.

The regimen that she is under, with constant seclusion and at best segregation, is more punitive than most prisons. I can guarantee that no ordinary prison would cope with someone like her. That is why they go to Brodmore, into dengerous personality disorders unit instead of category A prisons to play havock there.
 

tonnaree wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Tonnaree, I agree about sometimes liking things that aren't objectively good!  You've made me want to watch Showgirls again!

Showgirls is such an epic failure, but it's like a train wreck, you can't look away!!

Another thing I have started making a point of is NOT picking on things that teenagers love.  Even if I honestly think it's stupid, I'm not the target audience.  I also have to admit that I would be all over a lot of these things if I were a teenager!!   I remember subscribing to fan magazines and putting pictures all over my bedroom walls of "teen idols."   I can never deny the fact that I had Donny Osmond albums.

Bottom line, can't we just let people like what they like?  Especially since it doesn't harm us in any way, shape or form.

Good point. Sometimes it is not immediately obvious how old someone is. I often think to myself 'gosh, what an immature or silly comment' only to find out later that the poster is in fact 12 and taking into account their developmental level they have actually produced a well thought out and reasonable argument. Or if they are starting to throw their toys out of a pram in frustration some credit needs to be given to the fact that they entered into discussion with an adult who is twice their age and has a degree on the subject. So I am trying to be more patient with people and less arrogant in my ways. Still a way to go. Haha
 

Vhanja wrote:

Sherlock and Dr. Strange seem a bit more similar at first glance. They are both devoted to their work above everything else, and they are both very arrogant, thinking that the world revolves around themselves. However, there are also great differences. Dr. Strange (before the accident) places value in things like materialism, money, status and women - Sherlock couldn't care less for any of these things. Dr. Strange embraces the luxury of life, Sherlock has deliberately chosen to abstain.

What an interesting thread. There are definitely some similarities. I wonder if when the director is casting the roles and visualising how the end product will look like they are naturally drawn to actors who have excellently portrayed a similar role in the past. That is not a criticism of BC as someone only able to play a particular type as it is obviously not the case. 

The idea of Sherlock choosing to abstain from luxuries made me wonder. He is less flashy about it than Dr Strange for sure. However his coat costs more than a second-hand car, his drugs of choice are not cheap and he travels around London in taxis. Not exactly a puritan lifestyle. Whilst he does not spend money for the case of spending he does not deny himself luxury either. A minor point in the overall discussion I admit.

Kittyhawk wrote:

So, the thing I find hard to understand: Why are people so attached to work under horrible conditions, with pay that's not particularly good, and that has a high likelyhood of ending up  killing them? Even the Bremen town musicians knew "You can always find something better than death"...
 

As far as manual labour goes mining became quite well paid. It is skilled labour and they had strong unions. There is the community, the family tradition etc

I do wonder sometimes why NHS workers, for example, feel so passionate about it and want to protect the NHS. The pay is not grate relatively speaking, The condition could be improved. I think part of it is the culture, wanting to be a part of something bigger that is benefiting others. I imagine there is a similar thing about mining. You are part of a special sort of club that gets some respect for the work that they do.
 

nakahara wrote:

What puzzled me about "oppositional defiant disorder" was the reason of why it was recognised as a diagnosis in the first place. Most penal systems have a special treatment of the young and underage deliquents anyway (for example, they get shorter prison terms or less harsh punishments than adults), the mental state of such criminals is routinely examined during an investigation and if a person was not able to recognise the consequences of his actions because of some mental disorder (which is obviously not a case with "oppositional defiant disorder"), they are usually not sent into prison but to an institution. Isn´t it a bit unjust to adult "deliquents" that they get prison term while somebody just a bit younger (who commited same actions) is treated as a medical patient? Isn´t it true that almost every criminal has some underlining issues for his behaviour? And if those young people are really past remedy because their brains have undergone such changes, wouldn´t it be better to give them warning in the form of real criminal punishment rather than treating them as if they were just ill?

What we hope to achieve is catch those kids a bit earlier. Before they comit that first very serious offence that would land them in prison. It is not always either or as well. We work closely with the justice system and probation services. We also do in reach work in prisons and youth offenders institutions. Having a diagnosis allows access to therapy and other support. It does not automaticaly excuse the behaviour and eliminate the punishement element.

What I find intresting is why some people who had horrible childhoods manage OK and others develop ODD and other personality disorders. What are the protective factors that we could try and capitalise on.