Injustice?

[mightyboosh]

Another post of mine prompted me to start this.

This question has been asked of many scholars and is of world importance.

Did Tom get too much of a raw deal in the episodes or did he have it coming?

 

[bengalcatman]

.....This question has been asked of many scholars and is of world importance. Did Tom get too much of a raw deal in the episodes or did he have it coming?

I agree on the importance of this debate...... A debate that finds itself topical of late as political and social unrest increase throughout the world.

Tom certainly did encounter many unpleasant fates: electrocution, being cut in half, flattened, falls from great heights etc. One could make the argument that Tom was in each case, initially trying to kill Jerry. However, though anyone is entitled to defend themselves, no reasonable person would find the excessive force utilized by Jerry as merely "self defense." From a legalistic viewpoint, many states/countries allow a "stand your ground" or "castle law" which permits killing an attacker that is on your property or in some cases, your personal space. But no circumstance would justify staging elaborate, brutal and painful execution or torture in the manner that Jerry so off offhandedly dishes out to Tom.

Yet through each of the retaliatory atrocities that Tom endures, he seems little worse for the experience. Where one scene might find him sliced in half, in just a moments time Tom is returned whole for further shenanigans. The number of demises that Tom suffers greatly exceed a cat's allotted nine lives. One might even argue that Tom enjoys the wicked retributions or he would not continue to pursue Jerry.

In any case, I would endorse a more practical view. Both Tom and Jerry are psychopathic killers with a complete lack of empathy. Both creatures posses remarkable powers of regeneration that render them immortal and immune to anything but the most transient of suffering. As such, neither truly suffers an injustice in the committing of, or the receiving of, their incredibly brutal acts.

 

[mightyboosh]

bengalcatman With that considered reply I shall propose you as Tom's defence lawyer.

 

[bengalcatman]

bengalcatman With that considered reply I shall propose you as Tom's defense lawyer.

I suspect the statute of limitations will protect Tom at this point since neither character in that series appears to have actually died. Were that not the case, I bet a "not guilty be reason of instinct" would work. "Your honor, my client is a cat, an animal whose very nature forces him to kill mice"

Though I wonder if some sort of class action counter-suit is in order? Seems like many cartoon cats are portrayed as lazy, viscous, untrustworthy or worse (maybe the writers are all dog owners?)

 

[1CatOverTheLine]

.
bengalcatman and mightyboosh - Respectfully, this conjecture is simply silly. Jerry's counsel would certainly have entered a plea of non compos mentis, citing the pervasive maxim "crazy as a ****house mouse," and his client - being, in fact, a mouse - would have walked.
.