Talk:Agent Contingency Plans/@comment-28082245-20170424181403/@comment-24588058-20170428044747

When you look at Claudia's options, only seven of them appear to directly be a death penalty. While some others may be used to kill, they can also be used to incapacitate. Now, if we look at the remaining options, only one of them specifically says "Bronze". The rest appear to be more along the lines of a "life in prison" type of effect, with the exception of the dropping in a non-English speaking country, which is the most mild option they have.

In terms of probability, there are many options, which I might summarize as: Death, Bronzing, "Life Sentence", Suffering (may lead to first three, but not directly), Mild punishment. In terms of probability for a rogue agent, it is much more likely that you will die, followed by suffering, a "life sentence", and either a mild punishment or Bronzing. This implies that MacPherson is an exception rather than a rule of thumb. In all likelihood, agents who might be of some assistance in the future. H.G., for example, has her scientific knowledge, which one could use in specific cases. It's possible that MacPherson had some sort of hidden knowledge which would be helpful in the future.

As for outsiders to the Warehouse, Bronzing appears to be a much more common fate. Now, why Bronze? Why not simply kill them - that would be more humane, as Bronzing is longer than a life sentence. You basically live forever without ever aging, so it's beyond eternal suffering. But are most of the Bronzees really suffering? Yes, they are conscious the entire time, left alone to their thoughts and words, and what they might hear from other agents passing by. And chances are, if you allowed them to speak, they would either try to convince people to let them out or blather on about nothingness. After all, only a small handful might actually be useful to the Warehouse at some point.

It's a strange thing. Yes, Bronzing has been used as "rehabilitative punishment", but not very often. It is much easier to kill someone than to keep them alive forever (although granted, you don't have to care for them). But let's consider what would happen if some of these people were simply killed. They could be found, which might eventually connect to the Warehouse, or it might cause paradoxes which could again cause trouble. For example, Bonnie Parker. She was two people due to an artifact. Now regardless of how careful you are of disposing the body, there's always a chance of its discovery. And if the DNA was ever tested. . ..

Of course, that's not the case with every person, but I would imagine the deciding factor to Bronze is a mixture of possible usefulness (more applicable to Warehouse agents than civilians), paradoxes created, danger of killing (possibly created from artifacts being used; for example, if a person would explode if killed, then Bronzing is the only alternative to prevent their death), or other similar situations which killing is not considered a good way to be rid of the problem.

It's not a matter of whether or not they deserve to die for what they did, and I agree that the decision is not made by cold, emotionless robots. Anyone who kills a dozen people in one sitting, one can argue the whole day long about whether they should get the death penalty or life in prison. Sometimes it's a matter or principle, and other times it's a matter of whether they feel any remorse for what they've done. Eternal suffering is a punishment of massive proportions, as they will forever be alive to think whatever. But if they don't really care, then is it really a punishment?

In conclusion, I have no idea how much of this truly makes sense. I was kind-of just typing this out as I thought about it. But I think I explained not only why Agents might be Bronzed, but why others might be Bronzed.