Joseph Clarence

Did anyone feel sorry for him, yeah his misconduct resulted in deaths but he was not an evil man just a fool.

Let me ask you this… if your child or somebody you love went to an amusement park ,died in an accident involving the ride, and later you found out it could have been prevented if the owner had done annual maintenance on his rides instead of being a greedy bastard… Would you still feel sorry for him?

I would only feel sorry for him if i was also a coward going through a divorce for being an incompetent husband. If I was his wife or ex-wife I would also be pissed and demanding a divorce if our main asset was being occupied by drug-dealing gangsters. Just all the stupid decisions he’s made and continues to make throughout the mission really make it hard for me to genuinely feel bad for him.

1 Like

I felt sorry for him. But it’s more than that.

I think in a real assassin hiring situation, the client would be tested about alternatives. (“You don’t think you can sue Mr. Clarence now that his negligence is public?” [ie: Seek legal and lawful retaliation] ). Because the decision to kill someone in an assassin contract weighs heaviest on two people: the assassin (depending on experience and nerves) and the client (depending on conscience).

Things change sometimes once someone has made that decision or transferred that downpayment. Time may feel like it moves slowly. They may feel different because they are now part of a conspiracy to end another human life. Doubts may creep in. And those things are potential trouble for the assassin.

The client may fear the wrath of God and try to make amends by tipping off authorities.

But other than those thoughts I was getting paid to kill him and I knew it was just a video game… So… “Nothing personal, Joe. There is a photograph I want you to look at. You understand this will be the last thing you ever see.” :wink:

I don’t feel bad at all Clarence brought everything on himself and learnt absolutely nothing from his experience. His negligence killed 36 people and then deliberately subverted justice.

2 Likes

If you take bread that isn’t yours because you would be dead a minute later without food, are you really stealing or acting out of self-preservation?

If you kill ~30 people, mostly kids and teens because you are a lazy, greed prick who then denies any wrongdoing, subverts the law to get away with it and seems to want to do it all over again, does he deserve not do die because he appears to be sorry, is really pitiful and divorced? Does that question equate at all to the one you posed? Both answers are a sound no.

To answer your question I would try doing everything possible to feed myself in that minute before even thinking about stealing the bread. If I was caught I would plead guilty and spend the rest of my life having you people feed me for free.

1 Like

Clarence strikes me as someone who isn’t “on the level” of someone who should be running a safety-intensive operation.

There’s many reasons that could have led to a faulty ferris wheel at his amusement park. It ranges from greed as you mentioned, or simple incompetence, or even connivance by parties related to the construction of the ferris wheel.

But all of that points to varying degrees of being not “on the level”. Clarence could be too malicious for this business as you pointed out. Or he could have been too stupid or too trusting of low-cost contractors he brought in to make the ferris wheel.

Maybe he squeezed the ferris wheel constructor too hard and they cut corners without telling him? It happens. I once encountered a case where a multi-story building was actually erected with hollow pillars. The owner of the building was furious with the contractor that built it. And he took the blunt of the blame when the building failed safety inspections. But I knew it wasn’t his doing. Just saying it happens. That’s also a case of people being “not on it” or “not on the level”. They were outmaneuvered by others or by circumstances.

Clarence doesn’t strike me as someone who is passionate about mechanics to the point he could tell something was off in a personal inspection of the ferris wheel. And again he might have been too cheap or too dumb not to have good help to manage the project.

We also don’t know how long the ferris wheel has been running. Maybe it was a good ferris wheel but maintenance schedules were missed or ignored.

It’s a long chain between the day he decided to make a ferris wheel to 36 people dead.

And once it happens, depending on circumstances, one either evades justice because they’re really a bad egg, or they try to evade punishment because maybe they don’t think it’s all their fault. They want to minimize damage and hope to move on to make it to when their trend goes up again in the business.

What tipped you off? The runaway Ferris Wheel that killed over 30 people?

If he is simply incompetent then why did he face criminal negligence charges and if he is innocent then why did incriminating evidence “go missing”? Soup that isn’t what innocent people do!

It doesn’t matter if the Ferris wheel was poorly made at the factory if it did then the criminal charges would have been brought to the wheel’s builders but they weren’t so they must have been found to be not at fault. Plus it must have been inspected on factory and then given even more inspections at the Funland park. The lawsuit was sent to Clarence and his Funland and won because evidence went “missing”.

So Clarence owned it, it was on his property providing a charged service. Clarence was responsible for its upkeep, for its continued thorough inspections and removing or repairing it in the case that it was deemed unfit for use. He didn’t and he violated the law.

As the owner of the building he is entitled to making sure his building was built to code with proper inspection and involved with the construction process or at least delegated someone to do both. The fault stood to lie with both him and the construction company.

Unlike Clarence the man actually reported to a proper authority, Clarence didn’t. He weaselled his way out of court. Clarence is still a culpable because in that case the shoddy construction was his fault plus a Ferris Wheel would have been one of the first attractions built so it clearly would have had more than one inspection.

That is why there are inspectors. They found the wheel to be faulty and Clarence either did nothing or paid them off. With the latter being likely since a serious fault like that would be cause to shut down the park until repairs can be made.

Which again is the fault of Clarence. It is his job to make sure it gets regular maintenance and inspections. Clarence earned his nickname in the 80s but given he needed to have run the park for a while to earn the moniker I put it at the 70s roughly So that is around 30-20 years of criminal negligence.

Yes and he is at fault every step of the way it seems.

In case of the former, show me in the course of criminal history a case where an innocent person deliberately buried evidence at a class action lawsuit. Doesn’t have to be a be a negligence case or even one involving death.

For the latter then it doesn’t matter plenty of criminals of all severity and offences that say they are not at fault for their wrongdoing. Believe it or not Soup that doesn’t make what they did legal.

Then Clarence deserved to die for being so stupid as to think people would magically go to a park where 36 people died, had been slapped with a negligence charge and won on a mysterious technicality.

If Clarence was alright immediately turning his Funland into a drug lab and crack den to earn back money then he had zero problems bribing inspectors and burying evidence.

2 Likes
4 Likes

That is brilliant. The only thing I think should have happened was one last “Carol-Anne” after he was bludgeoned.

2 Likes

I think you need to review the details of the case. The BLOOD MONEY intros do not mention Criminal Negligence, only “Negligence”. The implication being that the Swing King was charged with Civil Negligence. Most property related hazards are tried as Civil Negligence. It takes a lot more proof to establish intent to cause hazard or danger for a case to be tried as Criminal Negligence. There is also Wrongful Death somewhere in between in the case of serious non-criminal Negligence.

The material also mentions that Clarence got off because a Safety Report went missing. The material isn’t detailed enough to explain which parties moved on Clarence’s behalf (or whether Clarence himself) had a hand in making this Safety Report disappear.

Another news article from the intro says Lawyers claimed “Southland Park was tragedy waiting to happen”. But the key piece of information that might have proven it, a single (or series?) of Safety Inspection Reports, went missing. Again, it makes a difference whether it’s one report or many.

It is true, whether out of malice or desperation, having these reports vanish is a bad move. But this action alone leaves many questions. Did Clarence directly instruct the destruction of these reports? When did this happen? The charges would be different if Clarence did it under the auspices of the hearing, or was destruction of reports habitually done in the course of his business (this could potentially prove Criminal Negligence). What if Clarence’s secretary was simply disorganized?

That said I didn’t exactly read all of Clarence’s profile so if “Criminal Negligence” is confirmed elsewhere then that’s my bad.

1 Like

I think I got criminal and civil negligence mixed up but my points all still stand. Clarence knew what he was doing and is culpable.

True but a lawyer just doesn’t suddenly make a report just vanish into thin air for kicks and he certainly didn’t make that sort of move without Clarence knowing it. This is a guy who was OK letting gangster torch his divorce lawyer and turning a kid’s park into a drug lab. That alone establishes his character as a lazy and greedy person with a lack of concern about consequences.

Yes and it still proves that I am right. That Clarence was incredibly negligent and overlooked inspection, recommendations and the status of his property. It doesn’t matter if it was one ride or three right now. But the great focus put on the Ferris Wheel means it was probably the sole ride being investigated at that point.

I say yes. He engaged in criminal actions after his lawsuit and I see no reason as to why he wouldn’t do them before the disaster.

Wild guess but I would say during the trial. But that is a hunch he might have slipped them through a wormhole so they arrived five years after.

Are you saying that in addition to owning child’s diversions, Joseph Clarence of Baltimore, Maryland was actually a fixer? Like I said I mixed up a Criminal and Civil Negligence case so this question can be discarded

Given that, if I recall, we kill her in that mission I say she was kinda busy during the events surrounding the trial. You know being dead and all.

1 Like

That is really one of the issues I always felt there were people we didn’t know around Clarence who were more worthy of vengeance.

Let’s start with the judge who seemed Ok with handing down a lop-sided decision on the basis of a missing safety report. In reality, the disappearance of the safety report, while being more helpful to Joseph’s case, is also not that helpful to his own lawyers. What will they claim? That the entire corporation forgot to ask for inspections (itself a negligent action)? That they lost these reports and forgot what was written on it?

It actually all seems flimsy, but I always felt the way the trial ended - in an Acquittal, not even a Settlement - implies the judge was as bad as anyone.

As for how the evidence was lost or destroyed. If Clarence says to his lawyer: “I just want this problem to go away!” and then his staff or his lawyer take it as a signal to arrange for fixers to act on his behalf. You can’t pin the destruction of evidence on Mr. Clarence.

The divorce lawyer situation. I recall there’s a part in the mission where Clarence pleads with his wife over the divorce saying: “I won’t sign the papers!” Which begs the question of why he needed the lawyer burned if he still felt empowered to just hold the papers without signing them. The aggressive action of murdering his wife’s hired counsel also doesn’t sound consistent with how he hoped to win her back by passively begging like a wimp.

My thoughts at the time was that Scoop was trying to just keep anyone from rousing up the public or Mr. Clarence because he needed the closed park for his drug lab, so he just eliminates the lawyer without care for the repercussions.

I thought there was a probability (not a certainty) that Clarence may be even unaware Rachel’s lawyer had already arrived.

I feel sorry for that Lawyer being tortured on the island

2 Likes

If we start playing the blame game then we wind up imitating one of those guilt allocation/morality tests.

I think that is IO’s fault for not knowing how the US Justice System works. Like in Nightmare on Elm Street when they let a child killer go free because of some missing signature or something like that.

Plus they could have bribed the judge to get the acquittal over stalling the proceedings, the game makes it very clear the trial costs Joe a lot of money so he probably didn’t want to both pay for more legal services. Plus if the judge ruled for a settlement then it is because Joe didn’t want to pay what little he had left to the families.

True. But Clarence still let a group of gangsters use his funpark as a place to cook and deal drugs. He had no qualm doing that for money so it only serves to highlight how greedy he is and how little he cares.

1 Like

Or how few his options were… .or that of IOI’s writers. :stuck_out_tongue:

Because you are right. Some of this falls on IOI’s writers for not being very thorough. It was entertaining, sure. But not really top-notch world-building.

Scoop was basically put into the map to make sure the touch of evil around the target was sufficient. They had this nice idea of making a wimpy, mentally challenged, contrite Target (a gag they would use again in Club 27 - is it a coincidence that Jordan Cross is another target that causes a lot of moral discussions?)

But it is a bit underwritten that is true.

1 Like

I do not think Clarence knew the lawyer was being tortured and about to be set on fire the gangsters had full reign of the park to do what they want.

I work for Mr Clarence’s Mr Swing King’s wife
All that Law school and now your just some cracker bitches errand boy and here I am about to light your ass on fire.

Possible. This was honestly one of the more underwritten parts of the mission as it’s not clear whether Clarence’s movements were now limited around the property where his power was now diminished by Scoop.

Awareness. Maybe. But Command and Complicity? If a man says “Tie the lawyer and set him on fire!”… why does he then change into saying “Please honey… I won’t sign the papers… boo hoo hoo”? Very weird.

I felt it was more believable that at most Clarence could see the lawyer being dragged away by Scoop, but being a prisoner in his own park he could do nothing. And then he just phones his lovely wife begging her not to go through with it.

1 Like

I think he was a weak man who let anyone walk all over him he usually stayed in the office or went down to the theatre.

1 Like

He could have walked away. But not he didn’t.

Course I am right.

I dunno the level felt linear for a tutorial, the African-Americans had a writing level reserved for minstrel shows and Clarence accidentally call an African-American “Spook” (I assume it was Scoops name before someone told them it was a racial epithet). Not very entertaining.

Mentally Challenged? Neither Clarence nor Cross are that mentally challenged. Cross has emotional issues sure but he still had some semblance of full control. The reason why we have less discussion on Cross is…

The game doesn’t try to add a level of ambiguity to it all. Jordan Cross killed Hannah, we see and hear him do it, Jordan’s mental issues are not good enough to justify any sense of innocence and we actually know he deliberately subverted justice. The actual Highmoore case and what it means when high profile people undermine justice is explored in greater detail than DoaS.

1 Like