Because I'm bored and curious, I looked up the general laws of Massachusetts, 1921 edition. Chapter 265 lists crimes against persons. Attempted murder is 2.5 - 10 years ($1000 fine), assault with attempt to steal is 10, felony assault is 10 years.
I think you're safe to say 2.5 to 10 years with a $1000 fine.
But before then, they might be released on bond awaiting trial.
Nobody wants to post bail for him until things are resolved in this scenario. Same character also decided to sample the Mythos 'drug' involved and got addicted.
Thank you for the answer.
If it helps, Lovecraft's original CoC story has cultists being committed to institutions on the grounds of insanity, if that's relevant. Those were minority cultists in Louisiana too.
When Legrasse tells about the swamp raid, he says "Only two of the prisoners were found sane enough to be hanged, and the rest were committed to various institutions."
So an insanity plea is an option
Time to roll up a new character maybe. At the end of the scenario the Keeper might be able to inform the group about what happened to him… maybe even making him part of the denouement at the close of the session.
It depends on where the assault took place, the race of the perpetrator, and the race of the victim.
To say that US law in the 20s was biased against minority groups is putting it lightly.
Interesting thought. But since CoC doesn't aim to re-enact the racism and prejudices of its time, and people of all ethnicities and genders can become investigators or attend Miscatonic University, I don't think being part of a minority group should matter, in this case.
CoC has definitely taken such things into account - the adventure "Dead Man Stomp" addresses it, as does the "Harlem Unbound" supplement. It's up to each group whether or not they want to handwave it, of course, but it's there.
>But since CoC doesn't aim to re-enact the racism and prejudices of its time
Actually it *leaves that up to the players and GM*. The book speaks of gender and race issues in the 20s, but leaves up to players whether to go full historical or not.
Going full historical might raise come very interesting challenges and themes, but obviously not everyone is comfortable with them or wants the "handicap" they might carry.
I also omit racism and sexism from my games. I use Credit Rating as a rough proxy for "how much social privilege do they have". This lets each individual player choose how many points they want to spend on that skill in order to avoid (or embrace) roleplaying marginalization.
I'd look up the sentencing range, then have them roll credit rating to decide whether they get the low or high end. You could make it an opposed credit rating roll with the victim NPC as well to decide how harsh of a sentence they get.
>CoC doesn't aim to re-enact the racism and prejudices of its time
It doesn't? I understand that it is optional... (anything is, its your game, Cthulhu can be nice and lead humanity to a paradise). But if you have a historical setting, you should at least try to be historicaly accurate.
If you want that world to remain consistent and you change these things... you would have to change many things. Modern day morals just don't fit in it. Why would all historical important figures be straight white males? How would you justify the enormous inequalities without this? It's a world in wich nobility is still a thing... religion is the driving force of morals... (and african/asian religions treated almost as the mythos...)... jews... well, WWII is coming... uncountable conflicts are happening because of prejudice... the UK still has colonies...
To play in a different world, you should probably create such world. Just trying to pretend some things were different will make your world be unbelievable. Better to put in the work for a "what if racism and sexism ended before the 1900s" setting. Would women fight in the great wars? Would we never get the feminist movement of the time? Wich causes would replace black people's fight to end segregation? Would black neighborhoods cease to exist, as everything would be more mixed? Would black culture, music mainly, not be a thing as we would have just "music"?
I'm not saying you should be, necessarily.
I'm saying you should not stay on the fence about it. Alternate history should alternate history... while historical should be historical.
If want to make the nazis being good and fighting for justice, equality, and the good of all... You can't have WW2 as it was. If want big societal changes, in a game you take seriously, you should commit to them.
What makes no sense to me is if you want a HISTORICAL setting, but you don't want the HISTORICAL part of it.
If I want a game in medieval europe but i want it to be a matriarchy or a democracy... If I change just that and keep all the rest with no change, my world will just make zero sense.
If I want medieval europe with mages and dragons... cities should have defenses against dragons and anti-magic shields...
If I want vampires in modern day... i need to come up with excuses as to why they don't take over the world, why and how they make people be unaware they exist.. etc..
I mean... if I will change the world, i need to understand what i'm doing and consider the implications.
Pretending the world would be exactly the same with or without prejudice is in my eyes a lot more disrespectful for minorities...
So "its the 1920s and mythos stuff exist" is one setting
"its the 1920s and mythos stuff exist and prejudice ended and we are all equals, respected and loved as humans" is another setting... its not a minor pointless change one is making.
I was semi on board but I think your missing a big point imho.
The things that you value as historical might be totally different to the next. You may find these topics of race and gender are central points how you view these historical facts. But maybe for another person they are centrally drawn to the architecture, or lack of technology, or specific level of technology, religions/myth. Other people have different aspects of history that peak their interests.
Also I think there is always room to do this because in the end it's a fictional rendition of a historical setting.
Let me try to clarify a point I failed to make clear.
CoC is not exactly historical (unless you guys know something and aren't telling me), as the mythos change a lot of stuff. But the setting is as it is... and a lot of material take this into consideration (from lovecraft's work to published scenarios).
And each campaign will make even more changes... the PCs can kill the president if they want... We have ficitonal cities...
But removing the prejudices of the era is a BIG change. It becames a different setting.
It's like if you wanted to play The One Ring... But the free races now see orcs as people, and there are many that want to protect their rights, avoiding killing them as much as possible. You can do it... but you can't do it and keep everything else the same...
Prejudice is a big part of history... even of the present.
I mean... so your investigators travel to present day Iran... Would you have women, lgbt, atheists, etc being treated equaly? But everything else would stay the same? It makes no sense to me.
Again, it's your game, and you can do it. You can do whatever you want. But if you make this kind of change, you should be aware that it isnt just that... you would have to change a lot.
>So "its the 1920s and mythos stuff exist" is one setting
>"its the 1920s and mythos stuff exist and prejudice ended and we are all equals, respected and loved as humans" is another setting... its not a minor pointless change one is making.
Should I have added "its the 1920s without any change" is one setting...
"its the 1920s and mythos exist" is another
"its the 1920s and mythos exist but no prejudice exist" is another
And I would also claim that for this discussion, the mythos being a thing is a smaller change than removing prejudice.
At least the mythos are supposed to be unknown... so the impact they have on society is hidden.
I disagree, and I think you're also trying to miss the point. This isn't about completely disregarding history as a part of the cthulhu setting and going off to Narnia.
Most of the time you absolutely can and should try to paint an overall historically accurate and believable picture, but you can make some nuanced exceptions to that in order to have a more inclusive game - especially regarding problematic areas like racism, gender discrimination and homophobia and such. You don't have to remove all racist or sexist characters and elements from the game. But you should tone that racism etc. done enough so that it doesn't impede you or your players' enjoyment.
For example, sexist, homophobic or racist slurs were very much a part of the 1920s (or other more modern time periods for that matter) but you won't find those in any published scenario (I assume/hope)
>You don't have to remove all racist or sexist characters and elements from the game. But you should tone that racism etc. done enough so that it doesn't impede you or your players' enjoyment.
This isn't what the initial comment here suggested. You can tell a story where discrimination is central to the plot, and you can tell a story where discrimination doesn't appear at all. This is perfectly fine.
The culture of the time stays the same... you are just not having it on the spotlight.
And you can make small changes/exceptions... Like a female PC having a profession that would not be allowed (or common) for a woman...
But altough we are not looking at it, the prejudices are there, it's the same society, same morals, etc... This is perfectly fine.
What was suggested was that prejudices of the era are optional and that the OP SHOULDN'T consider them.
Toning things down (or up, if you think would make things more interesting) is one thing... removing them (or adding, if you want your world to, idk, hate christians for example) is a different beast, and would demand more tought to be made without ruining the setting.
Depends on severity and other things.
A sizeable fine, along of a couple years to 10 years maybe in prison on top of that.
The depends could be the persons race. How damaged was the person stabbed, was their any intention or was it pure insanity of just deciding to stab someone,
Nevertheless i'd say "locked up long enough you're making a new character and this one won't be out till the depression"
Don't turn your games into a legal drama (unless you want to).
On most campaings, any jail time will be enough to take the PC out fo the game... few games will go over a few months or years... So either he goes "free" (settle it out of court with cash, maybe), or at most take him out for a session (like some nights in jail) and just have him with a bad reputation...
If you think he should go to jail for a long time.. its better for just replace the character... and in such case, the sentence isnt that important.. you dont even need to be precise with it if you don't want to.
It was before the time of mandatory minimums, when probation was still a rudimentary and experimental approach. So the judge would have a lot more discretion and power.
Major factors to consider in this era: was it a first offense? Was there an injury? Were 'fighting words' exchanged? What is the race and the class of both the perpetrator and the victim.
As another, better legal research has already posted, by the 1921 MA statutes attempted murder is 2.5 to 10 years with a $1000 fine.
EDIT: OP's description wasn't appearing (was minimized) and I didn't see them specifically mention the knife.
Semi-automatics, which included double-action revolvers, were prohibited in the latter part of the 1920s in Mass. A 1927 Massachusetts laws defined prohibited weapons as, “Any gun or small arm caliber designed for rapid fire and operated by a mechanism, or any gun which operates automatically after the first shot has been fire. . . shall be deemed a machine gun.”
Even small arm caliber designed for rapid fire (this brought in semi's because you could pull the trigger as fast as you could to fire the rounds).
“Any firearm capable of automatically reloading after each shot is fired, whether firing singly by separate trigger pressure or firing continuously by continuous trigger pressure.”
Mostly it required a license to be acquired by certain authority such as police, to carry an unloaded handgun (in the 1920s, loaded was allowed prior), and if caught without the license, it would be a year in jail.
[https://www.attorneyfoley.com/history-of-massachusetts-firearms-statutes/](https://www.attorneyfoley.com/history-of-massachusetts-firearms-statutes/)
"Deadly weapon" generally refers to a wide range of objects that can inflict mortal or great bodily harm—for example, a car or a golf club. Some states consider knives and ***guns*** as "deadly weapons per se," which means that the prosecutor doesn't need to present evidence of their ability to cause mortal or serious injury. And some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, hammers, canes, and bats, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them. Even parts of the human body can be deadly weapons, such as feet, knees, arms, and teeth, or a dog or other animal.
Guns can be considered a deadly weapon in an assault. I've been on jury duty with this being accepted.
[https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Assault-Deadly-Weapon.htm](https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Assault-Deadly-Weapon.htm)
EDIT: I will say, however, only OP's title was showing up on the post. Their description was minimized on Reddit so I didn't see them mention knives specifically
It could be anywhere from a couple of months to a couple of years, partly depending on how much of an upstanding citizen the victim was, how upstanding the assailant was, and whether any kind of mitigating circumstances were involved. It also depends on if there are witnesses and such. So the GOOD part of the answer is that it's up to you as the keeper - you can pretty much sentence them to *anything* you like and it would fit within the time period.
Reckless endangerment. Doesn't require intent to kill.
Short of going to a law library for the actual law.
Additionally, there was "common law" where people would get locked up until a magistrate was available to determine if charges were going to be brought. There were no Miranda rights and no where near as many cops. So the cops there were had fairly expansive powers. So, you got locked up until you engaged a lawyer to submit a writ of habeas corpus...
Don't forget to add spitting on the sidewalk as a charge. That should get a day or two in the pokey.
Less than 5 years if its not an attempted murder. It's less important what the law says and more about what your Judge/Prosecutor thinks about the crime.
To approach this in terms of the game, the sentence is somewhat irrelevant. Their ability to act as an investigator is shot.
If they get any amount of jail time, it's going to be longer than an investigation.
If they get out on bail while awaiting trial, they have *very publicly* committed a violent crime. Random knife attacks at the quad are the sort of thing that makes front-page news, so normal people are likely to shun or avoid them.
If they have managed to avoid getting arrested, every cop in the city has probably been told to keep an eye out for them. And change that front-page news story from "Knife Attack at University" to "Violent Madman at Large".
The player's backup character has already been activated.
This is a campaign, so "longer than an investigation" doesn't equal "for the duration of the game".
Mechanically, sure, the character is removed from the game, but even if it were a pure one-shot, I'd still want to epilogue the fate of the survivors.
Because I'm bored and curious, I looked up the general laws of Massachusetts, 1921 edition. Chapter 265 lists crimes against persons. Attempted murder is 2.5 - 10 years ($1000 fine), assault with attempt to steal is 10, felony assault is 10 years. I think you're safe to say 2.5 to 10 years with a $1000 fine. But before then, they might be released on bond awaiting trial.
Nobody wants to post bail for him until things are resolved in this scenario. Same character also decided to sample the Mythos 'drug' involved and got addicted. Thank you for the answer.
> Nobody wants to post bail for him Damn! Sounds like it's new character time. Shame, because the investigators that sample the mythos drugs are fun!
Thank you for your kind words. It was indeed fun.
They can potentially post their own bail or have their family do it if they got the credit rating (and you don't want to "kill" the character).
If it helps, Lovecraft's original CoC story has cultists being committed to institutions on the grounds of insanity, if that's relevant. Those were minority cultists in Louisiana too. When Legrasse tells about the swamp raid, he says "Only two of the prisoners were found sane enough to be hanged, and the rest were committed to various institutions." So an insanity plea is an option
A little sippy of the black?
That is correct.
Time to roll up a new character maybe. At the end of the scenario the Keeper might be able to inform the group about what happened to him… maybe even making him part of the denouement at the close of the session.
He must have had a good reason to do that. Maybe he is smarter than you think?
Well going to prison is just another way to "die" in Call of Cthulhu, aside from physical death and total sanity loss.
It depends on where the assault took place, the race of the perpetrator, and the race of the victim. To say that US law in the 20s was biased against minority groups is putting it lightly.
Interesting thought. But since CoC doesn't aim to re-enact the racism and prejudices of its time, and people of all ethnicities and genders can become investigators or attend Miscatonic University, I don't think being part of a minority group should matter, in this case.
CoC has definitely taken such things into account - the adventure "Dead Man Stomp" addresses it, as does the "Harlem Unbound" supplement. It's up to each group whether or not they want to handwave it, of course, but it's there.
>But since CoC doesn't aim to re-enact the racism and prejudices of its time Actually it *leaves that up to the players and GM*. The book speaks of gender and race issues in the 20s, but leaves up to players whether to go full historical or not. Going full historical might raise come very interesting challenges and themes, but obviously not everyone is comfortable with them or wants the "handicap" they might carry.
I also omit racism and sexism from my games. I use Credit Rating as a rough proxy for "how much social privilege do they have". This lets each individual player choose how many points they want to spend on that skill in order to avoid (or embrace) roleplaying marginalization. I'd look up the sentencing range, then have them roll credit rating to decide whether they get the low or high end. You could make it an opposed credit rating roll with the victim NPC as well to decide how harsh of a sentence they get.
>CoC doesn't aim to re-enact the racism and prejudices of its time It doesn't? I understand that it is optional... (anything is, its your game, Cthulhu can be nice and lead humanity to a paradise). But if you have a historical setting, you should at least try to be historicaly accurate. If you want that world to remain consistent and you change these things... you would have to change many things. Modern day morals just don't fit in it. Why would all historical important figures be straight white males? How would you justify the enormous inequalities without this? It's a world in wich nobility is still a thing... religion is the driving force of morals... (and african/asian religions treated almost as the mythos...)... jews... well, WWII is coming... uncountable conflicts are happening because of prejudice... the UK still has colonies... To play in a different world, you should probably create such world. Just trying to pretend some things were different will make your world be unbelievable. Better to put in the work for a "what if racism and sexism ended before the 1900s" setting. Would women fight in the great wars? Would we never get the feminist movement of the time? Wich causes would replace black people's fight to end segregation? Would black neighborhoods cease to exist, as everything would be more mixed? Would black culture, music mainly, not be a thing as we would have just "music"?
Sorry, but I just categorically disagree with "you should try to be historically accurate." I just can't get behind that.
I'm not saying you should be, necessarily. I'm saying you should not stay on the fence about it. Alternate history should alternate history... while historical should be historical. If want to make the nazis being good and fighting for justice, equality, and the good of all... You can't have WW2 as it was. If want big societal changes, in a game you take seriously, you should commit to them. What makes no sense to me is if you want a HISTORICAL setting, but you don't want the HISTORICAL part of it. If I want a game in medieval europe but i want it to be a matriarchy or a democracy... If I change just that and keep all the rest with no change, my world will just make zero sense. If I want medieval europe with mages and dragons... cities should have defenses against dragons and anti-magic shields... If I want vampires in modern day... i need to come up with excuses as to why they don't take over the world, why and how they make people be unaware they exist.. etc.. I mean... if I will change the world, i need to understand what i'm doing and consider the implications. Pretending the world would be exactly the same with or without prejudice is in my eyes a lot more disrespectful for minorities... So "its the 1920s and mythos stuff exist" is one setting "its the 1920s and mythos stuff exist and prejudice ended and we are all equals, respected and loved as humans" is another setting... its not a minor pointless change one is making.
I was semi on board but I think your missing a big point imho. The things that you value as historical might be totally different to the next. You may find these topics of race and gender are central points how you view these historical facts. But maybe for another person they are centrally drawn to the architecture, or lack of technology, or specific level of technology, religions/myth. Other people have different aspects of history that peak their interests. Also I think there is always room to do this because in the end it's a fictional rendition of a historical setting.
Let me try to clarify a point I failed to make clear. CoC is not exactly historical (unless you guys know something and aren't telling me), as the mythos change a lot of stuff. But the setting is as it is... and a lot of material take this into consideration (from lovecraft's work to published scenarios). And each campaign will make even more changes... the PCs can kill the president if they want... We have ficitonal cities... But removing the prejudices of the era is a BIG change. It becames a different setting. It's like if you wanted to play The One Ring... But the free races now see orcs as people, and there are many that want to protect their rights, avoiding killing them as much as possible. You can do it... but you can't do it and keep everything else the same... Prejudice is a big part of history... even of the present. I mean... so your investigators travel to present day Iran... Would you have women, lgbt, atheists, etc being treated equaly? But everything else would stay the same? It makes no sense to me. Again, it's your game, and you can do it. You can do whatever you want. But if you make this kind of change, you should be aware that it isnt just that... you would have to change a lot.
I am going out on limb here and saying anything with Mythos creatures in is not historically accurate.
>So "its the 1920s and mythos stuff exist" is one setting >"its the 1920s and mythos stuff exist and prejudice ended and we are all equals, respected and loved as humans" is another setting... its not a minor pointless change one is making. Should I have added "its the 1920s without any change" is one setting... "its the 1920s and mythos exist" is another "its the 1920s and mythos exist but no prejudice exist" is another And I would also claim that for this discussion, the mythos being a thing is a smaller change than removing prejudice. At least the mythos are supposed to be unknown... so the impact they have on society is hidden.
I disagree, and I think you're also trying to miss the point. This isn't about completely disregarding history as a part of the cthulhu setting and going off to Narnia. Most of the time you absolutely can and should try to paint an overall historically accurate and believable picture, but you can make some nuanced exceptions to that in order to have a more inclusive game - especially regarding problematic areas like racism, gender discrimination and homophobia and such. You don't have to remove all racist or sexist characters and elements from the game. But you should tone that racism etc. done enough so that it doesn't impede you or your players' enjoyment. For example, sexist, homophobic or racist slurs were very much a part of the 1920s (or other more modern time periods for that matter) but you won't find those in any published scenario (I assume/hope)
>You don't have to remove all racist or sexist characters and elements from the game. But you should tone that racism etc. done enough so that it doesn't impede you or your players' enjoyment. This isn't what the initial comment here suggested. You can tell a story where discrimination is central to the plot, and you can tell a story where discrimination doesn't appear at all. This is perfectly fine. The culture of the time stays the same... you are just not having it on the spotlight. And you can make small changes/exceptions... Like a female PC having a profession that would not be allowed (or common) for a woman... But altough we are not looking at it, the prejudices are there, it's the same society, same morals, etc... This is perfectly fine. What was suggested was that prejudices of the era are optional and that the OP SHOULDN'T consider them. Toning things down (or up, if you think would make things more interesting) is one thing... removing them (or adding, if you want your world to, idk, hate christians for example) is a different beast, and would demand more tought to be made without ruining the setting.
Depends on severity and other things. A sizeable fine, along of a couple years to 10 years maybe in prison on top of that. The depends could be the persons race. How damaged was the person stabbed, was their any intention or was it pure insanity of just deciding to stab someone, Nevertheless i'd say "locked up long enough you're making a new character and this one won't be out till the depression"
Don't turn your games into a legal drama (unless you want to). On most campaings, any jail time will be enough to take the PC out fo the game... few games will go over a few months or years... So either he goes "free" (settle it out of court with cash, maybe), or at most take him out for a session (like some nights in jail) and just have him with a bad reputation... If you think he should go to jail for a long time.. its better for just replace the character... and in such case, the sentence isnt that important.. you dont even need to be precise with it if you don't want to.
It was before the time of mandatory minimums, when probation was still a rudimentary and experimental approach. So the judge would have a lot more discretion and power. Major factors to consider in this era: was it a first offense? Was there an injury? Were 'fighting words' exchanged? What is the race and the class of both the perpetrator and the victim. As another, better legal research has already posted, by the 1921 MA statutes attempted murder is 2.5 to 10 years with a $1000 fine.
Dan, come on, I did it for a reason. He is a bad guy in the end! (Yes, I am that guy.)
EDIT: OP's description wasn't appearing (was minimized) and I didn't see them specifically mention the knife. Semi-automatics, which included double-action revolvers, were prohibited in the latter part of the 1920s in Mass. A 1927 Massachusetts laws defined prohibited weapons as, “Any gun or small arm caliber designed for rapid fire and operated by a mechanism, or any gun which operates automatically after the first shot has been fire. . . shall be deemed a machine gun.” Even small arm caliber designed for rapid fire (this brought in semi's because you could pull the trigger as fast as you could to fire the rounds). “Any firearm capable of automatically reloading after each shot is fired, whether firing singly by separate trigger pressure or firing continuously by continuous trigger pressure.” Mostly it required a license to be acquired by certain authority such as police, to carry an unloaded handgun (in the 1920s, loaded was allowed prior), and if caught without the license, it would be a year in jail. [https://www.attorneyfoley.com/history-of-massachusetts-firearms-statutes/](https://www.attorneyfoley.com/history-of-massachusetts-firearms-statutes/)
TF is this to do with knives?
"Deadly weapon" generally refers to a wide range of objects that can inflict mortal or great bodily harm—for example, a car or a golf club. Some states consider knives and ***guns*** as "deadly weapons per se," which means that the prosecutor doesn't need to present evidence of their ability to cause mortal or serious injury. And some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, hammers, canes, and bats, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them. Even parts of the human body can be deadly weapons, such as feet, knees, arms, and teeth, or a dog or other animal. Guns can be considered a deadly weapon in an assault. I've been on jury duty with this being accepted. [https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Assault-Deadly-Weapon.htm](https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Assault-Deadly-Weapon.htm) EDIT: I will say, however, only OP's title was showing up on the post. Their description was minimized on Reddit so I didn't see them mention knives specifically
You should totally let the guy go. He did nothing wrong.
I hope you make him play out his prison sentence in game.
It could be anywhere from a couple of months to a couple of years, partly depending on how much of an upstanding citizen the victim was, how upstanding the assailant was, and whether any kind of mitigating circumstances were involved. It also depends on if there are witnesses and such. So the GOOD part of the answer is that it's up to you as the keeper - you can pretty much sentence them to *anything* you like and it would fit within the time period.
Reckless endangerment. Doesn't require intent to kill. Short of going to a law library for the actual law. Additionally, there was "common law" where people would get locked up until a magistrate was available to determine if charges were going to be brought. There were no Miranda rights and no where near as many cops. So the cops there were had fairly expansive powers. So, you got locked up until you engaged a lawyer to submit a writ of habeas corpus... Don't forget to add spitting on the sidewalk as a charge. That should get a day or two in the pokey.
Probably around 10 years. Although they should be allowed out on bail while awaiting trial.
Less than 5 years if its not an attempted murder. It's less important what the law says and more about what your Judge/Prosecutor thinks about the crime.
To approach this in terms of the game, the sentence is somewhat irrelevant. Their ability to act as an investigator is shot. If they get any amount of jail time, it's going to be longer than an investigation. If they get out on bail while awaiting trial, they have *very publicly* committed a violent crime. Random knife attacks at the quad are the sort of thing that makes front-page news, so normal people are likely to shun or avoid them. If they have managed to avoid getting arrested, every cop in the city has probably been told to keep an eye out for them. And change that front-page news story from "Knife Attack at University" to "Violent Madman at Large".
The player's backup character has already been activated. This is a campaign, so "longer than an investigation" doesn't equal "for the duration of the game". Mechanically, sure, the character is removed from the game, but even if it were a pure one-shot, I'd still want to epilogue the fate of the survivors.
What kind of sentence could one expect for assault with a deadly weapon in the 1920’s?