The Shrink Act Files

Name: Taylor, Howard H.

Department: Human Relations

Division: Research

Position: Analyst

Additional Notation: Promising candidate for associate’s program.  Served one (1) year in current position and nine (9) in the corporation altogether.  Special commendation for work on projects involving the ethical use of size-alteration devices on human beings.

 Report 1: Preliminary Findings

            As some or most of the subject matter covered in this report may lead to the revelation of information uncomfortable to the higher-ups of the Techilogic Corporation, please be aware that certain parts of it may be adapted or entirely omitted upon completion, both for my own protection and the protection of those giving personal accounts within.

            This project is of an exploratory nature and will primarily draw its resources from firsthand accounts over what I anticipate will be a span of time measuring at least a year.  These reports will mostly serve to provide a personalized view of the recently evolved phenomena of the Matter Reduction Device, or what is fondly referred to as Techilogic’s golden goose.

            In response to any who may question my pseudoscientific approach to this report: simply put, in all of the legal procedure that this national debate on the Matter Reduction Device has become, I deemed it worthwhile to remember the significance of the human condition to something as intimate as having one’s body size physically changed, often against one’s will.

            First, a little background on the device, or the MRD as it is called in shorthand, is in order.  As anyone in the practical research facilities of the corporation will tell, and usually with more than a little indignation, the title is something of a misnomer.  The device does indeed technically reduce objects in size, though the science behind it is not actually making matter itself smaller.  Nevertheless, for purposes of a layman’s understanding, the name will stand for this report.

            Given that the device doesn’t allow objects to be grown past their original size after being reduced, I suspect a similar function to allow objects to expand was once under consideration, for the potential benefits in combatting world hunger, but it was quickly scrapped for the obvious dangers it would pose to the public at large should the wrong parties get their hands on it for use as a weapon.  As it is, I have my suspicions that certain groups overseas have illegally acquired one or more MRDs for use as weapons, though fortunately, the intensive security procedures, registration, and tracking required to own and operate them have prevented any large-scale conflicts from arising.

            The device is useful on both organic and inorganic matter, including items such as clothing or food and even complex machinery like cell phones or computers, making it more feasible to shrink and transport those under legal tender of their assigned MRD.

            This report has become necessary now, of course, in light of the new legislation passed this spring known as the Reduction and Rehabilitation Act, also dubbed “The Shrink Act,” which put into action a system of size-changing reclamation as a means to resolve any conflicts ranging from personal wrongdoings to criminal activity.

            Techilogic has gone to great lengths to stay within legal limits and keep themselves and the public users safe.  The device has been available as a personal disciplinary method for nearly ten years now and has been in general public use for twenty.  The process for acquiring one has always been tightly stringent since it was introduced, but the exponentially increased attention has put these measures back into question.  As has been heavily covered in both the news and court proceedings, a sampling of which will be included in the notations of this report, the device only becomes available on certain targets after a lengthy process of interview and background checks, along with a laundry list of consequences for misuse.  Of course, as many would say, the limits for what might be considered “misuse” of the device is loose at best once the pre-requisites have been met, and the subject has been hotly debated for the better part of a decade.

            Judy Stevens, who it is rumored is planning on making her bid for a Senate seat in the near future, is of course the original face of this law, though it has since expanded across the nation and taken on a life of its own.  Interestingly, Ms. Stevens has no direct connection to Techilogic, though I suspect the corporation will be contributing heavily to her upcoming political campaign.  Her personal involvement instead came mostly from her family being involved in the very first “house arrest” style of rehabilitation under the umbrella of The Shrink Act.

            As more extensive notes on the case will be included as an addendum to this report, the account does not require elaboration here, but the story of twenty-one-year-old Scott Stevens, son to Ms. Stevens, has caused a massive uproar in the debate.  After nearly killing a woman while drunk driving and terminating her pregnancy, Mr. Stevens has been under house arrest at a maximum of twelve inches tall that can be modified at any time by anyone living in the house, with his mother fully in charge of his formal rehabilitation.  The courts are still out on projecting an end date for Mr. Stevens’ shrunken incarceration, but as he has, by all accounts of Techilogic and Mrs. Stevens, been making progress, there is likely no immediate end in sight for him.

            This first successful case has been the lynchpin in swaying the states still in committee on the matter.  As a result, we’ve seen an influx of similar laws across the nation, most of which were almost immediately passed in their respective states, and the twenty-two states remaining are primarily debating the specifics of the law rather than its validity.  The most prominent utilization of the law so far has been in the prosecution of criminal cases as a replacement for prison incarceration to offer a more balanced environment for rehabilitation and to save the taxpayers untold millions.

            This, of course, is no longer the only use for it.  The law is also applicable by any household where children are labeled as dependents, businesses where employees are under contract to comply, private schools where students have signed waivers, as well as a few other ancillary cases.

            Indeed, America has taken readily to Techilogic and Mrs. Stevens’ philosophy on alternatives to character healing that, supposedly, are only of the utmost benefit both to the shrunken subjects and to their handlers in developing better citizens, strengthening interpersonal relationships, and most importantly, in correcting wrongful behavior.

            Opponents of the MRD, of which there are many, have a variety of arguments in their repertoire, ranging from interpretations of civil rights of the shrunken subjects to the inherent moral obligations of those who must care for them.  Then there are a host of legal questions on responsibility and disciplinary rights that haven’t had to be addressed until size-changing became so widespread.

            A common argument as well for opponents of the device is the bringing up of what most households in America euphemize as “The Carly Incident.”  For clarification, this event, which took place thirty-five years ago this year, is well-known as the period when a teenage girl named Carly Arton kept her brother Jack Arton as her prisoner after he was inadvertently shrunken by exposure to a very specific chemical cocktail only briefly available on the market and followed by an electric catalyst.  His capture was only ended by the intervening of his cousin, who used a similar homemade mixture to reduce Ms. Arton down to the same height as her brother.

            Additional specifics need not be elaborated on here, as this well-documented account will also be attached to the report, but suffice it to say the heinous torture Mr. Arton sustained during his entrapment in his sister’s possession, which lasted very close to five complete years, has made for a difficult case for the Techilogic Corporation to bypass in its efforts to popularize the MRD, despite how long ago it took place, and indeed, taking place prior to the invention of the actual device.  Claims against Techilogic’s rationale generally focus on both the seemingly innocuous chemicals with which Mr. Arton was reduced in size to approximately three inches in height, as well as the abject cruelty Ms. Arton was able to inflict on her victim with total impunity.

            Generally, Techilogic’s response is quick to remind opponents that, as was later discovered, the combination of chemicals used to crudely reduce Mr. Arton and Ms. Arton down to size were not cleared for production in the particular commercial format in which they appeared, and the companies responsible have since been shut down, and as is obvious, there have been no other reported cases of “homemade” chemical tactics in reducing personal size.  I admit my own personal suspicions on the matter, but of course those records are sealed to all but the highest of Techilogic.

            As a defense against those who claim that there are criminal loopholes in use of the MRD, the corporation stands by its statement that the security of the device prevents any unauthorized person from taking possession of others, as was the case in the previously discussed account.  They say that without the chemicals available any longer, and the hardware of the MRD designed to shut down if tampered with to prevent foul play, that all risks are alleviated.  Again, I have my suspicions that Carly Arton is not the only person to have ever used size-alteration to commit such crimes, but is simply the one that Techilogic was unable to keep covered up due to the media firestorm it created over three decades ago.  I would be unsurprised, and frankly I suspect many would be as well, to discover that Techilogic is willing to do just about anything to defend its trillion-dollar image, including silencing stories they find unsavory.  Regardless of my predictions, though, there is no proof for such an idea.

            In response to the claim that Ms. Arton was able to so easily keep up her façade, Techilogic has a line of acclaimed psychologists and analysts from across two decades on record testifying to the absolute insanity gripping the young woman back then, and that her choices and personality when in control of a reduced person are not at all an accurate portrayal of when the MRD is used correctly for good.

            In essence, Techilogic claims that the MRD is conducive only to peaceable human interactions that will lead to effective rehabilitation and cooperation among shrunken subjects and their caretakers alike.

            In this report, I will endeavor to discover if Techilogic is right about that.