The boys could have scammed the money and kept her in a non-time locked cage until the time locked cage was ready. And the boys have the resources to find someone like that.

And the decision was made pretty damn quickly. The cage was even mentioned and dismissed in one sentence. Are you saying that it was reasonable not even to consider the alternative? Maybe it still would have been the ultimate decision, but it does not seem like they were (as someone said upthread) doing due diligence.

The boys could have scammed the money and kept her in a non-time locked cage until the time locked cage was ready

Because they have a history of staying in one place and rehabbing monsters? John believed that Dean would kill Sam, remember. Obviously saving monsters is a radical shift in their mindset.

Not that it's their choice, it's hers. And I don't fault her for a second for making the drastic choice, instead of one it's harder to be sure of. Remember, Oz got out of his cage, and he had a team of evil fighters living right there.

Are you saying that it was reasonable not even to consider the alternative?

But you just said it was considered. It wasn't chosen, but it came up. Did they need to try it before she could choose not to do it? Is there a minimum length of time that has to be satisfied before she can choose something else?

it does not seem like they were (as someone said upthread) doing due diligence.

When did "due diligence" become "find alternatives for monsters" instead of "hunting things"? The family business wasn't babysitting.

Remember how Sam wanted to be killed instead of being a monster? Why can't Madison make the same decision?

I wonder if we'll see her again next season? I hope Show doesn't waste the opportunity to have some great guest stars return given the opportunity.

I'm the flip side. I hope we don't spend much time in purgatory, and if we do, everything is unrecognisable.

This is not because of the story I just started where they bump into Gordon, precisely. It just struck me that the mythos is kinda murky (maybe I'm not getting fiction these days...dunno). I mean, having *Gordon* himself in purgatory seems unfair. Madison wildly more so. Did they just stop being worthy of judgement to Heaven or Hell because they got dinged by another monster?

I preferred how I thought of the Jossverse, where the vampires at least kill the person, and then it's another being in the shell. Obviously his werewolves have continuity, but I don't know where they go when they die. I don't want Oz in purgatory, though.

Because they have a history of staying in one place and rehabbing monsters? John believed that Dean would kill Sam, remember. Obviously saving monsters is a radical shift in their mindset.

But they saved Lenore. And staying on one place for a few weeks to save someone is not in their oveure? Also, Madison seemed totally OK with being saved as long as it seemed that she would not kill anyone else. I think she was taking Dean's word for it that a cage would not work. If they had seriously considered the cage alternative and Madison had still said no, that would have been her *informed* choice. Just listing among impractical alternatives seems to be taking advantage of Madison's faith in their expertise.

Also, ITA with ita ! that I hope they spend little time in purgatory. Mainly because I think the storytelling is mostly better when the boys are together.

While I was initially excited over the idea of Dean and Cas running into old foes in P-town, I kind of like old finished storylines to remain finished.

Also, unless Sam joins them there, the P-town scenes can't last long. Dean and Sam have never been physically separated for more than an episode (if I remember right). Sometimes not even a full episode when they enact their seasonal breakup.

Unless, upon escaping, they bring a past character with them, hmmm . . . fic, methinks.

And staying on one place for a few weeks to save someone is not in their oveure?

In order to put in place an infrastructure to prevent a monster they had just hunted but are leaving alive from killing again? Yes. Do you have a contradictory citation?

That would be them taking on a pretty clear responsibility for someone in an untested scenario with only evidence to support that she is a danger. They're hunters. They're killers. They routinely slay demon hosts instead of taking the time or extra effort or risk to exorcise them.

If they had seriously considered the cage alternative and Madison had still said no

But it's just a reading that it wasn't "seriously considered". It's also possible to read the exact same text as her having seriously considered it, so I'm not sure why you're blaming the text for a shortcoming that's neither explicit nor implicit. You're setting a personal bar for "seriously" and not even sharing what it is as part of your argument.

Madison seemed totally OK with being saved as long as it seemed that she would not kill anyone else

She seemed okay with being cured.

You're taking a lot of agency out of Madison's hands here. Why is she not informed? Because she decided not to investigate the option of locking herself up once a month to this arbitrary degree?

If she decided she couldn't live with the pain of having murdered her boss and her ex-boyfriend and the remotest chance the monster within her could take control and kill someone else, even someone she doesn't know, is that an uninformed decision? Because the text supports that just as much as your position. I'd even argue it supports it more, since she said "I can't live like this." It seems clear to me that her state was causing her distress. Which she chose to end, with the only means she felt she had to hand.

It was mentioned and dimissed with other possiblities in a *single sentence*. If instead of dismissing it, Dean had offered it as an alternative, don't you think she might have considered it.

It was mentioned and dimissed with other possiblities in a *single sentence*

No, it wasn't. It got a whole sentence all to itself. Does that mean it passes the bar for seriously considered?

I think you're underestimating the impact that being a murdering monster, even one that doesn't kill again, is supposed to have to a character.

It's repeatedly posed throughout the series as a horrible thing, something that Sam would rather die than be. Now, there's a scenario where containment was not considered, seriously or otherwise.

For a show that consistently presents monsterhood as a fate worse than death, why is choosing the death instead of werewolf cake uninformed, dismissive, or unconscionable? Is it the current American societal prejudice as suicide being worse than any other option, ever?

Even before you come to the risk of killing again, there's a) being a monster and b) having killed already weighing on Madison. Removing a threat against innocents added to that? What's the uninformed angle again? Remember, she's living this. It's not a thought experiment for her.