Supervillains and the death penalty

[Dominique]

OK, another thread here got me thinking about this. When would a supervillain rate the death penalty in your campaingn? What crimes would he be charged with? Who would be tasked with conducting the action execution? I know how it would be handled in the real world, but what about in your campaign?

[Chuckg]

In my game, supervillains who are facing the death penalty if they're ever caught are guys up there on the truly infamous and/or sick scale, like Doctor Destroyer, Eurostar, etc.

[OddHat]

Any crime that would earn you the death penalty in the real world will earn you the death penalty in my campaigns. Any Super criminal that can be controlled (or that the government thinks can be controlled) can likely plea bargain his way into government service.

Supers in my campaigns don't follow an absolute code v kiling, but it's generally understood that both other Supers, the courts and the cops are much more gentle with Super criminals who don't use deadly force.

[csyphrett]

Very rarely have I had players who have let villains get to trial much less prison. But in those cases when things went to court, death penality cases were the same as the real world.

CES

[Mutant for Hire]

Certainly I'd agree that the death penalty should not be unnecessarily withheld or suspended in a superhero world. However that generally happens outside of the purview of what superheroes deal with.

A more interesting case is when it is acceptable for superheroes to use lethal force against a supervillain. Bear in mind that for conventional law enforcement officers, that they are allowed under certain circumstances to use lethal force.

Bear in mind yes, in the Silver Age, there were strong codes versus killing, but the question is how often did the supervillains go around murdering people back then either?

[Iuz the Evil]

Barring some sort of (extremely rare) psychological limitation of the 'casual killer' or 'no regard for human life' sort, I'd expect heroes in my campaigns to at a minimum have a 0 point 'reluctant to kill'. Lethal force for superheroes is rare (as in, it doesn't happen even every other session... probably no more often than once per 1-2 campaign years), and requires pretty significant extenuating circumstances of the sort that no other option was avaliable.

Supervillains are as susceptible to capital punishment as any other group of individuals in my campaigns. And just as IRL, capital punishment isn't handed out for 'armed robbery' or 'vandalism'... try 'murder with special circumstances' before I'm likely to go there. Also, things like wealthy villains hiring attorneys can influence outcomes (getting lifetime imprisonment rather than death for instance).

I've executed one supervillain I can recall, that being Scorpia of Terror Inc. for her murder of a federal agent (Foresight). Her clone took her place several months later, and the players were fine with that (after all, Scorpia was dead... the clone was a new being who just happened to have her appearance and abilities).

[MisterBaldy]

Any crime that would earn you the death penalty in the real world will earn you the death penalty in my campaigns. Any Super criminal that can be controlled (or that the government thinks can be controlled) can likely plea bargain his way into government service.

I would agree with OddHat here. The same laws that apply to the "normal citizenry" apply to the "superpowered realm" as well. It makes perfect sense.

Why would there be a seperate set of statuates for superpowered people, as far as the death penalty is concerned.

The death penalty can also make some interesting situations, especially where supers are concerned. How about something to the the effect of...The evil Doctor Chu is being given the death penalty for his crimes, and when they pull the switch and turn on the juice for the electric chair, Doctor Chu gains extremely colossal electricity-based superpowers...and drives him even further to insanity.

[Kirby]

While not deeply thought out, supervillains would get the death penalty for the same reasons as normals; however, the difficulty lies in dealing the penalty. Supervillains are generally transported to Stronghold for indefinite holding. Generally, the 'vote' has been decided that as long as Stronghold can hold a villain, the death penalty shouldn't proceed; they just have life in prison. This is very much of a deep background issue.

[Dominique]

OK, let me throw a little kink into this. How about an alien invader, or someone from another dimension? They have declared war and invade. After laying waste to several major cities, your heroes defeat and capture several of them. The public's screaming for blood, what do you do?

[Chuckg]

The only circumstance under which I would kill those aliens is if I had already decided to fight a genocidal war of extinction against their entire species -- i.e., if I'm up against Xenovores, or Zerg, or Tyranid, or one of the other "bug races" that simply cannot be resolved in any fashion other than 'you eat them or they eat you'.

Because, you see, if I start whacking POWs captured in the opening shots of an interstellar war, a 'genocidal war of extinction' is exactly what I'm starting.

Edit -- well, I suppose I could hope for the interstellar community *merely* dealing with us like we dealt with the Barbary Pirates, but hey, that's not much of an improvement from Earth's POV.

There are reasons that wars have different rules than criminal justice systems, most of them based in pragmatism. And yes, you can have pragmatic reasons for /not/ killing.

[Marketeer]

In my campaigns, the issue of "appropriate sentencing for supercrime" is an ongoing background issue, right up there with sentencing for non-violent big-money offences (IE, how many years is $100 million in embezzlement worth?).

Characters and players fall into various camps, but use of dangerous superpowers usually ups the severity of any given sentence, on the grounds that it is analogous to the use of a lethal weapon or lethal force.

Even when the death penalty isn't involved, it's a LOT easier for someone to sue privately if a supercriminal injured him or her (or property) in the course of a crime.

As a result, in my worlds, there is a tendency towards less blatant supercrime, and more "I'm going to use my superpowers in unethical but not illegal ways" to make money.

[Kirby]

How about an alien invader, or someone from another dimension? They have declared war and invade.

They declared war. Death is an acceptable result for your enemies.

[Chuckg]

They declared war. Death is an acceptable result for your enemies.

In battle, yes. (And all except one of my characters -- the absolute total CvK saintlike semi-pacifist one -- would use lethal force in a war, especially with cities being nuked by the bad guys.)

But cold-blooded slaughter of POWs... no. That's not even excusable as an act of war. Not unless it really /is/ Xenovores.

[Dominique]

Let me stir the pot just a little bit more. How about this one. What about a super being that was acting as a state sponsored agent. Let’s just say the US had placed an embargo against Lower Slobovia, and as retaliation they sent their one and only superhero hero. Capt. Slobovia, to strike against the U.S.

Since the Capt. has no beef with the average Joe, he chooses to attack a US military installation, and will continue attacking government targets until all sanctions against his country are lifted.

During the course of battle, several US military personnel, and law enforcement officers are killed, before our heroes can subdue Slobovia. The DOJ asks for the death penalty, in what they clearly see as a case of international terrorism, and a blatant and un-provoked attack against federal law enforcement officials and US military personnel.

But, at his trial, Capt. Slobovia claims that he was a soldier captured on the battlefield engaged in an ongoing conflict. He states that the U.S. initiated the war by placing a series of illegal sanctions on his nation, and as a result people are starving to death, children go hungry, and medicine does not reach the sick.

How would you handle that one (and anyone that knows me knows that this is just the type of situation I'm good for throwing PCs into).

[Chuckg]

Well, going by the Geneva Conventions, the DOJ in your example have their legalities /all/ wrong.

In the scenario you posit, Captain Slobbovia:

a) was wearing a clearly identifiable uniform
b) was a member of a nation's military
c) attacked a legitimate military target
d) made reasonable efforts to avoid civilians and collateral damage

By no stretch of the law can he possibly be considered an 'illegal combatant' or a terrorist by the Rules of Land Warfare. Lower Slobbovia just declared war on the US, and he was the first strike. He's now a POW, and Lower Slobbovia's now a legitimate target for anything the US cares to throw at it short of nuclear weapons... as it just declared war on us, natch.

If Captain Slobbovia hadn't made d), then he'd be a war criminal -- but since you didn't say that he deliberately slaughtered noncombatants in your scenario, I presumed his innocence on that count. Edit -- actually, you specifically said that he has 'no beef with the average joe'.

You know, I can actually /respect/ Captain Slobbovia a little here... he's obeying both the letter and the spirit of the Rules of Land Warfare.

PS -- I can say that Lower Slobbovia is being enormously /stupid/ here, as declaring war on the US has brought about exactly the reaction they were trying to avoid -- i.e., the US will now bulldoze their current regime into nonexistence. What I can't say is that they broke the Geneva Conventions, as they didn't.