Jane's Superhumans

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

There are 12 people in a jury to minimise the risk of them being corrupted or dishonest. You want to replace this with just 2 telepaths?

 

Don't think 'jurors'. Think 'expert witnesses' -- like, oh, psychologists, or forensic scientists. How often is it that the 12 people on the jury have to make up their minds based on the testimony of *ONE* guy from the crime lab? So it all comes down to his honesty then, doesn't it? Hell, if you want something that's impossible to physically verify, try court psychologist testimony... you know, whether this guy is mentally competent to stand trial or not. Hoo lordy, talk about 'all in your head'...

 

So for a case this tense, yes, I think you can get buy with two -- the one for the prosecution, and the one for the defense. If the two of them are busy telling opposite stories, go get an 'independent' third, such as the 'forensic telepath' for some completely different jurisdiction.

 

You know, how they handle arguments over the scientific interpretation of hard-to-figure evidence today?

[Phil]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Don't think 'jurors'. Think 'expert witnesses' -- like' date=' oh, psychologists, or forensic scientists.[/quote']

 

At present, expert witness are brought in to provide their judgement on the interpretation of evidence, and there are strict rules on who, what and how. You cant, for example, have expert witnesses come in to declare that the defendant is displaying all the body language signs of a liar. (AFAIK based on my degree in English Law, which is v. largely the same as US law). Jurors are deemed competent to carry out that function themselves.

 

Although, to be honest, true telepathy would probably lead in time to the abolition of the adversarial system to a juridical system based entirely on telepathic judges. But in the short term, the adversarial system would be very uncomfortable about allowing these people in.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

> At present, expert witness are brought in to provide their

> judgement on the interpretation of evidence, and there

> are strict rules on who, what and how. You cant, for

> example, have expert witnesses come in to declare that

> the defendant is displaying all the body language signs of

> a liar. (AFAIK based on my degree in English Law, which

> is v. largely the same as US law). Jurors are deemed

> competent to carry out that function themselves.

 

I hardly think jurors would be deemed competent to read the witness' mind for themselves, or competent to examine the mental traces left there and interpret them for signs of mind control tampering, and distinguish between accidental and deliberate effects.

 

> Although, to be honest, true telepathy would probably

> lead in time to the abolition of the adversarial system to

> a juridical system based entirely on telepathic judges.

> But in the short term, the adversarial system would be

> very uncomfortable about allowing these people

> in.

 

The best bet would be, again, the CU default -- telepathy is to be treated as an invasive search (with a standard of 'probable cause' somewhat higher than normal searches).

 

This would also mean that anybody who /wanted/ to be mind-read -- to prove his innocence, for example -- could simply sign a consent form, bada-bing, bada-boom, and he's outta there. This would have an obvious benefit.

 

It wouldn't even need to be mandatory. Lord knows every genuinely innocent man facing conviction, or (God forbid) having already been convicted, would be /lining up/ for a chance to finally get the truth out.

[Kristopher]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

I don't see any reason to eliminate the adversarial system, with juries, simply because a new means of gathering evidence becomes available. As a defendent, having your own advocate becomes more important as the state gains more tools to use against you.

 

EDIT: Forgot to add, having a group of people who aren't "the state" who actually get to decide your eventual fate becomes more important too. (Leaving aside the idea of the people = the state in the US.)

 

Personally, I wouldn't voluntarily let someone into my mind if my life depended on it.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Personally' date=' I wouldn't voluntarily let someone into my mind if my life depended on it.[/quote']

 

Almost there with you -- I would voluntarily let someone into my mind /only/ if my life depended on it.

 

And even then, it would have to be the only remaining option.

[Lightray]

Just a friendly reminder that this thread's moratorium on snarkiness is still in effect.

 

And as I saw no one objecting to it, I'm freely assuming we all agreed to it.

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Almost there with you -- I would voluntarily let someone into my mind /only/ if my life depended on it.

 

And even then, it would have to be the only remaining option.

 

Glad to see I'm not the only one who gets the creeps about being the subject of telepathic probing

 

This brings up an interesting question :

 

If a victim/accuser in a MentalMan-like case where the accusers didnt kill themselves afterward (ie their life was not at stake) felt similarly, could they decline to be probed? Would it make a difference if the contents of a person's mind were considered 'evidence' or 'testimony'?

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Glad to see I'm not the only one who gets the creeps about being the subject of telepathic probing

 

Dude, I get the creeps about the thought of somebody tapping my phone or searching my room.

 

Which does not change the fact that in certain limited circumstances, those are legal things to do. And that's how it /should/ be.

[Lightray]

If a victim/accuser in a MentalMan-like case where the accusers didn't kill themselves afterward (ie their life was not at stake) felt similarly' date=' could they decline to be probed? Would it make a difference if the contents of a person's mind were considered 'evidence' or 'testimony'?[/quote']

Unless you can get some independent, empirical verification of the telepathic findings, it's going to remain "testimony". But, it will be the testimony of the telepath.

 

As such the telepath's testimony will have to follow all the rules for any other testimony -- including hearsay. Which is essentially what telepathic testimony would be ("I read in her mind that she thinks X" is little different than "She told me that she thought X").

 

So, I think, no telepathic testimony in court.

 

Now, telepaths as expert witnesses would be quite likely. Someone is going to have to help the jurors sort out what is and isn't possible with telepathy.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Actually, I look at telepaths in the testimony situation as being more, well, codebreakers or translators (or court-appointed computer experts trying to rip the bad guy's database open, or something).

 

i.e. -- the case depends on reading something, but, there's only one (or a very few) guys who *CAN* read it...

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Not to mention that the telepath could confirm that the person did indeed see what they say they saw ( lie detection ), and may also be able to get a better, more complete picture of the events.

 

At the very least, its like lie detectors and hypnotic recollection that actually work reasonably well, and thus, would have much greater court acceptance.

[gewing]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Immigration to the US, IMO, would provide at least 25% increase in numbers...

 

 

There would be a bidding war for certain Supers that would make the NBA draft look like a game of Go fish!

 

I wonder if the super geniuses would actually be worth a LOT more than most supers, though spaceflight, etc would go for $$$

 

 

But, with the counter of losing the stipend if you misbehave...

 

Would governments allow COrporations to hire supers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. revenues total a little over 2 trillion dollars. The 60 billion dollar figure would represent less than 3 per cent of total revenue. The 210 billion dollar figure (that I believe is an implausible hypothetical even for this hypoethical world) would represent 10 per cent of total revenue. Now, assuming that these supers actually do something to merit their pay, you might very well be making a huge profit on their payment.

 

Imagine how many public works projects could be finished in record time. Imagine how many forest fires could be halted in a day or two instead of weeks.

 

I think this notion is not all that unrealistic. Nations might actively compete to employ supers for military and miscellaneous duties.

[Kristopher]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

I wonder how much they'd pay Omega Girl.

 

She has her own thread now, by the way.

 

[/shameless self-promotion]

[gewing]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

How would a government deal with those who BOTH have powers and are mentally Ill???

 

Not sure I really want to know, I guess.

 

 

But you miss the point. Most schizophrenics do not have the intrinsic capacity to fire laser beams from their eyes (or equivalent)!

 

The parallel in this instance is surely not "How we treat the mentally ill" vs. "How we treat superhumans", it is "How we treat bearing concealed and deadly arms" vs. "How we treat superhumans".

[gewing]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

How do we deal with infants/children with powers? Minors with possibly NO way to control them, or with low self control... Imagine if the baby's crying shatters walls.

 

How nice of you to imply that I am a racist Nazi bastard of some sort.

 

Would you care to explain to me why it is that, even in the US where many kinds of firearms are legal, we dont let law abiding citizens who have never committed any crimes, wander anywhere they please carrying them? They havent DONE anything, after all!

 

Or could it be that it is already a point of law that a person's mere potential to commit violence is enough to limit their liberty? In practice, a person's liberty is not binary so much as it is conditional. As their capacity to commit violence increases, so do the legal limitations on their liberty?

 

 

Example :

Man with Sniper Rifle : Is allowed to walk around in the woods, but is not allowed to walk around the airport, or meet with the President. (Unless he happens to be Man with Sniper Rifle and Several Federal Clearances, anyway.)

 

Man without Sniper Rifle : Is allowed to walk around the woods also, AND can walk around the public concourses of the airport if he likes also. He is still not going to be meeting the President without some background checks top make sure he isnt some sort of emotionally disturbed nutjob with who knows 101 ways to kill a man with his bare hands.

 

2 Month Old Baby (without a Sniper Rifle) : Is generally allowed anyplace his mother/father is allowed to go, including into the presence of the PUSA, without going through a background check, though his swaddling may be checked for contraband placed there by someone else.

 

Descending potential for violence = descending curtailment of liberties/privacy.

 

Just because Laserboy cant put his eyes down, it doesnt mean that his potential for violence should be ignored.

 

 

 

Here is another hypothetical for you :

 

WMD-Man, who is known to be capable of firing off a superpowered explosive blast (with personal immunity) capable of levelling an entire city, is also known to have a severe emotional problems, though not ones quite severe enough that he could be involuntarily committed. Do you want him wandering about in YOUR home town?

 

Why should he be allowed to wander about freely with the power to level a city while any attempt I might make to gain the same power would put me in jail for several decades?

[gewing]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

a couple points...

 

Outsider has been known to argue for the position of Devil's advocate.

He as also been known to very forcefully point out ramifications that others want to handwave away.

 

He also has a Bachelor's Degree from the UW.

 

 

 

 

How about you learn to deduce something on your own? Look at my location. Surely you've heard of that state' date=' right? Here's a hint if you still cant' find it: This state was its own nation when it entered the Union. We are "The Lone Star State." Now, to have it spelled out for you, we are allowed to carry firearms. In fact, if you do the proper registering, you're allowed to carry a concealed firearm. We're even in tandem with some other [b']southern[/b] states that a conclealed firearm permit from one state is acceptable in the other.

 

Now, are there some restrictions? Yes. You can't carry a firearm onto school property (unless you are law enforcement), but then, you can't drink alcohol or smoke either.

 

As with all businesses (which have the right to refuse service to anyone here), if they don't want you bringing a firearm in, they have this sign on their door that says so. You usually see these at grocery stores and banks.

 

SIDE: After retiring from the military, my father managed at a convenience store (out in 'the country' for you cityfolk) for a time, where one day a man came into the store riding on a horse. There was an auction across the street and he came over to buy something. When my dad asked him (dry humor, sarcasm way) why he didn't drive over, the man replied he was too drunk to drive. Strangely enough, riding on the horse inside the store, nothing was knocked over. Apparently this horse was accustomed to such things.

 

 

It doesn't matter how easy it is to kill someone with a weapon. If I kill you with a pencil, a knife, a pistol, or a rifle, and regardless of whether you were awake or asleep, I'm still going to be tried with murder.

 

As for your "fear factor" of the nuclear bomb, do you realize that you can find books in libraries that *show* you how to build a nuclear bomb? Do you know why these are allowed? Because Tom, Dick, and Harry can't get access to the materials needed (particularly the radioactive uranium) nor do they have the means to process and produce it properly.

 

No, I don't think Reynolds Wrap is more dangerous. However, on your fear theme, do you really think a machinegun is more dangerous than a human being? Because a machinegun can't kill anyone without a human being operating it. However, we DON'T BAN HUMAN BEINGS!

 

 

 

Then perhaps you should inform your local police department that you have the potential to kill several dozen people and that you should be constantly monitored.

 

And you are (purposely?) changing my argument. I'm arguing against prohibiting people access to life simply because they're born better with powers (or maybe you're afraid because they're better than you?). I've never stated anything about people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, or machine guns.

 

 

 

Because you're blinded by your own prejudice? No entire city had been destroyed, correct? So you can't compare that.

 

 

 

It's statements like this that really make me deduce that you're not capable of a higher, open-minded thinking and it's becoming pointless to debate with you. Since you may realize that your argument is for naught, you're now changing to say "So your statement that he is not breaking the law is not really relevant," just weakens your side here. We've been talking about legality the whole time, and now you're trying to say the law is irrelelevant?

 

 

 

But you haven't explained how and you're avoiding my question. Did a super detect it? Otherwise, the options I offered stand with what I stated.

 

 

 

[sarcasm]WHITE POWER! WHITE POWER! -Oops, I hope I wasn't revealing something.-[/sarcasm] (While I don't *really* want to see any klan members dressed up again in my lifetime, if ever there was a rally in my area, I'd like to go with signs that stated "White flower!" and "White flour!" as well as have flour and flowers along to throw around.)

 

Sorry, Jim Crowe laws have been disbanded a long time ago. The Civil Rights Movement showed how immoral this thinking was and how illegal actions enforcing that were. You can't regulate where someone lives simply because you fear them. That IS illegal.

 

 

 

Go to college, even if to only get an Associate's Degree.

 

 

 

You never had the 'right' to own one to begin with.

 

 

 

I think this sums up the fallacy of your argument.

 

 

 

Including laws banning people for being born, whom you fear.

[gewing]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

But unless all powers are from some identifiable x-gene or some such, it isn't likely to be Empirical fact.

 

What is a NORMAL, and What is a SUPERHUMAN? What is the maximum attribute for a normal? sorry

 

There WOULD be shades of gray, imo.

Personally, I think the punisher is superhuman just for all the martial arts he had studied in older versions at least. In the newer movie, Imo, he has rapid healing.

 

geekdom lives!

 

 

 

Maybe. I'm not so concerned about "this law applies _______"' date=' where that status is an imperical fact, and armed with that knowledge the checks and balances of democratic society can more easily come into play. I'm more concerned about "this law applies to people the government consider to be terrorists", because of the subjective judgement involved in this.[/quote']

[gewing]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Personally, I fear that mentallists would be running the world within a generation.

 

1. I said "two or more" telepaths. Thats specifically to deal with the issue of trust

 

2. It wouldn't be all that difficult to scientifically determine the level of accuracy of any given telepath. Parapsychologists already have procedures; the only difference is, now they wouldn't be dealing in the hundredths of a percent difference range.

 

3. Even if you couldn't receive appropriate approval for the suspect, ever considered that the person being read might be the *victim*?? Assuming a living victim, telepathic scan could confirm who the perpetrator was, to the best of the victim's actual knowledge.

 

4. Why, exactly, are you taking a discussion about courtroom usage of psionic powers as an opportunity to blather about amoral wandering superhumans??

[gewing]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

well, I guess I just pushed up my post count while catching up...

 

You guys are PROLIFIC!

[Kristopher]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

well, I guess I just pushed up my post count while catching up...

 

You guys are PROLIFIC!

 

We try.

 

Despite some of the snarkyness, there's a lot of valuable ideas being discussed on this thread. I'd include this thread, maybe trimmed down a little, as mandatory reading for all comic-book writers and editors.

[Lightray]

You know, all through this thread we've been arguing how super-powers would be exploited or controlled by the military, the government, and the law.

 

However, all of these are institutions that are slow to change. If there are to be quick, farreaching changes as a result of super-powers, we need institituions that are quick to change.

 

Like the Media.

 

Whether for news or entertainment, the media has embraced change as its competitive structure. (When one reality show is successful, everyone does reality shows.) The media is also much less limited in what it can legally do than the military, government, or legal structure is allowed. What is illegal for a government is only invasive for the media -- but still sells big (witness any tabloid). And the media is so fractured and lax of morals nowadays, that there is always someone willing to take that risk (whether it is violating a "gentlemen's agreement" not to cover underage royals, or running a national newstory without checking your facts).

 

And even if something is illegal, it is often more profitable for the media to simply commit the crime (e.g., invasion of privacy, slander, etc.) and accept the fines or settlement costs.

 

I think we'd see super-humans working for the media, damn quick. Imagine if Clark Kent wasn't using his journalistic skills to help his superheroics, but was using his super-powers to get that front page story no matter the cost.

 

Precog Girl or Telepathy Guy will have almost no limitation on what they can use their powers for -- so long as they phrase their "investigative findings" carefully, it won't be actionable. e.g., "I'm a telepath... And here's my 'opinion' on what Dick Cheney really thinks about President Bush." ('wink, wink, nudge, nudge' as it were.) or "This is Precog Girl, and I can tell you with certainty that George W. Bush will be our next president!"

 

The public would eat this up. Everyone wants to know what politicians really think, what celebrities are really up to in their private lives. Did so-and-so really commit murder? Is you-know-who really molesting little boys?

 

Just like reality shows suddenly dominating broadcast TV, we'd suddenly have super-powered media everywhere.

 

And it's not even going to be that much of an effort for the super-humans. Telepathy Guy only has to appear as a talking head, a telepathic pundit. He can demand huge fees, appear for 10 minutes on dozens of broadcasts a day. If his telepathy is up to the task, he might not even have to leave his house to gather his telepathic dirt to peddle.

[Kristopher]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Whatever profit such a person made on dishing dirt would be completely consumed by the continuous legal fees.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

This is why I really don't like groups like GRAB, cool characters and genre conventions or no. They are relatively sane, not particularly stupid people who could be making huge amounts of money using their powers; instead, they're knocking over mall jewlery stores.

 

In my CU campaigns, they're an ex-con hero team if I use them at all.

 

Well, in GRAB's case, I can believe it. Let's look at the motivations...

 

 

Black Diamond -- leader by default because either nobody else wants the job or is less even less qualified than she is to do it. Not dumb, but not very bright, and /definitely/ not imaginative. And her last job was barely above mall jewelry stories.

 

Bluejay -- By far the smartest one in this crowd, she's here because this is where her only friends are. And while she's smart enough to think of doing high-tech theft and/or industrial espionage, she's also got bad memories of both crimes... her early (and spectacularly failed) attempt at both of those being precisely how she ended up in this mess in the first place. At least with jewelry stores, she doesn't end up on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list for accidentally burning down a defense contractor's... again.

 

Cheshire Cat -- is probably *hoping* for the jobs to go wrong, because that means he gets to try and punch superheroes again. Erratic nutbar.

 

Hummingbird -- /real/ hummingbirds have more brain cells than she does. 'Nuff said.

 

 

In short, Bluejay is the only one who even mildly makes me wonder 'So why is she wasting her life like this again?' -- the other three, either their lack of imagination, lack of common sense, or lack of anything remotely resembling sentient thought is entirely self-evident.

 

Edit: Plus, of course, the fact that now they're keeping the band together because they're all paying off a major debt to some nebulous mastermind (who's probably the Fox of Crime) on the installment plan.

[Kristopher]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Was there a change in Bluejay's backstory between 4th and 5th Ed?

 

For some reason, I'm thinking that in 4th, she was originally framed.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

I am typing it from memory, admitted. When I get back home tonight I'll dig out my CKC and see if my memory was accurate.