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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

How about an alien invader' date=' or someone from another dimension? They have declared war and invade.[/quote']

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

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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

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.

[Zed-F]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

The question of whether we are talking about in battle or after the battle is a big one. If it's in battle, go ahead and kill when you have to... but taking prisoners is a GOOD thing to do when you have limited intelligence on the enemy. Killing those prisoners after the battle has been won? No... you're going to want them for study and interrogation.

[McCoy]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

In my campagine most death penalty crimes have been abolished (it's my world after all). In the United states, the two exceptions are (1) treason and (2) killing or causing the death of an on-duty firefighter, paramedic, or law enforcemant agent (including supers with police powers) during the commission of an act of terrorism or other felony.

[Kirby]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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.

 

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[?]

An embargo is not an illegal sanction; if it were, the world would be at war. Many countries have embargoes against other countries. Country A could say "no business or individual may ship anything to Country C." While Country B may state "no business or individual may ship anything other than wheat to Country C." We had embargoes against Japan in the 1930's-40's because of their war in China. There wasn't diplomatic resolution, despite trying, so Japan cut off all ties and declared war on the US. Unfortunately, they declared war about 30 minutes after they attacked Pearl Harbor and killed military personell and civilians (yes, civilians in their cars away from military installations). Capt. Slobovia comitted an unprovoked attack. He should be treated like any other soldier from Slobovia who would attack the US (or any other foreign country).

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

The question of whether we are talking about in battle or after the battle is a big one. If it's in battle' date=' go ahead and kill when you have to... but taking prisoners is a GOOD thing to do when you have limited intelligence on the enemy. Killing those prisoners after the battle has been won? No... you're going to want them for study and interrogation.[/quote']

 

Historically, the primary reason the Geneva Conventions were invented in the first place is because it was to the mutual advantage of all the signatories to treat prisoners with respect...

 

... because if you didn't slaughter the other guy's out of hand, he was that much more likely to hand you /yours/ back alive at the end of the war too.

 

i.e. -- never kill prisoners on any enemy that you haven't already decided you're going to fight a war all-out bloody style, no quarters, no surrenders accepted, all-out atrocity massacre time.(*) Because as soon as you start popping his surrendered troops and POWs out of hand, you've just started one anyway. (IOW, "the Xenovore exemption").

 

 

 

 

(*) Or unless no matter how respectfully you treat the POWs your capture, your own people will still just be raped, sold into slavery, gassed, etc, anyway.

[OddHat]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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).

 

Lower Slobovia is now at war with the US, an the Captain (who was in uniform) is a POW. He'd never be given the death penalty in the first place; he wouldn't even go to trial. After the war, he'd be sent home.

[Dominique]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

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

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.

 

I agree with you on all but one point. It’s when you say that Slobovia made the first strike. When the US places a complete embargo against another county, it involves us undertaking a number hostile actions, that many consider acts of war.

 

The US military will form a, land, naval and air blockade preventing goods from reaching that nation’s air, land, and sea ports, They will forcibly board ships trying to run that blockade, and turn back any aircraft trying to enter it’s airspace. They will search any vehicles trying to enter the county by land, and many times they will fire on anyone who resists their efforts to stop them. So it’s possible that from The Slobovian’s point of view, they were already at war, and were just defending themselves.

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

To quote from the relevant portions of the current Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC), derived largely from the original Geneva and Hague Coventions:

 

The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.

 

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations. (edit -- in plain English, that last means "the only crimes you can be convicted of is war crimes")

 

Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by overnmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

 

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

 

Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.

 

By these definitions, Captain Slobbovia falls clearly within the first category -- Lawful Combatant.

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

The US military will form a' date=' land, naval and air blockade preventing goods from reaching that nation’s air, land, and sea ports, They will forcibly board ships trying to run that blockade, and turn back any aircraft trying to enter it’s airspace. They will search any vehicles trying to enter the county by land, and many times they will fire on anyone who resists their efforts to stop them. So it’s possible that from The Slobovian’s point of view, they were already at war, and were just defending themselves.[/quote']

 

An actual naval /blockade/ -- not just a trade embargo (which is simply a declaration that "citizens of country X may not legally buy or sell goods with citizens of country Y"), but the forcible interdiction of traffic to and from their ports... you are correct, that is an act of war, and in such a circumstance, Lower Slobbovia is even more justified in attacking.

 

Of course, this will not prevent the US from paving them flat in six weeks, as no matter who /started/ a war, the winner is determined solely by who can /finish/ it.

 

Lower Slobbovia really should have found allies first before attacking on its ownsome, as the correlation of forces against it was extreme. But as I said, I only doubt the wisdom of their actions, not their legality.

[Kirby]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

I agree with you on all but one point. It’s when you say that Slobovia made the first strike. When the US places a complete embargo against another county' date=' it involves us undertaking a number hostile actions, that many consider acts of war.[/quote']

I think you have embargo's meaning confused. For an example: we're not at war with Cuba. They'be been embargoed for what, 40+ years now. Even when Kennedy put up the naval blockade, that wasn't an act of war, but could have been seen as such. (It helps when the President has dashing good looks and is charismatic on tv.)

 

This scenario reminds me of the War of 1812, when the US declared war on Britain. The US declared the war before they went on the offensive.

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

When a blockade is or is not an act of war is a rather complex matter of international law, yes. I went with the interpretation I did because in the way she described it, shots had already been exchanged, and there was no mention of the blockade being put in place to enforce already lawful sanctions (UN or NATO or otherwise), but was instead a purely arbitrary act as described.