Jump to content

Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues


megaplayboy

Recommended Posts

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

See, this is turning into one of those edutaining threads, now.

 

To sum up, in the (superheroic Champions) USA there may and probably would come a day when some evidence gathered telepathically is not admissible in courts, but the opinion of telepaths about the telepathy they've used on a suspect -- or others -- probably always will be allowed under some circumstances.

 

So, there will be no telepathy, except there will be telepathy.

 

Is this what would be likeliest to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

In the Lensman novels, telepathy is routinely used in trials involving serious crimes. But the Lensmen are, without exception, both uncorrupt and incorruptible, and what's most interesting to me is this statement by Kimball Kinnison, who is the most respected and admired of the Grey Lensmen, the most respected and admired (and in some quarters feared) of all the Lensmen, themselves the most prestigious of police and military forces in their universe. He's just been informed that two suspects are on trial for a murder, "a real sick-making one," and both have refused to be examined by Lens, which is entirely within their rights. His response is "Not surprising. A lot of perfectly innocent people can't stand the thought of being Lensed." The same attitude generally applies to thought-screens and similar protective devices: Yes, criminals can and do use them, but so do lots of legitimate people, and for perfectly good reasons. Lensmen aren't the only telepaths around, after all.

 

In case you're wondering, he does examine both men telepathically, but he uses some showmanship to bypass the innocent man's fears (and he has Invisible Power Effects on his Telepathy) and as a Grey Lensman he's answerable only to his own sense of responsibility and personal morals, ethics and conscience. That's actually the main purpose of the Grey Lensmen, so far as I can tell: To do whatever is needed to serve Civilization, even if it's not legally permissible, and no Grey Lensman is ever given that rank who is even arguably unworthy of it.

 

The problem is, unless you're using a very cinematic world, that attitude isn't really plausible. Even if you have a group that is totally above corruption, self interest and bias, the vast majority probably isn't going to except that. Giving a groups essentially unanswerable power would have to be enforced harshly or basically be handwaved (not saying it can't be) and in that case, most legal issues are side stepped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

I imagine with your run-of-the-mill alien, AI, supernatural creature, or giant monster you could go with some variation on the Turing test administered by court-appointed psychologists. If you pass, congratulations! You’re a legal human.

 

Undead would be trickier because of the whole dead thing. Here in the real world, what’s your recourse if there’s some major screwup and you get declared legally dead while you’re still up and walking around?

 

"The Ghost Standard" by William Tenn appeared in Playboy Dec. 94 and concerned a trial of a computer for murder. The computer was biased against lobsteroids (due to his programmers bias) and therefore decided against a lobersteroid in a contest between him and a human to decide who got eaten. Unfortunately the escape pod they were in contained only food for silicon based lifeforms. The judge decided that intelligence could be shown by (amoung other things) the ability to play the (fairly sophisticated) word game "Ghost" which the computer had played. The computer was sentenced to serve the rest of his life as a cash register to repay the fine/bloodprice. He requested disassembly but was refused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

The problem is' date=' unless you're using a very cinematic world, that attitude isn't really plausible. Even if you have a group that is totally above corruption, self interest and bias, the vast majority probably isn't going to except that. Giving a groups essentially unanswerable power would have to be enforced harshly or basically be handwaved (not saying it can't be) and in that case, most legal issues are side stepped.[/quote']

 

Well, the Lensmen universe is a special case, in that regard. The closest I can think would be LG paladins in a fantasy setting that actually takes them seriously: you can trust the good character of anyone who can legitimately demonstrate paladin abilities, because if he *wasn't* of good character, the gods would have withdrawn those powers ( and probably smited him for good measure ).

 

Basically, they could get away with giving Grey Lensmen absolute power because they were monitored and approved by functionally omniscient, omnipotent beings.

 

( of course, the Aresians themselves did some stuff thats arguably questionably, like manipulating the entire course of human history, but thats another story. . . )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Let's say a villain has a disintegration attack which leaves no remains behind. How would you go about building a case against them' date=' absent a body and the usual evidence associated thereto?[/quote']

 

A witness to him using the device the cause the person to disintegrate would be enough to bring a case. A person can be convicted on eyewitness testimony alone, even if no body is left.

 

Of course, if he was arrested, the device he/she used would most likely also be seized, and people familiar with the device could examine it to determine its function, capabilities, etc.

 

Of course, enough evidence to bring a case and enough evidence to win the case are two separate issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

A witness to him using the device the cause the person to disintegrate would be enough to bring a case. A person can be convicted on eyewitness testimony alone, even if no body is left.

 

Of course, if he was arrested, the device he/she used would most likely also be seized, and people familiar with the device could examine it to determine its function, capabilities, etc.

 

Of course, enough evidence to bring a case and enough evidence to win the case are two separate issues.

 

what if the disintegration attack is innate, rather than through a device/weapon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Let's say a villain has a disintegration attack which leaves no remains behind. How would you go about building a case against them' date=' absent a body and the usual evidence associated thereto?[/quote']

In order to build a case, the prosecution would need to establish means, motive and opportunity.

 

Disintegration is a means of killing someone. If it can be established that disintegration can kill someone with no remains (and the alleged victim is missing), that would begin to establish means. An eyewitness that saw the victim being disintegrated would be even better. If it can be established that the villain can disintegrate people (i.e. owns a disintegrator ray gun) and other suspects can't, this could become the key evidence.

 

The defense attorney would probably look for evidence that the victim took unannounced trips or had other past disappearances. Similarly, the defense attorney would try to show that there were other potential suspects who had the ability to make the victim disappear (i.e. abduction).

 

Establishing a motive is pretty routine. Find out why the villain wanted the victim dead. Money and revenge are the two most common motives. If the villain had ever threatened the victim, this would be additional evidence of motive.

 

The defense attorney would attempt to find other potential suspects that had motive to kill or abduct the victim. Or the attorney would attempt to establish that the victim had a motive to disappear.

 

The prosecution would seek to establish opportunity by demonstrating that the villain and victim were in the same place at the same time when the victim "disappeared". Evidence such as the villain's fingerprints and shoeprints could establish this. The villain's lack of alibi (or disproving the alibi the villain provided) would also be a factor.

 

The defense attorney would attempt to either establish an alibi for the villain (he was seen somewhere else when this occurred) or show the victim was seen alive after he was allegedly disintegrated.

 

 

Disintegration would make the case much more difficult (barring eyewitnesses), but a conviction would still be possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Another off-the-wall defense tactic in a case like this would be for the defendant to claim his power *isn't* disintegration, but teleportation or dimensional travel or such. He's not killing people, he's just sending them on one-way trips somewhere else.

 

This might be enough to create reasonable doubt of murder, and get a reduced charge ( kidnapping or similar ). Obviously only useful if your already dead-to-rights for having disappeared the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Actually, the general rule to prove murder is that the State must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that:

 

1. a human being is dead

2. the accused caused the death of that human being

3. the accused intended to kill or at least seriously injure the human being, or was depravedly indifferent to whether or not his or her actions/inactions brought about the death of that human being.

 

The State doesn't have to prove why you did it, only that you intended to do it.

 

As far as the 1-way ticket to Extra-Dimensional Space... I'm not sure. There are ways to prove murder without a body and I'm pretty sure that there are a few "activist" judges out there that will "read the legislature's intent" when they said "bring about the death of a human being" to mean something more like "render a human beings continued existence on this planet impossible" or like that. The State legislatures should then act quickly to specifically include the 1-way ticket to Extra-Dimensional Space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

It's like multiple choice, though, isn't it?

 

"My attack did something criminal, but you can't decide if it caused death or merely permanent kidnapping, now, can you.

 

"You have reasonable doubt that it's both.

 

"So, let me out, and give me back my either-or device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Another off-the-wall defense tactic in a case like this would be for the defendant to claim his power *isn't* disintegration, but teleportation or dimensional travel or such. He's not killing people, he's just sending them on one-way trips somewhere else.

 

 

Wouldn't matter unless he established that he was sending them somewhere livable, ideally by producing him again. People can be and are convicted for murders in which the victim actually vanished without a trace. This is no different. To use such a defense reverses the onus of proof. He must prove that he kidnapped the victim, or the victim will be presumed dead. After all, someone who is teleported into space is no less dead most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Hey, I didn't say it'd necessarily turn out *successful*. ;)

 

Though this does remind me, if the character *does* basically teleport someone somewhere else, and can retrieve them, he could use it as one hell of a Get Out of Jail Free card. "You can put me in jail for life, or you can have back the people I 'kidnapped', which would you prefer?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

What if they disintegrated someone and replaced them with an identical clone(perhaps with some embedded "programming" to be triggered at a later date)? Then you have no body and no missing person, either. How would the burden of proof be met in such a case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

What if they disintegrated someone and replaced them with an identical clone(perhaps with some embedded "programming" to be triggered at a later date)? Then you have no body and no missing person' date=' either. How would the burden of proof be met in such a case?[/quote']

 

I'm pretty sure that would be the perfect crime, unless they found the cloning facility and examined it's records to determine the person they had wasn't the "real" person. Even then it would have to ruled on by a judge as to whether truly identical clones, memories included, are not in fact the same person--even if the original is still around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

I'm pretty sure that would be the perfect crime' date=' unless they found the cloning facility and examined it's records to determine the person they had wasn't the "real" person. Even then it would have to ruled on by a judge as to whether truly identical clones, memories included, are not in fact the same person--even if the original is still around.[/quote']

 

Well, that's a good side issue--in the event that a duplicator enters into a contract/has a dispute with himself, how would the courts determine which duplicate had precedence or liability?

 

Side note: seems like a duplicator could commit a crime and supply his own alibi...OTOH, perhaps no alibi could be acceptable to the courts, were their ability known(ditto for a teleporter, one presumes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Fortunately, in my game, I have a law firm called Bartlett, Owens, and Slade that specializes in these sorts of superpowered law issues.

 

For years, the PC's suspected there was some sort of conspiracy behind it, but there really wasn't. They're just lawyers. Isn't that ENOUGH? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Yeah, alibi depends on a logical reason why it couldn't be you who committed the crime. If you can teleport or duplicate, well, you could still have an alibi, but faking one would be virtually impossible. And even proving a *real* alibi would require things like exacting time measurements, or very detailed info on how your powers work.

 

( "Yes, I can teleport, but given my appearance here, here, and here, at these times, attempting to teleport to the scene of the crime within the timeframe required would involve exceeding my safe range, leaving me in no condition to perpetrate the alleged crime." )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

A touch of thread necromancy here as I have several legal based questions and potential scenario ideas. The second of these ties into one of the earlier megaplayboy hypotheticals and the first two tie in with the legal frame work set out in the Stronghold book.

 

After the landmark Supreme Court ruling which decided whether Aliens, Robots, the Undead and various others had rights under the constitution, some parties were left put out. Vampires found that as Undead they had no rights and decided to do something about it. Meanwhile various parties saw this as an ideal way to rid themselves of the scourge of the undead for good and were pressing for laws to eradicate the Undead like the three strikes laws in California. If they commit a crime three times they can be eradicated. The first legislation that came before the Supreme Court was struck down as the justices saw it would be used against others as well as any undead that were being targeted.

The vampires themselves saw the traps being laid and so tried various things themselves to stop what was happening. Concern was raised due to the success of things like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight (vampires can't survive in sunlight despite what some fiction says). One vampire however turned to the law and sought to have punishment defined for Vampires particularly. What she put before the court was that vampires should be subject to the same tests of evidence that everyone else is and not just 'Oh they had a throat wound, it must be a vampire !'. Forensic evidence of DNA also tied into the undead and bite radius could easily be established for example. Also if a three strikes law was promulgated then a vampire can't be targeted for something as basic as parking tickets and littering and then staked on the third instance, it has to be for the same sort of serious crimes that other criminals would be targeted. Any law needs to be Federal in order to stop local authorities deciding what is and isn't evidence and a breach of the three strikes rule due to the religious beliefs across the country.

The laws could also be set to govern mind control by vampire and whether that is covered as a variety of rape.

 

In light of this would the Supreme Court say such a law was constitutional and that anti-vampire laws which allowed a lazy interpretation of three strikes would be struck down ?

Remember some vampires are tax payers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Legal question and scenario idea no 2 and this harkens back to secret identity. The Feral Kat is an outlaw whose fingerprints and other DNA are held on record. She is charismatic and makes good copy for the papers and television. Her name however is Jane Doe as nothing of her background has been pinpointed to date.

Electric Justice is a killer vigilante who has hunted down and killed 'those who break the law'. It is rumoured that some law enforcement officials are helping him and others turn a blind eye to his activities even though he is committing what amounts to murder. During his last little outing he killed a family who it was claimed were associates and confederates of the criminal Black Crow. The Crow got away. The family were Mexican immigrants. Electric Justice shows no compassion for the killing saying that collateral damage is unavoidable and that those who harbour, foster and associate with criminals cannot expect the same treatment as law abiding citizens. The police have condemned his actions and various supers have vowed to bring him in.

Feral Kat has heard that Electric Justice is targetting her and so brings up this legal quandry. She goes to court seeking to prevent any identity she uses being accessed under the Freedom of Information Act. Her point is that if it falls into the wrong hands (ie Electric Justice), he is likely to kill others in an effort to get to her. The ends cannot justify the means. Also if a mistake is made with the name say Joan Smith, Electric Justice may well wipe out one or more innocent families just to get to her. Feral Kat makes the point that she is aware that the law would be wide ranging and affect newspapers etc. While an identity is still not public knowledge, it should be illegal for someone to pass on a potential name to an interested third party ie the FBI and police have a right to that information but the Washington Times does not while it is unconfirmed. Similarly law enforcement officials including office staff should be prosecuted for passing on the 'potential' name to a killer vigilante or in the case of a hero to their arch-enemy ie Viper. I realise that there may be two legal points here and there are the issues of Freedom of the Press to consider. That being said can criminals be protected against the Freedom of Information Act ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

Case no 3 relates to the vexed question of double jeopardy and whether it exists for your legal setup.

Mr Justice is accused of murder and brought before the courts, a Grand Jury deciding that there was enough evidence to warrent a trial. The evidence is circumstantial and neither the Prosecution nor the Defence have a particularly strong case. On the basis of this Mr Justice he is acquitted.

The police look at the case again. some time later they arrest Roderick James. Again the evidence is circumstantial. Lo and behold the Newspapers pull a real coup in outing Roderick James as Mr Justice, a fact he reluctantly confirms. Now here is the thing. Can he be tried for the same murder that his alter ego wa acquitted of due to Double Jeopardy ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

Case No 4 is a property dispute with a twist.

The Supreme Court is being asked to decide a property ownership case which the other courts have kicked upstairs as it is so irregular. Jane 'Femmebot' Doe is being defended by the ACLU (or similar body) as being a sentient human being and therefore not subject to ownership by a corporation or a person; Doctor Bot via his legal representatives claim that she is his property and she should be given over to him; Megacorp claim that she belongs to them after femmebots belonging to Doctor Bot were legally salvaged by them and that due to an experiment in their laboratory she came to life.

The facts are these (1) She is human and passes any and all tests to show that she is

(2) Doctor Bot does indeed have Femmebots which are not involved in crimes and stay at his bases or very rarely accompany him. They provide him with all sorts of entertainment including exactly what you are thinking. The Femmebots do not have machine guns or detonate as bombs (as in Austin Powers). Lawyers argue that they only have the Doctor's word for that.

(3) The Justice Crusader has an ongoing feud with Doctor Bot and makes a point of trashing the Doctor's bases and belongings. He has confirmed that he destroyed any femmebots he finds because they can be used for illegal purposes and scattered the wreckage. (Lawyers for Megacorp and Doctor Bot try to get him to admit that he destroyed the robots as he found them immoral. He maintained that is just the potential for illegality)

(4) Jane 'femmebot' Doe has no records in the system at all for birth certificate, social security ID, schooling etc and no memory of growing up. She does have the memories of being a robot. These include being disassembled by Justice Crusader. Before she shut down she saw her body parts were scattered about the place, arms and legs ripped out. She does not know why she is now flesh after being a robot. She has no memories of being at Megacorp.

(5) She cannot confirm any self defence or offence capabilities as a robot.

(6) Megacorp has a contract with various states to salvage technology and put it to good use. They also neutralize things for the US Govt if it proves to be hazardous. They have legal contracts to salvage equipment from what are or were Dr Bots's bases.

(7) Although Dr Bot is alleged to have committed crimes he has never been been tried or convicted even in absentia.

(8) Jane has a tattoo which Dr Bot has proven comes from a specific ink and process unique to him. Therefore she is his.

(9) The Doctor has no knowledge of how she came to be human but in a superhuman world all is possible. If she is returned to him he will look after her. Megacorp are making no such promises.

(10) Megacorp says they salvaged her and due to a highly technical accident in the lab with experimental technology she came to life. They do not deny that she was Dr Bot's property beforehand (the tattoo) but as it was their work that made her human she belongs to them. They have a responsibility.

(11) Jane is not keen on going back to Megacorp or Dr Bot.

(12) Somebody attacked Megacorp's labs before Jane was discovered and some of what was salvaged from Dr Bot was destroyed.

(13) INS want to kick her out of the country as an illegal alien if she is not the property of Dr Bot or Megacorp.

(14) Megacorp has friends in Congress and the Senate who are pleading their case in private to the Supreme Court justices in private.

 

And then there is what nobody knows

 

Dr Bot and The Justice Crusader have a common enemy that neither knows about. He is a reality warper. After The Justice Crusader trashed one of Dr Bot's places, the warper came in and removed one of the bots. He put it back together again and warped reality so that she became flesh. He had to disappear before he was found so he had to abandon her. That is how she came to be. Megacorp did salvage the other remains, are aware of Dr Bot's work and did get attacked by someone intent on theft (they were good enough that no-one caught them on camera or other security device). However the rest is a pack of lies. They have not been caught out and some of the people they are using to press the case do not know that they are accomplices to falsehood.

 

 

In the light of what people do know who the Supreme Court say is Jane 'Femmebot' Doe's owner ?

assume for sake of clarity the Justices as a whole are not swayed by Megacorp's efforts and do not hold it against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

 

Case no 3 relates to the vexed question of double jeopardy and whether it exists for your legal setup.

 

Mr Justice is accused of murder and brought before the courts, a Grand Jury deciding that there was enough evidence to warrent a trial. The evidence is circumstantial and neither the Prosecution nor the Defence have a particularly strong case. On the basis of this Mr Justice he is acquitted. The police look at the case again. some time later they arrest Roderick James. Again the evidence is circumstantial. Lo and behold the Newspapers pull a real coup in outing Roderick James as Mr Justice, a fact he reluctantly confirms. Now here is the thing. Can he be tried for the same murder that his alter ego wa acquitted of due to Double Jeopardy ?

 

Double does apply, it is "black letter" law. No different from current reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...