Calling all lawyers--Supers and unique legal issues

[death tribble]

Case 12.

A kills B. There is a witness, an intelligent member of the undead. However as the Stronghold book makes clear the undead are not considered human and do not have the same rights as a normal citizen i.e. due process. Therefore can the Defence prohibit the witness from testifying ? This assumes that the undead can and will give eveidence.

Bearing in mind some characters have Vampires or Revenants as their characters it affects how they obtain and give evidence. Vampires sweaing on a bible anybody ?

[csyphrett]

12

I believe historically if the witness has no rights, then he can't be called to testify. That's not to say that the police can't take his statement and look for other evidence to convict

CES

[bubba smith]

that sounds logical

[Christopher]

regarding case11-1

self preservation could justify USING the bionic system but he would need to reimburse his employer

Let's make this point

(9) He is willing to reimburse for the body, but will not be able to do so very fast. And again, the Laboratory needs the full body and needs it fast.

 

You have made an error in case 8 in assuming he gets up after every attempt. I believe I covered this before.

The death penalty is carried out, it is confirmed that he is dead and then he is buried or cremated. Then he comes back sometimes years later.

 

Case 9. Actually he was dead to all intents and purposes but attempted murder is maybe one way of running that. Thanks, that did not occur to me.

Nice pick ups on the complications. Worth noting.

I am not a lawyer, but based on what was earlier said:

"The things that makes dead dead, is it's irreversibility."

If he is still considered the one who did the crimes, all forms of Cloning, Timetravellers (and other Dimensional intruders) and other "very similar but distinct" possibilities have been ruled out. He is the person who did the crimes/was shoot back then.

Wheter his body healed after being declared death or he transformed into some unknow form of energy being and accumulated another body to posses (think Hank Hanshaw) is just a special effect. If he is the same person for the legal system, he was only "accidently" declared dead. If he is running around now, he never was truly dead.

 

12

I believe historically if the witness has no rights, then he can't be called to testify. That's not to say that the police can't take his statement and look for other evidence to convict

CES

Could he be used like a "Videotape"? I mean could his speech be used as evidence instead of [insert whatever witnesses produce by telling stuff in court]?

It's a wild shoot I know and will propably fail for the same reasons as a lie detector (not enough Experts agree that what he says is a proper retelling of what happened).

 

Being in legal limbo is propably more annoying for Vampires then the whole "has to drink bloods" thing.

[csyphrett]

Let's make this point

(9) He is willing to reimburse for the body, but will not be able to do so very fast. And again, the Laboratory needs the full body and needs it fast.

 

I am not a lawyer, but based on what was earlier said:

"The things that makes dead dead, is it's irreversibility."

If he is still considered the one who did the crimes, all forms of Cloning, Timetravellers (and other Dimensional intruders) and other "very similar but distinct" possibilities have been ruled out. He is the person who did the crimes/was shoot back then.

Wheter his body healed after being declared death or he transformed into some unknow form of energy being and accumulated another body to posses (think Hank Hanshaw) is just a special effect. If he is the same person for the legal system, he was only "accidently" declared dead. If he is running around now, he never was truly dead.

 

Could he be used like a "Videotape"? I mean could his speech be used as evidence instead of [insert whatever witnesses produce by telling stuff in court]?

It's a wild shoot I know and will propably fail for the same reasons as a lie detector (not enough Experts agree that what he says is a proper retelling of what happened).

 

Being in legal limbo is propably more annoying for Vampires then the whole "has to drink bloods" thing.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what would be the precedent. You have a guy with no rights under the law testifying in open court that he saw a crime being committed. I think in some ways it would be like a imprisoned criminal being allowed to testify, but it could also go that being undead renders any statement automatically excluded unless that statement can be proven with evidence gathered at the scene

CES   

[Houston GM]

Can The Crimson Ghost testify in court against his killers ? Assume he can prove that it is him to the satisfaction of the court.

Complication: One of the officers involved was arrested for and convicted of various crimes several years ago by Internal Affairs. Will this prejudice things ?

Added Complication: Another officer involved is now running for high office (Congress, Mayor, the Senate but not the Presidency) and some believe this sudden revelation is suspicious. Does that alter the legal process or not ?

 

Case No 9

The Crimson Ghost will first need to prove his identity to the district attorney (and there will need to be adequate corroborating evidence of the officers' crime) before charges are filed. (And the charges may be attempted murder instead of murder, unless he can prove that he actually died.)

 

He doesn't actually need to prove his identity in order to testify in court. The judge could leave that determination up to the jury. "First you must decide whether you believe the Manhattan Mauler is actually the Crimson Ghost. If you believe he is, you may then consider part or all of his testimony against the defendants."

 

Generally speaking, "prior bad acts" can't be admitted as testimony, because it is considered prejudicial. That officer can be tried, but the prosecution can't mention his arrest/conviction. (There are a few exceptions to this rule. Very few.)

 

The defense attorney will probably try to claim that the Manhattan Mauler is trying to smear his client's name because his client is running for office. The attorney will be allowed to state that in court and question the Manhattan Mauler about it when the Mauler testifies. And that tactic may end up having some influence on the jury.

 

Computers that were designed and used by a criminal group or mastermind go on sale to the general public although these have not been cleared by authorities. Do the manufacturers have to clear the sale with authorities and if not would the money from the sales be impounded ?

Complication: The computers were confiscated by the authorities but released to a salvage company who then sell them on. Whether this is an accident in bureaucracy is debateable.

What is the position if the group themselves or the mastermind has authorised the sale from behind bars as part of a plea bargain or 'paying their debt to society' ?

 

Case No 10

Criminals are not allowed to profit from criminal ventures. Selling computers (new or used) is not a criminal venture, as long as the computers were legally obtained.

 

Selling memorabilia can be a different situation, because the memorabilia may have gained value due to the notoriety surrounding the crime.

 

If the computers were used in the commission of a crime, and were seized as evidence against the criminals, the authorities can sell the confiscated good. (This may vary state-to-state.) The proceeds go to the state coffers. The criminal's authorization is meaningless.

 

Fembots go on sale. Anyone can buy them. Can a hero, hero group or citizen stop their sale on the grounds that it might be benefiting their inventor financially who created them in order to further his criminal schemes ?

Could their inventor stop the sale in the courts if someone else is selling them and making money at his expense ?

 

Part 2:

I bake some pies and put them on sale. Anyone can buy them. Can someone stop their sale on the grounds that I may benefit financially and use the money to further my criminal schemes?

 

Of course not. There's no evidence that I have criminal schemes. Even if I did, I'm still allowed to make money selling the pies (unless they're part of the criminal scheme). Making money is not a crime. If you interfere with my attempts to make money, I can probably find a way to sue you in civil court.

 

Does the inventor of the fembots have a patent (or multiple patents) protecting his invention? If so, he can file a lawsuit and request an injunction to prevent someone else from selling his invention. Occasionally the court will grant an emergency injunction up front, but typically the inventor would have to win his case (a process which takes roughly 2-3 years) in order to get his injunction.

 

But the manufacturer won't necessarily get to profit for those 2-3 years. They'll still have to pay money to compensate the inventor for those 2-3 years of sales.

 

Returning his brain to his former body would transform him from a healthy person into a severely disabeled Person with a rather certain propabiliy of death, wich would fall under "Severe and Unusual Punishment" for a Felony like "theft & break of contract".

 

Facts to consider:

(1): He undoubtedly broke his contract with the laboratory while doing this; they had clauses against theft.

(2): No other persons where involved. They had some dohickey to "remove and implant the brain" automatically (unsupervised usage note advised!). Or maybe had a familiy member to it. In any case he propably violated soem security rules doing it, but that was his risk

(3): The lab is interested in getting thier cyborg body parts back. The process for the neural interface he used is not compatible with other people (it works on his improved brain only) so there is nothing that would interest them in a settlement or any plan that takes a long time.

(4): He has no previous convictions.

(5): While the body might be on a superhuman level, he had installed a power limiter that can be securely set for the time of a Prison Sentence. So any normal Prision will be able to contain him.

(6): His normal body is kept on life support in case an important part is ordered to return.

(7): The only part of his body transplanted is his brain.

(8): Downgrading to a lesser body is not an option. Though he could remove limbs without ill effect, that would again make him an effective amputee till he can craft a replacement (same argument as above). For him it is all or nothing, for the lab it is all or nothing.

 

Case 11-1 and 11-2:

Partly this depends on whether this is treated as a criminal or civil matter. If it's a civil matter (any type of contract violations), the company isn't going to be able to get the cybernetic body back. (You just won't get a jury who will give that kind of ruling.) The cyborg will have to financially reimburse the company for what he stole.

 

As a criminal case (only the theft is actually a criminal matter), this gets more interesting. The company won't stand a chance of getting the cybernetic body back until the case is finished (and the appeals are exhausted).

 

If I were the criminal , however, I would argue that I did not steal the cyborg body. I built it. I stole the parts. I stole the use of the lab. Therefore, the company doesn't deserve to get my property back.

 

Case 12.

A kills B. There is a witness, an intelligent member of the undead. However as the Stronghold book makes clear the undead are not considered human and do not have the same rights as a normal citizen i.e. due process. Therefore can the Defence prohibit the witness from testifying ? This assumes that the undead can and will give eveidence.

Bearing in mind some characters have Vampires or Revenants as their characters it affects how they obtain and give evidence. Vampires sweaing on a bible anybody ?

 

Case 12:

Due process applies to the accused, not to the witness.

 

A dashboard camera can act as a witness. It is not considered human, nor does it have the same rights as a normal citizen. Lack of humanity is not an obstacle in and of itself.

 

This will probably be heavily argued in motions before the trial, but I think most judges would allow it because the undead can be cross-examined, and does can be charged with perjury if it lies.

 

 

I believe historically if the witness has no rights, then he can't be called to testify. That's not to say that the police can't take his statement and look for other evidence to convict

 

The only historical precedent I can think of that's similar is black slaves. Blacks were not allowed to testify against whites, but they could (and did) testify against other slaves.

 

If anything, the parallel to slavery would guarantee that the undead would be allowed to offer testimony.

[Nothere]

O.k. This is a bit similar to the telepathy one, but I'll put it forth anyway.

 

Plaintiff Mildred Shapely is suing Previsor. The plantif alleges that the defendant used psychic abilities to spy on her in the shower. The defendant admits to having had a vision of Miss. Shapley. However he did not intentionally spy on her, and only had the vision because of the explosion that was going to happen. Which resulted in the phone call that got her out of the bathroom, and saved her life.

[Christopher]

O.k. This is a bit similar to the telepathy one, but I'll put it forth anyway.

 

Plaintiff Mildred Shapely is suing Previsor. The plantif alleges that the defendant used psychic abilities to spy on her in the shower. The defendant admits to having had a vision of Miss. Shapley. However he did not intentionally spy on her, and only had the vision because of the explosion that was going to happen. Which resulted in the phone call that got her out of the bathroom, and saved her life.

The big questions would propably be if he has control over what he sees. Or decides what he sees.

If he has full control and spied on her while she became under danger(this), propably sueable.

Does he see random place in wich there may or may not be anything interesting? If there is a way to disable his power, he propably should have used it latest when seeing her naked.

If his powers only work to prevent danger (Dange Sense, larger scale, exact), would this not fall under "prevent harm towards others" parts of "self defense" (Good Samaritan or something*)?

 

All of course asuming you can proove they work the way he says, with some factor given to "Innocent till prooven guilty". So Ms Shapely propably has to proove he has control over his powers to intentionally spy on her. And/or did not cover his eye with his "Clairsentience Proove Shades" the second he saw she was naked.

 

*Only know the german words for those two. Basically you are protected from minor sueworthy stuff while saving someones life. Like breaking Ribs (normally Battery) during CPR and such stuff.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Christopher

[massey]

O.k. This is a bit similar to the telepathy one, but I'll put it forth anyway.

 

Plaintiff Mildred Shapely is suing Previsor. The plantif alleges that the defendant used psychic abilities to spy on her in the shower. The defendant admits to having had a vision of Miss. Shapley. However he did not intentionally spy on her, and only had the vision because of the explosion that was going to happen. Which resulted in the phone call that got her out of the bathroom, and saved her life.

 

What damages has she suffered?  Sounds like none, unless her state have a specific law granting damages in a case of unwanted surveillance.

[massey]

Case 11-1:

A Character had an radiation accident wich gave him quickly increasing intelligence, but quickly deterioating Muscles (think ALS). So he joined a Cybernetics Lab with the Intent of building himself a Cyborg Body, transplanting his brain and then just take the body. He succeeds and now is a human brain in a Cyborg body.

Now he doesn't wants to give the body back under the following premise:

Returning his brain to his former body would transform him from a healthy person into a severely disabeled Person with a rather certain propabiliy of death, wich would fall under "Severe and Unusual Punishment" for a Felony like "theft & break of contract".

 

Facts to consider:

(1): He undoubtedly broke his contract with the laboratory while doing this; they had clauses against theft.

(2): No other persons where involved. They had some dohickey to "remove and implant the brain" automatically (unsupervised usage note advised!). Or maybe had a familiy member to it. In any case he propably violated soem security rules doing it, but that was his risk

(3): The lab is interested in getting thier cyborg body parts back. The process for the neural interface he used is not compatible with other people (it works on his improved brain only) so there is nothing that would interest them in a settlement or any plan that takes a long time.

(4): He has no previous convictions.

(5): While the body might be on a superhuman level, he had installed a power limiter that can be securely set for the time of a Prison Sentence. So any normal Prision will be able to contain him.

(6): His normal body is kept on life support in case an important part is ordered to return.

(7): The only part of his body transplanted is his brain.

(8): Downgrading to a lesser body is not an option. Though he could remove limbs without ill effect, that would again make him an effective amputee till he can craft a replacement (same argument as above). For him it is all or nothing, for the lab it is all or nothing.

 

Case 11-2:

The same, except for 6: His normal body died, but it is possible to keep his brain alive outside a body. Just that incase of a Brain in a helpless body, he is a brain without body then.

 

There's actually a legal defense here.  It's the principle of "necessity".  The example I remember from law school involved tying a boat to a private pier during a storm.  You are liable for damage to the pier, but the pier owner can't go out and untie the boat.  It also applies if, for example, you break into a private business during a blizzard.  The law provides protection to the individual if the consequences are dire enough.  My right to life outweighs your right to be secure with your property.

 

When the guy realizes he is dying, and transfers his brain to the robot body (said body being property of the lab), he's operating under the principle of necessity.  He's civilly liable for the loss of the robot parts, but he's not criminally liable.  They can sue him to recover the costs of the parts, but as they're now required to keep him alive, they can't get the parts themselves.

 

It's really no different than if you have an artificial heart put in, and then stop paying your medical bills.

[Christopher]

What damages has she suffered?  Sounds like none, unless her state have a specific law granting damages in a case of unwanted surveillance.

What he did is equal to placing a Hidden Camera in someone elses Shower, with no ability to record. Might also count as a form of trespassing, as no technological equipment was used (his Sight Tresspassed in her Shower, without her consent).

I am pretty certain there is at least a civil law against that.

 

His primary defense will still be "my power works automatically when someone is in danger". At wich point her Lawyers will have to proove differently. Until then it would propably fall under "Good Samaritan" Laws.

[massey]

What he did is equal to placing a Hidden Camera in someone elses Shower, with no ability to record. Might also count as a form of trespassing, as no technological equipment was used (his Sight Tresspassed in her Shower, without her consent).

I am pretty certain there is at least a civil law against that.

 

His primary defense will still be "my power works automatically when someone is in danger". At wich point her Lawyers will have to proove differently. Until then it would propably fall under "Good Samaritan" Laws.

 

But there are no damages.  Let's say I trespass across your lawn.  You've got a big fence and a "stay out" sign and I completely ignore it and I walk across the grass.  I don't tear up the grass or anything, I just... walk across it.

 

You're going to have a hard time proving that you should recover anything, unless there's a specific law establishing damages in cases of trespass.  Such laws exist, they create civil liability in certain instances.  The first one that pops to mind is a punitive measure against "rent to own" companies because they often use predatory business practices.    So if they violate the regulations, they can be hit with a judgment that is much larger than any actual damages in the case.  A lot of environmental regulations are that way too.

 

But as far as I know, there's nothing covering accidentally seeing a woman naked in the shower.  "Pain and suffering" only applies when there's been actual physical injury.

[Houston GM]

Plaintiff Mildred Shapely is suing Previsor. The plantif alleges that the defendant used psychic abilities to spy on her in the shower. The defendant admits to having had a vision of Miss. Shapley. However he did not intentionally spy on her, and only had the vision because of the explosion that was going to happen. Which resulted in the phone call that got her out of the bathroom, and saved her life.

 

This will depend upon the jurisdiction. I researched the issues for Texas, but these answers may not hold true for other locations.

 

Privacy Law:

Since Previsor looked into an area where Ms. Shapely had an expectation of privacy, he has violated her right to privacy. In addition, the "Disorderly Conduct" statute which covers the actions of Peeping Toms would cover his actions. This Ms. Shapely her the right to sue him in civil court.

 

I'm reminded of the legal truism, "You may not take the fall, but you sure can take the ride." A jury may acquit Previsor, but that doesn't protect him from the difficulty associated with fighting the lawsuit.

 

Tresspassing:

According to Texas law, your entire body must enter the property. Previsor is in the clear on that one.

 

Good Samaritan Laws:

In Texas, these only apply to health care provided. Previsor's actions (which proactively prevented harm) would not be covered.

 

Damages:

Even though Ms. Shapely can't specify an amount of damage that she deserves compensation for, she still could seek exemplary damages (also known as punitive damages), which would punish Previsor for his "wrongdoing."

 

 

Would there even be a lawsuit?

Lawsuits are about money. The chances of winning this case are small. (Do you think a jury wants to punish Previsor for saving Ms. Shapely's life?) While lawyers like publicity, they're less fond of publicity that shows them getting whipped in court. A lawyer isn't going to take this on just for media exposure. (Previsor, on the other hand, has a much better chance of getting a lawyer to offer to represent him pro bono.)

 

Ms. Shapely may have enough money to pay the lawyer's rate. But if she's rich, she has to worry about negative publicity. This is the sort of lawsuit that every late-night comedian would use as fodder for jokes. Rich people are generally more concerned with their reputation than poor people. If she can afford the money, she may not be able to afford the negative publicity.

 

Despite these two strikes, there still could be money in a lawsuit ... if Previsor is wealthy. If Previsor is wealthy enough, Ms. Shapely might be willing to endure the public humiliation in order to win a big payout. And if Previsor is wealthy, then a lawyer may be willing to take the case on contingency. A lawyer doesn't need to win in court to collect his contingency fee. He can get the same fee for a large enough settlement. Will Previsor's ability to look into showers harm his reputation? If so, he may be willing to settle the case quickly and quietly.

 

If Ms. Shapely can afford the damage to her reputation and Previsor can't, there will be a lawsuit. Otherwise, this lawsuit will never be filed.

[csyphrett]

I don't think he actually looked at her at all. I think he saw her bathroom blowing up with her in it.  If the power is xray vision, maybe she could say he peeped. I think in this case, he's a precog which means he didn't peep at her at all.

CES 

[death tribble]

Death Tribble Case 13.

 

For some time a destructive elemental force has menaced the city/country/the world. It is found out that it 'hides' in a human being. When it comes out it causes all sorts of devastation. The human host gradually becomes aware of it but can do nothing to stop it. The psychic wear and tear eventually destroys the host and the force moves on to a new host.

Heroes and the police were slow to catch onto the force which cannot be contained. (My thought is it was like a hurricane/tornado but you could have it as an earthquake or volcano or flood/tidal wave).

In a last ditch attempt to stop the force heroes managed to bind it into its current host. This meant that it could be arrested.

Now there are some legal authorities who want the host prosecuted and perhaps executed for those that the force killed. There is no real way to kill the force but the host can die and if that happens the force will be unleashed at what is predicted to be an apocalyptic scale which will make its previous devastation look like a Sunday school picnic. And then it could get a new host. Because the force killed its previous hosts through stress and over exertion to be free, it is linked to it i.e. it will not seek the death of a host. But someone killing the host would up its power level as it is unleashed. What happens to the force if the host dies a natural death is unknown and unclear (even to prophets).

Lawyers might argue this but those with prophecy will get really upset.

The host now has superpowers as a result of the binding process. They are nowhere near as powerful as the elemental force is on its own. They also have a mind and direction which the force never had. But they are also no longer the host. They are a new being entirely with new memories from the time of their creation. And a new personality. They have the education level of the host.

They are content to be imprisoned just in case the force gets loose. They are lucid and no longer frantic at having to deal with the force trying to break away. The binding process will give them a longer life than normal.

Can a legal case against the new being, who is human, succeed against the crimes, i.e. death and destruction, that the force committed which could be said to be Act of God ?

Could a case be brought to bring the original host back to normal (which would release the force) ? (the new being is against this as it would die).

[death tribble]

Death Tribble Case 14

Gold Man was a member of the Rogue's Battalion. After various escapades and prison stretches he went missing. To the horror of his comrades and the heroes somebody melted him down. They then used the bullion to pay for various things and to make various things like jewellery. Assume there is a genetic trace that can be run on the gold to show it was once a human being.

What is the legal; position of someone/anyone who has possession of the gold ? (there are multiple owners)

Can they refuse to have their gold 'tested' ?

 

(Don't worry about the person who melted Gold Man down. The Rogues are going to deal with them. Slowly, painfully and permanently).

[Lord Liaden]

For Case 13, you wrote, "They also have a mind and direction which the force never had." That implies that the force was mindless, i.e. a simple power of destruction without volition to choose its actions. If that is the case, and as you specify it was not previously possible for the host to control the force, nor would the host's death have changed the situation as the force would just find a new host, I don't see how it's possible to hold anyone legally responsible for its destructive actions.

 

As for the present host, you indicate that they aren't currently dangerous, and don't object to imprisonment for security purposes. For any potential prosecutor who doesn't insist on the death penalty (which as you wrote would be self-defeating), keeping the force/host combination imprisoned indefinitely would already be the maximum penalty for any past actions. It also allows various super-scientists and mystics time to research an alternative cure.

[death tribble]

Prosecution lawyers might see it differently and try to argue the point as they only have the word of heroes and/or experts that it is mindless but that is s storyline point not a legal one. I wanted to know about Act of God/Force of Nature and the law. Whether it applied to some superpowers etc.

 

Thanks for the reply it is helpful.

[death tribble]

Death Tribble Case No 15

 

While the accused is giving evidence in his own defence, the dead appear in court and accuse them of the crimes that led to their demise. Here's the problem. Under the rules of law as stipulated in the Stronghold supplement, the dead do not have rights. And the dead were not sworn in to give evidence. But in this case there is the effect that the testimony would have had on the accused and the jury.

Should the judge rule for a mistrial and get another jury for a new trial ?

In light of the effect on the accused could any new trial not be prejudicial to their case either because they appeared guilty or were so indifferent to what was said that made the jury think they were guilty ?

[Sundog]

I think it would be a call for the Judge. If the Judge believed the Jury was unlikely to be swayed by the apparitions (such as allowing the defence to make the point that the apparitions were not necessarily what they seemed, and might be illusions and lies) then the Judge might allow the trial to go ahead with instructions to ignore them. (This would actually be a big win for the defence - if they win, they get their guy off, and if they lose they have pretty much automatic grounds for an appeal). On the other hand, if the Judge truly considered the apparitions prejudicial, I don't think he'd have much choice but to declare a mistrial, at which point it's up to the Prosecution as to whether another trial is called.

[steriaca]

A group of mages arrest a superhero for unpunished crimes he committed in his past life. Reincarnation is known to the public. 

 

So, can a superhero be charged for crimes his past self committed? Since reincarnation is known (at least to law enforcement), the Death Penalty is off the table, but one can have Lives Incarnation (note the multiple on Lives).

[death tribble]

I would not think so. According to how reincarnation works in India if you do good you are rewarded with a better life next time around. Do evil and you would be reborn as say an insect. If he is a hero then he can't be reborn from the previous life where he was a sinner who did the crimes. Unless the mages could prove he somehow circumvented the rules on reincarnation. 

[steriaca]

Thanks DT for the quick response. But I said Reincarnation, not Buddhist Reincarnation or Shinto Reincarnation. Just Reincarnation (with no implied good karma/bad karma implementations).

 

But with your answer (and assuming a judgment based Reincarnation), you would be correct in dismissing the case outright, as what you did follows what you would become.

[Lord Liaden]

 

 

4 hours ago, steriaca said:

A group of mages arrest a superhero for unpunished crimes he committed in his past life. Reincarnation is known to the public. 

 

So, can a superhero be charged for crimes his past self committed? Since reincarnation is known (at least to law enforcement), the Death Penalty is off the table, but one can have Lives Incarnation (note the multiple on Lives).

 

I think a lot will have to do with how you define "past life." Does the reincarnated person remember his past criminal actions? Is his personality still the same? You specify "superhero," suggesting this person in his current life is a force for good, whatever his past life had been. That's not the same as a person escaping punishment for crimes they know they chose to commit.

 

I think taking this legal tack also sets a dangerous precedent. If reincarnation is known to be a thing, then any person could be tried for any crime in a past life, even if their current life has been blameless. I don't think that's an issue any court would want to touch.

[steriaca]

6 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I think a lot will have to do with how you define "past life." Does the reincarnated person remember his past criminal actions? Is his personality still the same? You specify "superhero," suggesting this person in his current life is a force for good, whatever his past life had been. That's not the same as a person escaping punishment for crimes they know they chose to commit.

That is the idea, of the slippery slope. 

6 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

I think taking this legal tack also sets a dangerous precedent. If reincarnation is known to be a thing, then any person could be tried for any crime in a past life, even if their current life has been blameless. I don't think that's an issue any court would want to touch.

Again, the slippery slope. The law itself doesn't care about stuff like "good" and "evil", but instead "following the law" or "not following the law". But actually how deep should accountability go? Am I now responsible for what my pass self did? Should I be responsible for what my pass self did? When is it ok to let go of the past? What if the law can't let go of the past?

 

Just stuff to ponder about. Not saying x is right and y is wrong. We have no ways for law enforcement to look into the past and see your wrong deeds, let alone look into your past life and see if punishment was given for the past deeds or not.

 

Can one build an adventure based on such a lawsuit? Yes. But only if was done before. (my guess is the first case like that would be thrown out of the court till someone figures out how to share the experience of viewing through time.)