Ann wrote:
No, Terry, of course Superman will not say that. But is that not what the law will say if it acquits Superman of second degree murder?
That's an interesting position. I cannot, of course, anticipate what message other FOLCS might receive from Superman's acquittal (assuming, of course, that it does happen that way), but this is the message I would get from this story.
"It doesn't matter how high or how low you are. If you violate the law, you will be tried by a jury of your peers. The state will present evidence for your conviction, your defense will present evidence against your conviction, and the jury will make the determination as to whether or not you are guilty of the crime with which you are charged."
That's my interpretation. And since this trial is taking place in an American court and not a Swedish court, and since Amnesty International has no control over the sentences imposed in American courts, we're going to follow American legal procedure.
We must all remember that
a court of law does not determine moral guilt. Any court of law determines whether or not the person being tried is guilty of breaking one or more laws. The
moral component is the existence of the law itself.
I'm sure you've heard the trite phrase that "you can't legislate morality." (This old saw is usually trotted out when the person disagrees with his or her opponent's position and has no logical or reasonable response.) But every society on earth has laws, and the basis of those laws is some kind of moral foundation. Even the laws enacted by the French Republic just after the 1789 revolution, a government which was, at first, rabidly atheist in philosophy, had a moral basis. The law against murder is the moral component; the trial to either convict or acquit a given defendant is not.
I can't comment intelligently on the Russian situation you mention, both because I am not at all familiar with that particular incident and because I am not at all familiar with the Russian justice system. For all I know, the two different defendants might have been working together on the murders, or perhaps the second defendant was copying the style of the first. Just because the first trial didn't stop all the killings doesn't mean that it brought in an erroneous verdict. That's simply not a logical conclusion. This case does not weigh in against the death penalty, because the death of the second defendant stopped the killings. The most you could use this case for is to crusade for judicial reform in Russia.
I didn't want to start a conflict on this subject. I still don't. And just because a fictional character voices an opinion doesn't necessarily mean that the author holds those same opinions. Nor does it mean that the author necessarily agrees with everything he or she has his or her characters say or do. Case in point: many have complained against Clark's lunkheadedness in saying "I'm leaving you to protect you" idiocy, yet many have also used variations of the theme in their stories. Does this mean that the writers support Clark's actions?
Big no! It means that their characters are doing things to promote the story line.
In my case, Connie has a problem with defending people she knows are guilty. She took the case to see that justice is done, and in her worldview, getting Superman acquitted equals justice being done. Associated with this is her belief that the death penalty is just for some defendants. She also believes that New Troy law provides relief for those who take a life under certain circumstances. The dramatic reason for this dialogue is to get the readers better acquainted with Superman's defense counsel. Besides, I wanted them to have a reason to be concerned about possible eavesdropping by a hostile and unethical member of the press.
I think we all need to know what our hot buttons are, and we should be careful when we respond to those who push them. I don't mean that we should all think the same things, I only mean that we should be careful about seeing this Lois&Clark world as "too real."
I hope I haven't offended anyone with this response. That's not my intention, but I also believe that when I'm asked a direct question I should answer it. Thanks for reading.
