It doesn't sit well with me to give Superman the human range when it comes to positive emotion and some godly self control when it comes to negative emotions. It's too easy and convinient to endow Superman with *just the right amount* of humanity. The only way it makes sense to me is if I think about Superman leading life being extremely guarded about _everything_. So, if Superman can't kill because of his supernatural restraint, I don't think he can love without that supernatural restraint. It simply doesn't ring real for him to be so controlled without being limited in his person. That would be way worse than moral bankcruptcy. It's boring. But I'm being repetitive yet again
Speculations and generalities aside and more related to Ch 18-- I'm calling it a not guilty due to the emotional disturbance thing. Is he morally guilty? Damn right. No one can question that and he will live with that burden. Is he guilty in the eyes of the law? No, there was no intention--Superman said that in his testimony. So unless he's lying and knowing him and his desire for justice, that's not in line, he's not guilty under the LAW which is what the trial is about to my understanding.
alcyone
