Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Lois & Clark Fanfic FDK: Rebuilding Superman 13/20

Connie and Jack, sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G. Ok, maybe not, but I can hope, right?

I feel better about Ron. Or is he just lying to make her feel more comfortable?

Oh, Lord. Clark's not really going to get jealous, is he?

I wouldn't take the deal either.

This man would pee in his pants if he ever met Lois Lane!

Can hardly wait to read Lois' testimony!

Hi,

Great part!

Well, Terry, I very much admire your story, but you know me - some aspects of it provoke me, too. And the problem may lie with me every bit as much as with your story:

Yes, Connie, in some ways I really am an incorrigible 51-year-old woman who won't back down from her position. Because I'm never going to agree with you about this:

I can accept that Superman's behaviour that night was understandable, given the provocation, the circumstances and the whole situation. And I can accept the idea that Superman will not receive any punishment for doing what he did, precisely because of the circumstances, the provocation and the whole situation. But saying that he did the right thing - that it was good that he acted like a self-appointed judge, jury and executioner that night - that's something I can never accept.

And, Connie, I was a bit disappointed that you said this:

In almost all circumstances I'm against capital punishment. Yes, I think it would have been right to execute Hitler. For all of that, I think we should be thankful that Hitler killed himself before justice caught up with him, because that way he died like a coward, not like a proud and wronged-against martyr. As for Saddam, my own guess is that Iraq won't benefit from his execution.

And, Connie, when you said that the taking of only one human life is abhorrent to you, I totally agree with you, of course. But are you implying that the taking of only one human life should be enough to sentence somebody to death? In that case, I'll forecefully disagree. How can you be so sure that the person who is accused of killing only once really did the killing that one time? When you execute a lot of people for such things as murdering on a single occasion, you are definitely going to execute some innocent people, too. There was a story posted on these boards a year ago or something, where Lois was not only wrongly accused of murder, but she was also wrongly found guilty of murder, and indeed, she was also wrongly executed for committing murder. Isn't it absolutely horrible? And those things are really going to happen if you execute people regularly.

All right. Let's return to your story, Terry. I, too, absolutely cringed at this:

This is totally unbearable. I think we all feel so strongly that it mustn't happen. But... that is why Superman can't allow himself to act as judge, jury and executioner, either.

As for Lois and Clark's relationship... well, this chapter didn't get my hopes up. Clark is already thinking that Lois is cheating on him. Will he believe her when she tells him that Ron isn't romantically interesting to her? Of course, I can admit that she should probably not have invited Ron inside, given the fact that he is obviously attracted to her. She undoubtedly did it because she values Ron's friendship, because she was feeling lonely, and because it was difficult for her to say to him that they shouldn't be seeing each other in private, not even as friends. Oh, well. Somehow I don't think you will let her get away with this without suffering for it, Terry.

And Lois's testimony is coming up. Ugh. Maybe Lois shouldn't chase Ron away. When this trial is over, Clark may not want to see her again.

Brilliantly written as always, Terry.

Ann

I think that that depends on your definition of right. Personally, for me, capital punishment isn't right, but I still support it because I believe it's a necessary "evil".

Say you're a guy, you come home and find your wife in bed with another man (I'm not married, this is just hypothetical), and you punch the guy. Was it right to do that? I'd say no, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it. For me, it's more a question of whether or not it's reasonable. Should they reasonably expect Superman to have knowledge of mass murder and control his emotions so that he doesn't kill the man responsible, or was what he knew reasonable provocation to kill that person? Those who know his secret also know about his closeness to one fo the victims-Mayson-but even without that, would you expect Superman to stop at maybe breaking a few bones or is homicide a reasonable reaction? The main thing is, how much does it affect each person's perception of his character?

Loved the way the ending reminded of the scene with that Yolanda-Connie's ability to strike fear.

Thanks for another fantastic chapter, Terry!

I loved it, through and through, especially how you're slowly, subtly showing us more of Jack Reisman:
This passage brilliantly illustrates the politics behind the trial, Reisman's resolve to see the case through — and that he's resigned himself to accept that he'll probably lose his job when it's all over.

I also loved his interaction with Connie, especially at the end:
Pitch-perfect writing and characterization here, Terry. And the rest of the chapter is no exception! The scene between Lois and Ron — and Clark's misinterpretation of the situation — was heart-wrenching.

Thanks again for sharing this incredible story with us on the boards. I'm looking forward to the next part!

I want to begin with an apology. I have been remiss in responding to all of you who have taken the time to leave feedback, and I promise to do better on this issue in the future.

Mrs. Mosley, Maria, the theme song for this section could be "Hey, Jealousy."

Woody, I think a punch would be a very calm response to such a provocation. I've never been faced with it either, and I don't know what I'd do if faced with that situation, but I doubt it would be pretty.

Crystal, thanks for all your kind words. Jack Reisman is holding a political office, so he has to be concerned with political realities and influences. It's not a pleasant fact of life, but it does exist. Honestly, I don't like it either.

Ann, I'm not surprised that you oppose capital punishment, but I am a bit surprised that you'd cite a fictional story as support for your position. And if capital punishment is wrong most of the time but okay for Hitler, how do we determine where to draw the line? Didn't Bill Church kill enough people to earn that fate?

I don't want to turn this story into a referendum on capital punishment, so I won't state or try to defend my position. I do, however, maintain that if a society chooses to attach a particular sentence to the crime of murder and applies that sentence to all who are convictd of the crime equally before the law, I have no problem with the convicted criminal serving whatever sentence society has decided to impose. The US has granted that authority to the various states, and since I've decided that New Troy is very similar to New York in its legal structure, New Troy has capital punishment, despite not charging Superman with a capital crime.

I would caution all FOLCs to remember that if any of us claim some kind of moral authority for our position on this issue, we must also be ready to define and defend that authority.

Lois's testimony is coming up. Hope you all get a kick out of it.

There was a case in Russia perhaps ten years ago. More than fifty people had been murdered by a presumed mass murderer, and if I remember things correctly, the murdered people were mostly children. One man had already been caught, tried, sentenced to death and executed for these murders, but unfortunately the murders continued!

Some time later another man was apprehended, tried, sentenced to death and executed for the murders. This time the evidence was very good, and the murders stopped as soon as the man was caught. He was guilty. What about the first man? He had already been executed for the same murders.

I don't know of any case in the United States where an innocent person has been executed, but my guess is that it has definitely happened. Particularly before DNA evidence was available.

I don't ever recommend capital punishment. As for the case in Russia that I cited above, note that it wasn't necessary to execute the murderer to make the killings stop - it was certainly enough to incarcerate him.

As for Hitler, I don't think he was much of a threat to anyone at the end of World War II. He was so utterly broken and defeated at that time. If he had been allowed to live out his life in prison, perhaps guarded by people who hated him, that would probably have been more of a punishment to him than an execution would have been. However, if Hitler had died in prison, it might have been necessary to give him a grave that could later have been used as a place of worship for neo-Nazis.

So I don't ever recommend capital punishment, but sometimes I don't dislike it as much as I usually do. What about Billy Church? I wouldn't recommend capital punishment for him, but I wouldn't protest if he was executed, either. I can certainly see that he might be a very serious threat even inside prison. Who is to say that he couldn't help run his organisation from the inside of the slammer?

But I insist that if a person is to be executed, then it must happen after due process. That still won't guarantee that the executed person isn't innocent, and it won't prove to Amnesty International that it was right to execute this person, but it does mean that the law will be upheld to the best of that society's ability. If nothing else, if a person is executed after due process and the whole thing still feels absolutely wrong to us, then we should assume that we dislike the law as such, and if we live in a democracy, we should see it as our duty as citizens to try to convince others in our society that that particular law should be changed.

Let me anticipate the ending of your story and assume that Superman is going to be found innocent of second degree murder. What should he tell the public afterwards, whose trust he needs if he is going to be Superman? Should he say this:

"My dear fellow Americans. As you know, I ripped out Billy Church's heart when I realized that he was behind the murder of dozens of people, and he had hatched a horrible plan to more or less take over our society. Now the law has spoken, and it says that I didn't break the law when I acted as Billy Church's judge, jury and executioner. Therefore, I now know that I can do the same thing again - I can kill a person on sight if my personal morality deems it necessary. So I want you to realize that when I return to my Superman duties, I do so as an inhumanly powerful alien who consider it my right to kill you if necessary. I advise you to remain calm, however, because I will probably find no reason to kill you."

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?

Ann

Ann wrote:
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.