Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Lois & Clark Fanfic FDK - Rebuilding Superman 16

He's lost it, right?

Phew! I JUST caught up with this amazing fic and it was long overdue. I am really finding it just above and beyong the ordinary and just admire the research and the talent that goes into making this scenario as believable and tense as you have been making it. This is just the fanfic "with teeth" that I enjoy reading--the type of story that adds a new dimension to the characters and leaves me with plenty to munch on.

For instance the impression as I read further of Clark's need for redemption is much more complicated than I first thought. At first it just seemed about justice--he owes this to society. However as the fic progressed, I realized I was wrong. I do get the impression that he subconsciously wants to make things even harder for himself because he hasn't come to terms with what he did. So the whole idea of needing to be put through the law is kind of a cop out in some ways (placing judgement on the hands of others when its up to the individual to take responsibility over their own actions). I believe that his defense team did call him on it--presenting that the morality of what he did is solely his own to judge after the fact. That's a much more difficult task than actually subjecting himself to the trial and the trial in fact hides that fact.

Of course I'm bracketting the responsibility to society bit. What I'm trying to get at through this long winded take is precisely that it isn't just about society and breaking the law. The added complication is in using the law to avoid coming to terms with it by yourself. If it were just about society then Clark would be a lot more neutral. But he's almost working against himself a lot of the time, so either it can be thought of as penance in and out of itself or a type of avoidance.

Anyway, looking at it from that angle really gives me a lot to think about. That's always a positive. I'll definitely be reading!

alcyone

I just read Alcyone's comment, and I liked it a lot. You're right, Alcyone, Clark does indeed act as if he is asking society and the law to redeem him, because he can't do so himself.

Well, Terry has been telling me, over and over, that the law isn't about morality, only about whether or not you have actually broken the law in such a way that the mitigating circumstances are not enough to have you acquitted. I have been arguing and arguing that in my opinion, Superman's killing of Billy Church was not morally (or, according to the only law that I understand, Swedish law, legally) justified. But I've said that so many times now, so reiterating it won't do any good.

No, it's time to concentrate on Alcyone's point. (Okay, I don't promise that I won't ever return to my point, but I'll try to behave myself.) If we consider Alcyone's point, then it becomes so much more interesting that Superman is going to testify himself. And it makes perfect sense that Superman wouldn't accept to make a deal with the prosecution, or that he won't be happy with a verdict that acquits him of second degree murder but doesn't actually say that his behaviour was perfectly justified. He needs to be told that.... I don't know. I remember that Connie told Superman that in her opinion, he had done the right thing when he killed Billy Church. (That provoked me, as Terry may remember.) Well, Alcyone has made me see that Superman wants everyone in that jury to look at him with respect and sincerity in their eyes and tell him, "Superman, we all think that you did the right thing when you killed Billy Church." Only if society and the law forgives him that much will he be able to forgive himself, as Alcyone says.

Now, of course, I have to wonder. Will society and the law forgive as completely as he craves to be forgiven? Am I the only one who feels the way I do about the idea of murdering another person when you know that you don't have to do so in self defence? Maybe I would be a total misfit in the United States and be regarded as a dangerous extremist. But maybe, indeed, there are people with my views in the United States, too. If I had been an American citizen and Superman had been for real, I wouldn't have been writing nasty letters to Superman or anything like that. I wouldn't have been organizing demonstrations to protest a "Not guilty" verdict, though I might possibly have joined one that other people organized (but it's not likely that I would). I doubt I would have written letters to the editors of newspapers, though I might have. I wouldn't have joined any sort of really vicious campaign against Superman. Still, he might have felt that I had not completely, totally forgiven him. And suppose that, after all, there might be a non-negligent number of Americans who share my views, and who are not ready to completely forgive Superman for his killing of Billy Church. What will it do to Superman if he can feel that lack of total forgiveness from a part of the American population? What will it do to him if he feels that some people whose ideas of morality he can't dismiss as hogwash haven't totally forgiven him?

Wow. This is really interesting, Terry.

Ann

Ann wrote:
Ann, I never said that the law isn't about morality. I said that a trial isn't about morality. The very fact that a law exists means that a society has determined that there is a moral reason to either perform an action (yield to oncoming traffic, remain faithful to one's spouse) or refrain from an action (don't lie about people in a legal situation, don't break into other people's houses and take their belongings). The criminal courtroom is never a place to determine the morality of a choice, only the legality of that choice.

For example, if courts judged morality, we might be hauled before a judge for such things as chopping wood at three o'clock on a Thursday afternoon when there was previously no law forbidding this action, simply because someone with more money or more political influence didn't like what we were doing. Yes, this is a silly example, but this is why no court should ever create a law. A criminal courtroom is reserved for the determination of the guilt or lack of guilt of the accused, not to determine whether or not the actions of the accused were or were not moral.

(Please understand that my comments refer to criminal trials, not to civil trials, where in the US one may sue another for anything under the sun, including some of the most idiotic things you can possibly think of.)

And it's why your opinion that Superman was not morally justified in killing Bill Church is completely valid but has no bearing on the outcome of the trial. Superman must be judged according to the evidence and only according to the evidence presented to the court.

On a completely irrelevant side note, I wonder why you keep referring to the late head of Intergang as 'Billy.' Not that I object to that form of address, but I'm just curious.

Alcyone's analysis has impacted the nail directly upon the striking surface. Clark's attitude is more about his own conscience than the legality of his action, which is indeed why he feels he has to testify when his legal counsel tells him he won't. Of course, we'll have to wait until the next chapter to find out if he does testify.

Thanks for reading! I hope the rest of the story is discussed in such an intelligent and civilized manner as has been so far.

Point taken, Terry.

I have no idea. I've always found names relatively uninteresting. Having to memorize names at school is more than enough for me, and when I'm reading LnC fics for my own pleasure I make no effort. I have probably seen the name "Billy Church" somewhere. It could be, too, that the irony of the almost childish innocence of the name "Billy" appeals to me, considering what an evil villain Bill Church really is.

Ann

Like LabRat, I often wander into feedback threads when I haven't yet had a chance to read the story. Terry, since at this point I'm so far behind, I'm going to wait until this story hits the Archives. I do remember being pretty annoyed at Clark through much of the original story, so I'll be curious to know whether I feel he redeems himself in this sequel.

Ann, there is both a Bill and a Billy Church in L&C. We met Bill Church Sr. as the head of Intergang in "Church of Metropolis". Then we met Bill Jr. who was filling in for his father in "Individual Responsibility". Then we saw both of them together in "We Have a Lot to Talk About", when both were hauled off to jail after being set up by Sr.'s wife, Mindy, who then became the new head of Intergang. All three characters have made appearances in L&C fics, and IIRC correctly, it was Bill Sr. (and not Billy) who Clark killed in Terry's original story.

Kathy

My apologies here because I too haven't been reading but I was interested in this particular feedback thread because of the legal matter. I wanted to add the issue of the celebrity of the accused and how that plays out in American courts. Since the O.J. trial, I think it's pretty moot whether a celebrity, which Superman is, will be convicted.

Also my apology if this point has already been raised.

c.

Kathy, thanks for enlightening me about Bill and Billy Church.

And I agree with you, Carol. The "Not guilty" verdict for O.J. Simpson didn't seem right to me, and it would seem that millions of Americans agree with me.

Ann

Hi,

Great part!

Terry, I would love to give your story the well thought out, constructive comments it deserves, but my brain isn't working that way lately. So I am just going to tell you that I am still reading your story and *really* enjoying it!

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone! The next chapter will be up soon.

Maria's question about the Planet printing a story that Connie Hunter told Ron not to print is important. In American law, an attorney or law enforcement official cannot tell a media outlet (newspaper, radio, TV, blog) what stories to run or not to run. If the media outlet runs a false story, they are liable for civil and sometimes criminal damages. The National Enquirer has paid off a number of judgements against it over the years for false stories they've run. I think they just count it as part of the cost of doing business.

As to the O.J. trial, I personally believe that he did deliberately murder his ex-wife and her lover, and I also believe that the prosecution made a number of terrible errors which allowed the jury to return a 'not guilty' verdict based on the evidence which was presented to them. Many people don't remember that OJ lost a civil suit not long after his criminal trial where it was determined that he was at fault and culpable in their deaths, and therefore owed a huge monetary settlement to the families of the victims.

However, my belief does not a conviction make. OJ was NOT convicted by a jury of his peers, and while I don't like it, I'd rather see any number of apparently guilty people go free than see one innocent person convicted. That is one of the precepts upon which the American justice system is built, and while it's not perfect, it's what we've got. Life and death and guilt and innocence are deep questions, and we ask a great deal of any group of people who serve on any jury to determine whether or not the defendant did what he or she is accused of doing.

Most US legal experts agree that the OJ trial is an example of 'jury nullification.' That means that the jury thinks the defendant is guilty, finds no legal basis to acquit, but votes to acquit anyway based on a real or perceived injustice concerning either the crime or the trial itself. In this case, the common interpretation is that the jury decided to let this famous black man off and not convict him of murdering his white ex-wife and her white lover. I have no personal knowledge of the truth of this interpretation.

Thanks for reading. We're in the home stretch now, so hold on!