Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Lois & Clark Fanfic FDK - Nowhere To Run - Part 2

This is a slightly longer section, but I thought it worked better to give you this part in one piece. So now you know the how? All that's left is the what now?

ML

/bows to your evilness/


That's all I have to say about that.

Okay not really. Deter is a slimy scumbag. I bet Henderson will find a way around pressing charges when they get back .

I'm just sayin'...

And I love Henderson and Stern here too .

OK, you've got me on the edge of my seat! When's Part 3 coming up, I can hardly wait?!!!

That was excellent and I wondered about Henderson noticing that Clark was making indentations in the mahogany table! Maybe he'll revisit that later and realise it was actually Superman that took off with Lois!... and like carolm said, he will find a loophole to get Clark off the hook for kidnapping Lois.

I love it! Bring us more soon, please!



Cheers
Elizabeth

aaarghhh

I think Clark really underestimated the power of professional jealousy in regards to Deter. I'm sure there are at least a couple of reputable psychiatrists out there perfectly willing to examine Lois, question Deter's 'therapy' and take Deter down for professional misconduct.

Also I've always wondered what Deter's real motive was for going after Lois - he had too much to lose going after her the way he did. Was he actually trying to get her to remember something about Luthor, or even Superman, while in an isolated and controlled environment?

Can a person be charged if the victim does not want to press charges, or is just having evidence of a "crime" enough?

If Lois gets her memory back, that is...

malu

Malu -

I had a friend who was beaten by her husband once.

It was the first time it had happened [as they were going through a really nasty separation and nastier divorce].

She went to the police station, had everything documented just in case, but told them she didn't want to press charges but wanted proof in case it happened again.

They told her that it was the decision of the District Attorney but that if she didn't want to press charges [especially for something so 'minor'**] s/he probably wouldn't [and didn't].

So - the DA COULD have decided to press charges. If Lois decided to she didn't want to be involved in the prosecution, the chances would be less likely. It's possible Lois could come back and say that she ultimately went willingly [esp if they didn't find evidence that she'd been drugged]. In that case, the only crime would be if someone knowingly reported a crime when there was one.

Remember the Runaway Bride a few years ago? There was nothing for them to charge her with UNTIL several days after she disappeared and she called the cops and gave them information about her 'abduction' [a false police report or something of that nature].

Google Jennifer Wilbanks for more info on her story.

**I DO NOT mean to imply that domestic abuse is minor at all. However, this was truly a one time event with a man who was moving several states away the next day. In some instances where there is repeated abuse where the woman wants to press charges and backs out repeatedly, they will go ahead but it is difficult without the cooperation of the victim. For something more 'major' like attempted murder, the cooperation of the victim may not matter.

ML is a lawyer and I'm sure can correct any of this if I'm wrong .

Thanks for the info, carolm.

The clinic, through Deter, could press charges of kidnapping, since Clark left obvious signs of break-in and mess in Lois's room, then.

If it were only up to Henderson, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do anything against Clark unless Lois came back and "complained" about it. At least, that's my understanding. Just throwing it out there.

malu

The quick answer to your question, Malu, is yes. The state often presses charges where the victim doesn't want charges pressed.

Here's the rational: When you commit a crime, it's not against an individual. It's against the State. In Canada, it's:

R. v. Clark Kent ('R' being short for Regina or The Queen)

In the US, it's:

The People v. Clark Kent.

Nowhere in the title is the individual victim even mentioned - and doesn't even need to be in court unless subpeonaed.

In Ontario at the moment, we have a zero tolerance policy against domestic abuse. As a result, if you call the police, and claim that your husband/wife hit you, the police WILL lay charges and the Crown attorney will not withdraw those charges - regardless of the victim's opinion.

The result can be crazy. For example, wife calls police. Husband gets charged. Wife doesn't want to proceed so when she is on the witness stand, she recants what she told the police earlier. The husband is found not guilty and the wife goes to jail for either Public Mischief (reporting a crime to the police that didn't happen) or purgery (for lying on the witness stand).

(There is one way around this (but don't tell anyone I said so ). Often there is large quantities of alcohol involved in cases of domestic assault. So the woman gets on the stand and says: I don't remember what happened. Of course, she could still be charged with purgery if the police find out that it is a lie and she does remember.)

Now, an individual could bring charges (at least in Canada). They might do this if the police refused to press charges. Then, if the crown thinks they have a case, the crown would take over the prosecution. If the crown doesn't think they have a case, the individual would be required to prosecute the case on their own. It doesn't happen often, but it can happen.

(More than you ever wanted to know on that topic )
ML

Thanks for the info, ML. Very interesting.

Tapping my fingers on the laptop waiting for the next installment.

malu

Malu -

I'd think they could only charge him with trespassing/destruction of property or something like that. If Lois says she went willingly there is no kidnapping...

Even with "signs of struggle"? Sorry for all the questions. Just curious.

malu

I'd think so...

LOIS is the kidnap victim. For all anyone knows, it could have been... um... throes of passion or something . Lois being gone INDICATES the possibility of kidnapping but doesn't necessarily PROVE it [at least according to the million crime procedurals I've watched ]. Heck, MAYBE Clark was trying to get Lois to stay and she fought him, knocked him out escaped and he followed her - he just wanted to talk [which would still be trespassing I'd think].

And the DA would have to agree to press charges as well. They could tell Deter/et al to stick it [but more politely ]. It's up to the DA what to prosecute and what not to.

They could possibly file a civil suit wanting Clark [IF it's proven Clark was there - we don't know what evidence there is that he was - all we have is the headline which doesn't SAY what evidence they have that Clark took her, for all we know at this point it's pure supposition] to pay for damages and repairs but criminal cases are up to the DA. They only charge someone with murder or whatever IF the DA believes there is enough evidence to convict [okay sometimes they go to trial with less but not too often].

IF Lois says there was no kidnapping there isn't [though, as ML said, if they could PROVE she's lying there would be possible consequences for perjury or lying in a sworn statement or whatever you call it, but I doubt Henderson/etc would pursue it much once ML gives us the happy ending =D].

Edit: As ML said, there are some 'zero tolerance' type things that will be automatic, but the less evidence, the less chance they will on anything else.

Okay the headline:

LOIS LANE BELIEVED KIDNAPPED
CLARK KENT PRIME SUSPECT

They THINK Lois has been kidnapped and if so Clark did it.

They don't KNOW she has been and if she hasn't there's nothing to charge Clark with kidnapping wise.

That's why I referred to the Runaway Bride incident. They believed she'd been abducted and spent several days searching the woods etc. for her. It turned out she got REALLY cold feet and took off. At that point, there WAS NO CRIME. It wasn't until she called and gave a description of the people who 'kidnapped' her that there was a crime - a false police report.

Unless they have video or something, all they'll have is Lois' word.

If she says [once she's healthy again] that she went willingly, there's no crime of kidnapping. Maybe trespassing, breaking and entering, destruction of property in the room - but if Lois says she trashed it when she was mad at Deter etc., Clark is off the hook for that too. We're assuming they can prove Clark was there and that Lois won't claim that she destroyed the room and snuck out on her own.

If she says she snuck out on her own, they can charge HER with destruction of property etc, but there'd be no trespassing without proof Clark was there.

Depending on what Lois says, there may not be any evidence that Clark was involved in any crime at all.

At least that's my take on it...

[Proof of a new ML fic... spending way too much time on speculation... ]

Don't worry, Malu. You're questions about what will happen will eventually be answered. Keep in mind, though, that Deter undoubtedly reported Lois' disappearance to the police and as we continue the story, I suspect the police are investigating. So as to whether charges will be pressed... You'll just have to read the story to find out.

Well, I'm basically finished my editing now, so my plan is to start posting every other day.

Keep reading. Your questions will eventually be answered. (I tend to say that a lot )

ML

Carol, a thought just occurred to me. You aren't suggesting that Lois would commit a criminal offence by lying to the police, are you?

ML

Oh no.

Lois would NEVER EVER do that .

Not Lois.

Oh, good. I was worried there for a moment

ML

Very interesting discussion on crime and punishment. Here in the US, the police (and District Attorney) will often decline to pursue a case against an abusive husband if the main witness is the wife and she refuses to testify against him. There would simply be insufficient proof for a conviction unless there is a medical history and other eyewitness testimony supporting the claim.

Most departments today have a very low or zero tolerance on wife beating, something which was not true a few decades ago. My point is that the Metropolis DA would have a hard time proving that Clark kidnapped Lois if Lois doesn't testify that Clark kidnapped her.

Now to the story.

Love the determined, steely-eyed, throw caution to the winds Clark! I remember thinking when Luthor drove away with Lois that I'd never let the woman I loved leave so easily, especially if I was as capable of so many things as Clark is. This is a reasonable premise to resolve a truly unreasonable situation.

By the way, I thought Little Brother Johnson was one of the dumber screen villains in the L&C universe. And his mind-control invention was simply horrible, as was the "Heyba-heyba-hoba-heeba-haba" the newsroom staff did. I'd almost rather clean a public toilet with my best friend's toothbrush than watch that episode again.

Every other day? Love the posting schedule! And the story! Keep 'em coming!

Arrrgh. I hate seeing Lois like this. But, I know, I know, it's canon.

I still have to wonder how it would be possible to brainwash Lois like that. I just think that successful brainwashing would take longer, and also that it would affect other parts of your personality as well. For example, I doubt that Lois could be so strong and determined if she had been so badly brainwashed. After all, Deter has made her give up some of her most deep-seated convictions in order to utterly bow to his will. I think Lois should be a mentally broken and "gutted" woman, unable to access her feisty "Lois personality" to put up such a spirited fight against her old friends in defense of the man who has broken her.

But, well, this is a Superman universe, and maybe the rules and physics of brainwashing are not the same in our own world as they are in a universe where a man can fly!

And maybe Lois's defense of Deter is not so out of character for her after all? Her behaviour when Lex managed to dupe her was not all that dissimilar from what we are seeing here. Could it be that Lois is so desperate to be loved by a man that she is willing to utterly change her outlook on life and her preferences for his sake? Or maybe she is looking for a man who is strong and forceful, so that she can bow to his will? And that would be why she liked men like Superman, Lex Luthor and Maxwell Deter? Ugh. Personally I don't want to think of Lois like that.

But I, too, love seeing this determined version of Clark.

I hope, too, that Henderson and also the medical world of psychiatrists will insist that Deter's treatment of Lois is improper and has not been meant to cure her, but to make her a pawn of his will.

Ann