Star Trek has a long history of not following orders. These actions often can fall under the “necessity defense” or “defense of necessity.” To illustrate how the defense can be applied, let’s review Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
Admiral James T. Kirk learned from Vulcan Ambassador Sarek that Spock would have shared his immortal soul known as a katra with someone before death. Kirk quickly determined Captain Spock performed a mind meld with an unconscious Leonard McCoy, before Spock sacrificed himself to save the USS Enterprise. McCoy began suffering psychological problems from the mind meld, which resulted in his arrest, and ultimately to be sent to a psychiatric hospital.[1]
Kirk requested the use of the decommissioned USS Enterprise for a mission to the Genesis Planet to recover Spock’s body and take it to Vulcan, in order to save both Dr. McCoy and Spock’s soul. Admiral Harry Morrow denied Kirk’s request.
Not one to take “no” for an answer, Kirk and Sulu broke McCoy out of jail. The senior crew of the Enterprise then assisted in the theft of the USS Enterprise, plus threatening one transporter officer and sabotaging the USS Excelsior.
Could a lawyer such as Samuel T. Cogley have defended Admiral Kirk and the surviving crew of the Enterprise with the necessity defense, if the crew of the Enterprise had not plead guilty after saving Earth (again) in Star Trek IV?[2]
The necessity defense is an affirmative defense to a crime. Kirk would have to show that the “harm that would have resulted from compliance with the law would have significantly exceeded the harm actually resulting from the defendant’s breach of the law.”[3]
Could the necessity defense apply to breaking Dr. McCoy out of the Starfleet holding cell? The test in California (where Starfleet Command is located) has the following for the necessity defense for escaping prisoners that must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence[4]:
-
- The defendant was faced with a specific threat of death or substantial bodily injury in the immediate future;
- There was a history of complaints that were not acted on, so that a reasonable person would conclude that any additional complaints would be ineffective;
- There was no time or opportunity to seek help from the courts;
- The defendant did not use force or violence against prison personnel or other people in the escape [other than the person who was the source of the threatened harm to the defendant];
AND
-
- The defendant immediately reported to the proper authorities when he had attained a position of safety from the immediate threat.
First, Dr. McCoy needed treatment for his side effects of the Vulcan mind meld that were causing a risk to McCoy’s health, from speaking in Spock’s voice, to delusions, to obsessive behavior. Moreover, Spock’s katra was in danger. Second, Admiral Kirk had sought permission to take the Enterprise to Genesis in order to treat McCoy and Spock, which had been denied. Third, given the need for immediate medical treatment, and the classified nature of Project Genesis, the Courts were an unlikely option. Fourth, McCoy did not use force against the guards, but both Kirk and Sulu assaulted the Starfleet prison personnel. This element is problematic, because the guards were just doing their jobs when Kirk and Sulu subdued them. Fifth, the crew of the Enterprise reported to Vulcan, one of the charter members of the Federation of Planets.
Expert testimony would need to be offered to prove McCoy was in immediate danger. Case law states that “imminent” means “likely to happen without delay.”[5] In terms of medical dangers, Courts have found that risk created by high blood sugar caused by diabetes was not imminent danger.[6] While a mind meld with someone’s soul is not in the same category as high blood sugar, the Defense would need to explain the danger to both McCoy and Spock.
The analysis of breaking McCoy out of jail and for stealing the USS Enterprise is substantially the same. Kirk must also prove they did not create a greater danger than the one avoided; that a reasonable person would also have believed that the act was necessary under the circumstances; and that the crew of the Enterprise did not substantially contribute to the emergency.[7]
There are maritime cases that show how the necessity defense has been applied over the centuries. Examples include crews who revolted and forced a vessel to return to port because it was unseaworthy; ships to take refuge in a blockaded or embargoed port due to dangerous weather; or make a stop in a prohibited place due to heavy traffic.[8] None of these are helpful to the defense, so the argument would need to be factually argued to the elements in the jury instructions.
The crew of the Enterprise did not create a danger greater than the one avoided (the Klingons were the ones who destroyed the USS Grissom). A reasonable person could logically conclude that stealing the Enterprise was necessary under the circumstances. Finally, Kirk did not substantially contribute to the emergency. While the prosecution would argue there was the risk of extensive damage to space dock or the USS Excelsior from sabotage. However, given there was not, these arguments would fail as speculative.
The argument that potentially does not fail is the destruction of the USS Enterprise. If the ship had a full crew, the automation circuits would not have overloaded, and the vessel would not have been crippled with one shot. My guess is this argument would fail, because Kirk turned death into a fighting chance for life.
The Search for Spock is Star Trek at its purest. The story is one of loyalty to friends where the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. Kirk, Scotty, Chekov, Sulu, and Uhura acted without hesitation to save both Dr. McCoy from a Vulcan mindmeld and Spock’s immortal soul, even if it meant destroying their careers and prison sentences. All of their actions were born from the necessity of saving their shipmates. All of their actions showed that the necessity defense was a test of character in facing a no-win scenario. And that is one of the greatest messages in Star Trek.
[1] See, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Released June 1, 1984, Paramount Pictures, http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_III:_The_Search_for_Spock, Last visited April 1, 2016
[2] Cogley was the attorney who defended Captain Kirk in the Original Series episode “Court Martial.” See, http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Court_Martial_(episode), Last visited April 1, 2016.
[3] State v. Rein, 477 N.W.2d 716, 717 (Minn. App. 1991).
[4] 2-2600 CALCRIM 2764
[5] United States v. Wilde (D.Alaska Oct. 11, 2011, No. 4:10-cr-021-SAO) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117121, at *24.
[6] U.S. v. Perdomo-Espana, 522 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2008).
[7] 2-3400 CALCRIM 3403.
[8] United States v. Ashton, 24 F.Cas. (C.C.Mass.1834) (No. 14,470); The William Gray, 29 F.Cas. 1300 (C.C.N.Y.1810) (No. 17,694); The Brig Struggle v. United States, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 71, 3 L.Ed. 660 (1815); and Commonwealth v. Brooks, 99 Mass. 434 (1868).
