The Insanity Defense on Almost Human

By

-

February 25, 2014

Almost Human continues to impress me. The episode “Beholder,” demonstrated excellent legal issues set against dynamic storytelling.

The story started out as catch the serial killer who is killing “pretty people” by extracting their DNA, causing a heart attack, and then using the victim’s DNA to make himself look more attractive. The episode did not follow the standard formula that the “villain” was evil, but ended with a strong Bladerunner rooftop face-off. I almost expected a Roy type speech of “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I’ve watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.”

The “villain” Eric suffered from a psychological disorder where he thought he was not attractive, thus constantly seeking perfection by killing people for their DNA to improve his looks. There is no excuse for murder, but this disorder would be enough for an effective insanity defense. The key element of what must be proven is a mental disease made Eric incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his act or was incapable of knowing or understanding that his act was morally or legally wrong. 2-3400 CALCRIM 3450.

I think a defense attorney could win on that argument, because Eric was being driven to commit murder because of his illness. This twist made the episode highly dynamic, because it created empathy for someone who had killed nine people. Everything he did was driven by his disease and a desire to be loved by a woman he was exchanging instant messages with. Normally there is no sympathy for a serial killer.

“Beholder” showed perhaps the most physical and computer forensics in the entire season, plus issues of subpenaing third party information. The technology at issue were nano-bots used to collect the DNA. Augmented Reality was also used for holographic reconstructions of the victims, in addition to Dorian acting as both a mobile crime lab and having an AED built into his hands. Facial recognition software was also used to identify the suspect.

I will avoid giving away the other major reveals. In my opinion, this episode touched on significant issues of the human condition, featured excellent examples of technology used in police investigations and presented a great legal issue. Job well done.

Can You Torture a Droid?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

February 24, 2014

1

Jabba the Hutt likes to have Droids torture other Droids. However, is that even torture?

The law defines “torture” as follows:

Every person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7 upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.

The crime of torture does not require any proof that the victim suffered pain.

Cal Pen Code § 206.

“Great bodily injury” means a significant or substantial physical injury. Cal Pen Code § 12022.7(f).

In Return of the Jedi, Jabba’s Palace included a Droid duty assignment office, which doubled as a Droid torture chamber. A Power Droid was hung by his shaking little feet while a hot brand was applied to his feet. The Power Droid screamed “NNNNNOOOO, NNNNOOOO” during the procedure as a guard laughed.

R2D2 was made to watch these events, serving as a form of torture to ensure compliance with the orders of Jabba’s Droid.

The issue whether Jabba unlawfully had Droids tortured in an inhuman house of horrors must overcome an ugly legal issue: Does a Droid have “human rights”? Can a Droid be responsible for torturing another Droid even though the law requires a “person” to commit the act?

Droids are considered property, as evident from Uncle Owen purchasing C3PO and R2D2 from the Jawas in A New Hope (the legality of the purchase is problematic, based on whether the Droids were lost or abandoned property after Princess Leia was captured by Darth Vader). Assuming the purchase was valid, Luke would have been the legal owner of the Droids after his aunt and uncle were killed. Alternatively, the ownership of the Droids could be established as inheritance from his parents, however that is problematic from the passage of time between Revenge of the Sith to A New Hope, unless Captain Antilles was serving as a bailee until the twin Skywalkers were of proper age.

Regardless, Luke Skywalker offered C3PO and R2D2 as a legal gift to Jabba the Hutt. This is further evidence that Droids are merely considered property and do not have “human rights,” because a basic human right is not to be exploited for slavery.

Droids have an odd quality for being property: they have a range of personalities and emotions, including fear or being grumpy. Why build machines that serve as property that experience fear and pain? Such programming begs to introduce a wide range of legal issues on the ethical treatment of Droids.

The law has over a century of statutes and cases protecting animals from cruelty (See, Cal Pen Code § 597 and Yielding v. Ball, 205 Ala. 376, 377 (Ala. 1921)). Moreover, animals such as dogs and cats are considered personal property. Just like a Droid.

Hanging a Power Droid by his feet and burning him would be actions consistent within the protections of Cal Pen Code § 597, which prevents the maliciously and intentionally torture of an animal and Cal Pen Code § 206 as sadistically causing great bodily harm. While a Droid is neither a “person” or an “animal,” a Droid is property like an animal, with a wide range of emotions that both animals and human beings experience. While the law does not specifically include Droids, the great body of law prohibiting torture of humans and animals shows the intent to prohibit the torture of Droids based upon our human values to prevent harm to others.

The fact a Droid carried out Jabba’s torture does not free the Droid or Jabba from prosecution. The “I was just following” orders defense would fall on deaf ears, as Jabba’s Droid knew its actions were causing pain upon the Power Droid and serving as a threat to R2D2. Jabba would be responsible as both the Droid’s owner and as the business owner.

Smart Houses & Lethal Defense of Property on Almost Human

By

Josh Gilliland

-

February 19, 2014

0

Self-defense laws a very clear on when lethal force can be used. Despite the well-armed Smart Houses on the Almost Human episode “Disrupt,” the lethal defense of property is never justified. What was surprising was the homeowners who were sued for a teenager killed trespassing in their property were not liable for the victim’s death.

The law does not allow homes to be protected by landmines and spring rifles. California Courts instruct juries when the defense of property is at issue with the following jury instruction:

When conditions are present which, under the law, justify a person in using force in defense of property, that person may use that degree and extent of force as would appear to a reasonable person, placed in the same position, and seeing and knowing what the resisting person then sees and knows, to be reasonably necessary to prevent imminent injury threatened to the property. Any use of force beyond that limit is excessive and unjustified, and anyone using excessive force is legally responsible for the consequences thereof.

CALJIC No. 5.43.

There is a difference with self-defense, which can allow the use of lethal force to defend a person when a person is facing death, serious bodily injury, forcible rape or kidnapping. See, Model Penal Code § 3.04(2)(b)(i).

There are situations where personal self-defense and defense of property overlap. However, this is not meant to be a green light for murdering people who trespass on property. As one Court explain by citing a text on criminal law: if the defender’s reasonable force in protection of his property is met with an attack upon his person, he may then respond by defending himself and then may be entitled to use force. Commonwealth v. Young, 271 Pa. Super. 59, 64-65 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979), citing W. LaFave and A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law, § 55, at 400 (1972).

Such a situation would be fact specific, however opening fire at an unarmed trespasser would be unreasonable.

A homeowner with a home defense system that shot a teenager who jumped a fence would have no right to argue defense of property or self-defense. It would make more sense for AI Home Defense Systems to have speakers that yell “get off my lawn” then automatic weapons for fence hopping.

The trespasser in “Disrupt” had committed a crime by entering the homeowner’s yard, however the Artificial Intelligence home defense system shot the youth. As such, the homeowners would be legally responsible for the excessive and unjustified use of lethal force on the trespasser.

Could such defense systems be armed for those who are targets for kidnapping and receiving death threats? Yes, but the system would need to be able to recognize when someone trespassing actually had the intent to commit murder, serious bodily injury, forcible rape or kidnapping of the homeowner, meeting the specific requirements for “defense of others” vs the force necessary to remove someone property. That would be a very dynamic operating system that decides life or death. It would be….almost human.

Putin on the Winter Olympics

By

Josh Gilliland

-

February 18, 2014

0

Jessica Mederson & Josh Gilliland discuss the 2014 Winter Olympics, privacy, the 1982 Olympics and Cold War history.

Who Wants to Work at ISIS?

By

Jessica_alegalgeek

-

February 14, 2014

0

It’s almost Valentine’s Day, which means romance is in the air. Romance is certainly in the air at ISIS – although maybe romance isn’t quite the right word to use for what’s going on at Mommy Dearest’s headquarters. Hanky panky would be charitable. A labor lawyer would call it a hostile work environment.

That’s right, I’m talking about Archer – the man and the show. Could anyone be a better date for Valentine’s Day than Archer? The answer, of course, is yes. While he has some charm, it’s very limited and incredibly short lived.

The show itself, on the other hand, has a charm that lasts. Archer, his mother, Lana, Pam, Cyril…they’re all fantastically horrible. It’s like an animated work family version of Arrested Development (which makes sense, given the common matriarch they share). It’s funny, quotable, and clever. But I would never want to work there!

But if you were unlucky enough to be an employee there, would you have to put up with the verbal abuse, the sexual harassment, and the forced drug abuse? No. Get a lawyer immediately! In order to establish a hostile work environment, the problematic behaviors or statements must usually be pervasive and last for a period or time or involve a single incident that was extraordinarily severe. And the problems must be serious enough to actually alter or disrupt the conditions of the employee’s work environment. Finally, the actions or problems must be related to a protected classification, such as the employee’s age, race, gender, or religion. While not every offensive moment on the show targets a protected class, there’s enough there to start several lawsuits!

Most of the employees are guilty of creating a hostile work environment, but is ISIS responsible for its employees’ loathsome (but so watchable!) behavior? ISIS could avoid liability if it could show (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” See Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).

Of course, ISIS hasn’t done anything to avoid liability – and its employees show no sign of stopping their offensive behavior. As a viewer, I’m so glad no one has learned their lesson because I love every outrageous moment. But if you’re going to work there, watch out: You’re heading into the Danger Zone!

Why I Always Visit the Lincoln Memorial

By

Josh Gilliland

-

February 12, 2014

0

Funny thing about me: I will always visit the Lincoln Memorial when I am in Washington, D.C. I have gone in the good weather, in pouring rain, freezing snow and at midnight.

I always go.

Even at midnight on a cold night, people are there paying their respects to President Abraham Lincoln.

Why? Why does Lincoln matter?

Some Americans might find inspiration in President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address; others may find themselves standing taller when they hear the Gettysburg Address.

I say it is far more. Lincoln represented the best of public service. From his days as a young attorney, to the Illinois Assembly, to his one term in Congress, Lincoln stood for principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Congressman Lincoln lived at the same boarding house as former President turned Congressman John Quincy Adams; Lincoln’s roommate was the fiery Joshua R Giddings. God knows what the dinner time conversation was like over the future of America.

And still there is more.

Abraham Lincoln had to navigate the politics within the very young Republican party, keep an eye on potential challengers, and fight the bloodiest war in US History to hold the country together.

It would take eleven Vietnam Memorial Walls to include the names of every American who died in the Civil War. That is approximately 5,429 feet of names.

That does not include those whose lives would be defined by empty sleeves and lifeless eyes for the rest of the 19th Century.

One only needs to look at the photos of Lincoln after he was elected in 1860 and the photos in March of 1865 to see how President Lincoln wore the weight of those lost.

When the President said, “With malice towards none and generosity for all,” it was not political rhetoric; he truly meant it.

Yet after the horror of Civil War, President Lincoln looked to the future with a Reconstruction plan that was to be announced on April 17, 1865.

I wish to God he had lived to see that day.

Abraham Lincoln continues to be honored 205 years after his birth because he represented the best of us. Our potential as a country. He had his flaws, fought depression and self-doubt. But in the end, Lincoln was a man who studied law and heard the cry of public service when our country needed a hero. Abraham Lincoln fought, and died, upholding Jefferson’s truth that all men are created equal.

And that is why I feel honor bound to visit the Lincoln Memorial when I visit Washington, D.C.

I also always feel morally obligated to see Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln when I am at Disneyland, but that is another story.

Future Computer Forensics on Almost Human

By

Josh Gilliland

-

February 11, 2014

0

Almost Human’s episode “Perception” presented a fantastic case study of computer forensics in 2048. The episode also showed the best legal issues to date.

The episode included augmented reality post-it notes, biometric security, 3D drug printing with data backed up to the Cloud, text messages, hacking, a lawyer appearing via hologram while a client was being questioned by the police and paying a private eye to destroy evidence for his client. It was literally like an eDiscovery pinata exploded.

Let’s break down the issues:

Virtual Post It Notes

Both John Kennex and the “bad guy” had augmented reality post-it notes. Kennex’s notes related back to the events that put him in a coma; the villain’s those who were responsible for her daughter’s death. Both had a subtle Moby Dick element to them on how revenge could lead to one’s ultimate destruction.

Herman Melville aside, figuring out how to make a byte-by-byte image of virtual post-it notes could make a computer forensic expert yell, “to the last I grapple with thee.” Where is the computer from which the data was generated? Is it in a cloud? Or something totally different. An expert would need to know how the augmented reality worked and the location of the device that generated the data in order to capture it.

Alternatively, they could just take a photo of the floating virtual post-it note.

3D Drug Printing

The 3D drug printing with cloud back-up was a beautiful example of existing technology in the future. The manufacture of drugs is a regulated industry. Licenses are required for pharmacists. Moreover, the data backed-up to the cloud would protected under both the Stored Communication Act (which hopefully will be updated before 2048) and the 4th Amendment (which hopefully will not be still under attack in 2048).

The intersection of heavily regulated device and cloud storage poses an interesting question: would the license for the 3D drug printer require as part of its license the waiving of rights under the 4th Amendment and Stored Communication Act to ensure it is not being used for an unlawful purpose? My gut says this would be the case.

Text Messages

Existing computer forensics has acquiring this data pretty nailed. Many companies have tools to capture the data, whether it is on the local device, the cloud or a service provider.

The question remains, did the police get a warrant for the father-daughter communications?

Lawyer On-Demand

Every attorney should take comfort that there are still lawyers in 2048 working at law firms. Almost Human is one of the few police shows that actually honored the right to remain silent and counsel in ages. The idea of being able to call your attorney for an instant virtual meeting currently can be done with video conference technology. Making your lawyer an on-demand hologram would just be cool.

And awesome billing entries: “Holographic meeting with client. 0.3”

Intentional Crimes

Both computer hacking with the intent to kill and the willful destruction of evidence are crimes. The hacking the 3D printer will end in first degree murder charges. The PI destroying recordings done for client that he was then paid to destroy will at a minimum cost him his PI license and at most bring charges for obstruction of justice.

Hat Tip

My compliments to the production team on highlighting real legal issues with technology in a way that moved the story along, without getting lost in the tech. Job well done.