The Necessity Defense in Strange New Worlds

May 10, 2022

Star Trek Strange New Worlds is a return to live action episodic storytelling in the Star Trek franchize. The first episode embraced Trek’s heritage of taking on complex issues in the reflection of science fiction. In the story, the pre-warp civilization of Kiley 279 was on the brink of civil war. The ruling nation-state developed weapons of mass destruction after observing the battle seen in the season two finale of Star Trek Discovery. Their plan was to obliterate the “revolutionary” faction with a “Warp Bomb.” Or “Warp Bombs.”

Captain Christopher Pike found himself in a bind with General Order Number One, which prohibits interfering in the development of civilizations without warp drive. The fact Kiley 279 had learned of warp technology from a battle the Federation had covered up, meant there had already been “cultural contamination.” However, General Order Number One technically prohibited the USS Enterprise crew from correcting the cultural contamination.

Captain Pike’s solution? He told his First Officer, “Screw General Order Number One.” In a homage to classic science fiction films, he asked, “Take me to your leader,” after being captured. Pike talked down the warring factions with a history lesson from Earth of Kiley 279’s possible future with war. More importantly, he inspired them to reach for a brighter future to join the Federation of Planets.

If there was a Starfleet JAG officer preparing a defense for Captain Pike, the best option is the necessity defense, which is an affirmative defense to a crime. Captain Pike 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.” State v. Rein, 477 N.W.2d 716, 717 (Minn. App. 1991).

The test for the necessity defense in California (assuming Starfleet Command followed similar factors in its Code of Military Justice) has the following elements:

1. Captain Pike acted in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil to Kiley 279;

2. Captain Pike had no adequate legal alternative;

3. The defendant’s acts did not create a greater danger than the one avoided;

4. When the defendant acted, he actually believed that the act was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil;

5. A reasonable person would also have believed that the act was necessary under the circumstances; AND

6. The defendant did not substantially contribute to the emergency.

CALCRIM No. 3403.

Applying the elements to Captain Pike’s actions, an attorney could argue:

1) Captain Pike acted to avoid a planetary war;

2) The legal remedy was to let the people of Kiley 279 kill each other with Warp Bombs;

3) Captain Pike’s actions did not create a more dangerous situation;

4) Captain Pike believed his actions would avoid a war;

5) A reasonable person would believe Captain Pike’s actions were necessary; and

6) Captain Pike did not contribute to the emergency.

Openly breaking the law is never a good plan. It should not be standard operating procedure. However, Star Trek has a precedent for showing how the needs of the many can sometimes require finding legal exceptions to complex problems. Stopping a nuclear holocaust is one such exception.

Strict Liability for a Rancor Rampage

Josh Gilliland

May 4, 2022

Boba Fett’s pet rancor turned the Battle of Mos Espa against the Pykes, however, the “little” guy got loose from Boba Fett. Would the Mighty Daimyo be financially on the hook for all the property damage?

The short answer is “yes,” dependent on any sovereign immunity defenses for a crime lord. As a baseline, “One who keeps wild animals on his premises must see to it at his peril that they do no damage to others.” Hyde v. Utica, 20 N.Y.S.2d 335, 337 (App. Div. 1940). Moreover, “[A] wild animal is presumed to be vicious and since the owner of such animal…is an insurer against the acts of the animal to anyone who is injured…” Baugh v. Beatty, 91 Cal. App. 2d 786, 791, 205 P.2d 671 (1949).

As seen in the episode, “In the Name of Honor,” Boba Fett brought his unnamed rancor to assist in the battle with the Pykes. For the sake of humanizing the creature, he will be referred to as “Harryhausen.” The emotionally complex Harryhausen would be considered a wild animal, because a “wild animal” is a creature not normally domesticated, such a pet kept in a home for pleasure rather than commercial purposes. See, Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2116 and Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 50466. Moreover, “Wild animals” do not cease to be “wildlife simply because they or their progeny are no longer found in the wild.” U.S. v. Condict, No. CR-05-004-SPS, at *6 (E.D. Okla. June 27, 2006), citing 16 U.S.C. § 3371(a).

There is an argument that Harryhausen is domesticated, because Boba Fett rode him to Mos Espa from the Palace. Horses are considered domestic animals. Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.4th 446, 460 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). However, this argument might be as effective as claiming an Orca who does tricks is “domesticated.”

While it is clear that Harryhausen might be a snuggly beast who likes to cuddle, he also eats Pykes whole. Even if he were considered domesticated, Harryhausen would be in the inherently dangerous category, such as some breeds of dogs. In such a situation, the test for strict liability is the “harm done by a domestic animal with known vicious or dangerous propensities abnormal to its class.” Drake v. Dean, 15 Cal.App.4th 915, 921 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).

It is common knowledge that rancors can make smaller lifeforms bite sized snacks. For Boba Fett, the fact Harryhausen went on a rampage destroying at least one speeder and smashed several buildings is grounds for him to pay out credits for any property damage.

Could Baba Fett get insurance to cover damages by Harryhausen? Probably not, but most insurance carriers in Star Wars likely went insolvent after the Clone Wars.

Doc Ock’s Insanity Plea

Ayo Shittu

March 22, 2022

By now, everyone who wants to has seen Spider-Man: No Way Home (“NWH”) once or four times; I mean, who’s counting, so hopefully, the spoilers in this article are no big deal! NWH features many old Spider-Man villains slipping into the current universe due to Dr. Strange and 2021 Peter Parker’s actions. This article will examine whether Doc Ock, one of such villains, could successfully plead insanity for his crimes. For the purpose of this analysis, he’d be charged with the crimes both in Spider-Man 2 and NWH: murders at the hospital, robbery, and the felony kidnapping and assault of Spider-Man and everyone who got in his way in both films.

Here’s some background on Doc Ock from Spider-Man 2. Dr. Otto Octavius nicknamed Doc Ock, short for Dr. Octopus for his… well, you’ve seen his A.I.-powered tentacles (“tentacles”), so you know. Doc Ock was a driven, albeit arrogant scientist whose life’s work was to create a power source that would provide cheap perpetual renewable power for everyone. Following the accident that destroyed the inhibitor chip designed to keep him in control of the tentacles, the tentacles and Dr. Octavius battled for control. In the end, the tentacles won, leading our villain, Doc Ock, to commit crimes in pursuit of recreating the renewable power source.

Applicable Law:

Since Doc’s crimes were in New York, he would likely be tried under New York state laws. New York’s insanity defense is codified under New York Penal Code § 40.15, where insanity is an affirmative defense to be proved by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. In New York, criminal responsibility may be avoided if “as a result of mental disease or defect, [defendant] lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either: 1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or 2. That such conduct was wrong” (Penal Law § 40.15)] People v. Kohl, 72 N.Y.2d 191, 196, 532 N.Y.S.2d 45 (1988).

Did Doc lack substantial capacity to know or appreciate the nature and consequence of his conduct?

We see in Spider-Man 2 that the inhibition chip is fried before the crime spree begins. A good lawyer, say, a certain Jeri Hogarth, would argue that the most serious crimes, the murders, occur while he is unconscious and the robotic arms are in clear, complete control, maybe similar to a sleepwalker. For the robbery, kidnapping, and assaults, the question of whether he understood the nature and consequences is tricky. The heart of the argument is what substantial capacity means. In explaining this, the pattern jury charge gives an example of children who may recite something they cannot understand, which would be considered surface knowledge but not true understanding. Substantial capacity requires more than surface knowledge. N.Y. Crim. Jury Instr. 2d Penal Law § 40.15. Similarly, if Doc is fully present and aware of what’s happening but had no power to act against the tentacles, it’s arguable that while he had awareness but his capacity was not substantial enough to appreciate the nature of the conduct, much like a child.

Did Doc lack substantial capacity to know or appreciate that his conduct was wrong?

This argument would be difficult to support based on the facts we saw. The pattern jury charge states that a person lacks substantial capacity to know or appreciate that conduct is wrong if that person, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked substantial capacity – not necessarily total capacity, to know or appreciate either that the conduct was against the law or that it was against commonly held moral principles. See People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69, 76 (1962); People v. Schmidt, 216 N.Y. 324 (1915); Moett v. People, 85 N.Y. 373 (1881).

Based on what we saw on-screen, it would be tough to argue that Doc lacked substantial capacity to know that robbing a bank or throwing cars full of families off bridges and grandmas off skyscrapers is wrong. Doc argued initially in Spider-Man 2 with the tentacles saying, “I’m not a criminal, the real crime is to not finish the work,” this statement acknowledges he felt justified in doing the crime for a greater purpose – finishing the project.

His best argument remains that he was essentially a prisoner of the tentacles, and while he knew those things were wrong, they were not his conduct at all. He’d point to his final sacrifice in Spider-Man 2 and his assistance of Peter in NWH once his chip was repaired as evidence that at every opportunity where Doc was in control of the tentacles, he used it for good, and when he was not, he was no different from an onlooker.

Finally, the statute requires that mental disease or defect be the cause of the defendant’s lack of substantial capacity to either appreciate the nature and consequences of the conduct or that the conduct was wrong. The prosecution would likely easily argue that “the robot in my head did it” is not a recognizable mental disease or defect. As such, the defense would be unable to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. On the other hand, a good psychiatrist expert witness should argue that Doc is no different from a person suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder, commonly known as multiple personality disorder, because of the presence of the AI taking control of his mind, body, and wreaking havoc.

It is worth noting that a successful insanity plea typically leads to commitment to a mental institution which could last longer than a guilty sentence if he’s unsuccessful or unable to show that 2021 Peter Parker has cured him of the mental illness by repairing the inhibitor chip. It is plausible that a cured Doc may prefer to introduce evidence of his accident as a mitigating factor to receive a lower sentence instead of an affirmative defense that could cause commitment. A cured Doc does present an unusual case because defendants rarely present evidence that although mentally ill at the time of the crime, they are now cured at the time of the prosecution and should thus be found not guilty and released.

In conclusion, I am not confident that New York’s insanity defense would be the right tool to exonerate Doc. There may be a better argument that the elements of the crime can not be met because the tentacles committed the crimes, and Doc was no different from an onlooker. While J. Jonas may mockingly call this the “‘Robots made me do it’ defense,” with the right lawyer and the amazing Spider-Man as a witness, the man just might go home free.

WonderCon 2022 Panel Recordings

Josh Gilliland

March 21, 2022

We had a blast at WonderCon 2022. It was extremely healing to see some friends who I had not seen in person since 2019. We had a great time discussing the legal issues in Peacemaker and Star Trek in our two panels.

Law of Peacemaker

Law of Star Trek

Desecration of a Corpse in Ultraman

Josh Gilliland

March 6, 2022

The original Ultraman series introduced “The Monster Graveyard,” in the episode of the same name in 1967 (season 1, episode 35). The premise is that there is a realm in space where the souls of Kaiju defeated by any of the Ultra Warriors go for their eternal rest. This rest is hard earned, as many of the Kaiju are mutilated by Ultraman in battle.

The story followed a test flight of a rocket that entered the Monster Graveyard and returned to Earth with the soul of the Kaiju named Seabozu. This raises the issue, did the rocket entering the graveyard, colliding with Seabozu, and bringing his soul back to Earth, amount to desecration of a corpse?

This is problematic, since corpses do not cry out in agony if disturbed [recognizing that every haunted house story might beg to differ].

The definition of desecration of a corpse varies across the United States and international law. International Humanitarian Law follows the long held rule that “Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited.” See, Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead. This is based off many treaties, including the 1907 Hague Convention (X).

State law uses different descriptions, but the theme is the same: leave dead bodies alone. For example, Mississippi law states:

Every person who shall knowingly and willfully dig up, except as otherwise provided by law, obliterate, or in any way desecrate any cemetery where human dead are interred, or cause through word, deed or action the same to happen, shall upon conviction be imprisoned for not more than one (1) year in the county jail or fined not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or both, in the discretion of the court. In addition to any penalties that the court is otherwise authorized to impose the court may, in its discretion, order such restitution as it deems appropriate.

Miss. Code § 97-29-25(1)(a).

Texas has similar prohibitions, stating that “abuse of a corpse” is “intentionally or knowingly disinters, disturbs, removes, dissects, in whole or in part, carries away, or treats in a seriously offensive manner a human corpse.” TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. Sec. 42.10(a)(1) (Vernon 1989). Mclain v. State, 831 S.W.2d 815, 818 (Tex. App. 1992).

Alabama also follows these legal protections with their extensively defined law, which states:

Any person who willfully or maliciously injures, defaces, removes, or destroys any tomb, monument, gravestone, burial mound, earthen or shell monument containing human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts, or other structure or thing placed or designed for a memorial of the dead, or any fence, railing, curb, or any enclosure for the protection or ornamentation of any tomb, monument, gravestone, burial mound, earthen or shell monument containing human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts, or other structure before mentioned, or for any enclosure for the burial of the dead, or any person who willfully and wrongfully or maliciously destroys, removes, cuts, breaks, or injures any tree, shrub, plant, flower, decoration, or other real or personal property within any cemetery or graveyard shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Ala. Code § 13A-7-23.1(a)

Was Seabozu removed from his grave? Yes. There is no doubt his remains were distributed. However, that does not mean the space agency is legally responsible, because all of the state legal examples require that the desecration be done knowingly. The scientists had no knowledge of the “Monster Graveyard,” so there was no intent to bring Seabozu back to Earth. Moreover, that would be a strange project for any government or private actor to fund. Furthermore, even if the rocket launch was done recklessly, that is not the standard, because even that presumes there would be knowledge of a foreseeable risk of hitting the soul of a Kaiju. Furthermore, all of the laws at issue require the corpse to be that of a human being, so there is a Kaiju size technicality for applicability.

The only cause for possible legal jeopardy comes in the form of a war crime for mutilating a body or have a human requirement. There is no stated intent requirement, but mutilations do not happen by accident. Someone is taking an affirmative act to mutilate a corpse.

Even considering all of the above, the Science Patrol and the space agency were right to return Seabozu back to the Monster Graveyard. This episode was one of the few times where a Kaiju was seen as suffering and the Science Special Search Party sought to right the wrong done to the spirit.

Answering the Uchiha Genocide

Gage Dabin

March 2, 2022

Itachi Uchiha is probably one of the most famous characters in all of Naruto. His actions both in the shadow and in the forefront of Naruto helped shape the direction of the entire Village of the Hidden Leaf (Leaf Village). And frankly, Itachi was a central catalyst in the development of Sasuke Uchiha and his innate Uchiha abilities. So then, who is Itachi to the Hidden Leaf?

Who is Itachi Uchiha and what did he do?

Itachi Uchiha is a member of Uchiha Clan which falls under the umbrella of the Leaf Village and is the older brother of Sasuke Uchiha. This is one of the Five Great Nations within the Naruto universe and plays key roles in the great ninja wars. Itachi is considered a child prodigy and from a young age shows mastery of special Uchiha jutsus that sets milestones that Sasuke Uchiha seeks to break. Because of his abilities, Itachi is recruited into the ANBU Black Ops, a clandestine arm of the Leaf Village, and performs classified missions.

Itachi Uchiha gains his initial infamy for his actions against his own clan. When Itachi was 13 he killed almost every member of the Uchiha Clan including his own parents. Itachi only spared his brother from the massacre and it seemed for awhile that Itachi committed these actions solely to force Sasuke to advance his capabilities through hate. But this isn’t really true.

The massacre was done to prevent internal harm to the Leaf Village. Itachi, when he was a member of the ANBU Black Ops, learned that his clan was planning a coup d’état of the current leadership of the Leaf Village. Why? Because his clan was accused of working with the Nine-Tailed Fox, one of the legendary tailed beasts that wreak untold havoc, during its attack on the village. Having had his youth marred by conflict, Itachi sought to end the cycle of violence by eliminating it before it manifested. After providing intelligence on his clan to Leaf Village leadership, Itachi received the order to commit the massacre from his ANBU Black Ops Commander. The result from this order is that he publicly became a wanted fugitive but privately remained a valuable asset for the Leaf Village. Despite his utility, Itachi must be seen for what he is…a war criminal.

What is genocide?

Itachi committed genocide for what he perceived was the “greater good.” He was wrong.

Genocide is not a term that is loosely thrown around. It carries a heavy weight. When uttered, genocide ushers images and horrors ranging from Nazi Germany to the cleansing of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda in the 1990s. It encompasses the worst of humanity and rightfully deserves to be criminalized by all. We know what the term tends to invoke but legally how do we approach and classify actions as genocide?

Genocide falls under the umbrella of crimes against humanity in international law and finds its origins in the Nuremburg Trials at the conclusion of World War II. In 1951, the United Nations (UN) ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Treaty) thus making it punishable by all states under international law. Under Article 1 of the Genocide Treaty, the crime of genocide has the potential to take place within armed conflict, international/non-international armed conflict, and also within peaceful situations. This is intentionally expansive to ensure that genocide does not go unpunished.

Next, Article 2 of the Genocide Convention establishes that “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Combining the information above, Article 2 tells us that for genocide to be proved we need to satisfy two elements: one mental and one physical. For the mental element, we need to see if the party committing the action had the intent to cause the stated harm. For the physical element, we have the listed actions from subsection A to E that a party must have committed. If we only satisfy one element, then genocide is not established.

Itachi’s “noble” intentions

Now, that we have both the facts surrounding Itachi’s actions and the law outlined for what genocide is we can approach and see if his actions rise to that level.

The Mental State

As noted above, we have to first consider the mental state of the person committing the actions. We have to see if they had the intent to cause destruction to the target racial, ethnic, racial or religious group either partially or totally.

Itachi Uchiha acted with the requisite intent required by the convention. He was given orders by ANBU Black Ops of the Hidden Leaf to attack his clan, the Uchiha clan, which is a smaller subset of the population. Notably, the Uchiha clan is distinct from the other clans within the Hidden Leaf based on its cultural, jutsu, and bloodline differences.

So, when Itachi attacked his clan he had the knowledge that his mission was to completely eradicate the Uchiha Clan. He also knew that the Uchiha clan was distinct and a subset of the Hidden Leaf. With this knowledge, we can see that the first element is satisfied.

The Physical Action

For the second element, we need to see whether the actor committed any of the harmful actions that are laid in subsections A through E.

Itachi’s attack on his clan satisfies multiple subsections of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. Notably, subection A is satisfied as Itachi literally killed his entire clan sans his younger brother – Sasuke Uchiha. Subsection C is then satisfied because Itachi deliberately took these actions to eliminate the active threat that was perceived to exist to the Leaf Village.

With the satisfaction of the physical action, Itachi Uchiha’s actions have passed the requisite thresholds and confirms that genocide had been committed against the Uchiha Clan.

Should Itachi Uchiha be punished?

Itachi Uchiha without a doubt should be punished for the genocide that he committed against his own clan. Although a coup d’état was perceived to be in preparation against the Leaf Village’s current leadership, many members of the Uchiha clan should have been protected and only combatants targeted. Itachi deliberately killed everyone without any discretion to whether they were combatants or civilians. The safety of the village was/is paramount to Itachi, as he continues to try and be its ward from the shadows via the Akutsuki, but his actions of genocide cannot be defended under the auspices of “protection.” Despite how he perceived his actions to be for the “greater good of the village” he is still a war criminal and must be held accountable as one.