The Federation has no law against genocide?

[Nyotarules]

There was no "legal" law recognized internationally by the First World that was broken by the Nazi's who committed genocide. What gave the US, UK and Allied European powers the right to try the Nazi's as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trials at the conclusion of World War II?
There was no international agreements or such for which to try them - but the Allies had a greater power than international law - they declared the moral right to declare ex post facto that something so horrendous had to be tried as a crime against humanity itself.

I think GR dropped the ball on this one.

The Allies won the war, that gave them the right to deal with the genocide. Most nations think its a bad idea for humans to murder other humans, whether its one person or millions. And murder is illegal.
In the case of the alien who murdered other aliens. The Federation had no jurisdiction over him, the only ones who could bring a case were either his own people or the remnants of his victims. If Mars was inhabited by Martians and mass genocide took place there, like it not no human government would have any jurisdiction over them whatsoever.

 

[Jedman67]

Here Picard could claim Federation Jurisdiction to deal with something so beyond the pale like mass murder. Instead he speechifies.

 

[Nyotarules]

Here Picard could claim Federation Jurisdiction to deal with something so beyond the pale like mass murder. Instead he speechifies.

How? Is the Federation or Starfleet the FBI of the universe? He cannot claim something he does not have. Or because the act took place on a Federation colony is that your suggestion?

 

[Jedman67]

How? Is the Federation or Starfleet the FBI of the universe? He cannot claim something he does not have. Or because the act took place on a Federation colony is that your suggestion?

Because it is a crime against life itself.
Perhaps he could have dug up the guys legal code from his homeworld. It doesn't matter.I found the ending to be very unsatisfying, and could have been done better.

Although since Picard can bore people to death with his speechification, perhaps that is an apt punishment after all?

 

[Timo]

Most nations think its a bad idea for humans to murder other humans, whether its one person or millions. And murder is illegal.

Hell, no. There is no nation on Earth today, and never has been, that would consider murder categorically illegal. Especially not if it's millions.

The Nürnberg trials are a perfect example of this. Not a single person who murdered for the Allied cause was convicted of anything, or indeed charged with anything. No fault was found in the acts of murder committed by the Allied infantrymen against their Axis counterparts, say. Yet the fundamental concept of the Axis waging war against the Allies was arbitrarily declared illegal (evil Germans can't plan on invading Norway, nice Frenchmen and Britons can).

No nation dares declare murder illegal except within certain extremely narrow (and very pragmatic) parameters. Conversely, no nation has laws making it legal for foreign people to come murder locals, absolutely regardless of whether military uniforms are involved. The actions of armies are automatically illegal from start to finish - it's just that prosecuting is not customary.

How does that relate to the Uxbridge case? No prosecution against mass murder has ever been attempted from a position of weakness: only victors of war can prosecute against losers, only states can prosecute against lesser groups. There would be no precedent for Picard successfully prosecuting. (I mean, yes, there's the supposed old custom of pressing charges against God in court, but that never leads to a sentence.) So while there might be a law written in the intent of prosecuting mass murderers, if it's unapplicable by strong precedent, Picard would still be correct in claiming that no suitable law exists.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jedman67]

Hell, no. There is no nation on Earth today, and never has been, that would consider murder categorically illegal. Especially not if it's millions.

EVERY single nation on planet Earth has laws prohibiting murder. You are equating soldiers killing other soldiers on a battlefield as murder - that is not the accepted legal definition by any country or international accord.
You could argue that the US's bombing of Hiroshema and Nagasaki was tantamount to murder; others will tell you that the US found it strategically necessary to end the war once and for all and that it would have caused even more loss of life to mount a traditional invasion campaign.
You could even argue that drone strikes against terrorists in Afghanistan is murder, although I'd personally suggest that rules of the battlefield apply.

 

[Nyotarules]

Because it is a crime against life itself.
Perhaps he could have dug up the guys legal code from his homeworld. It doesn't matter.I found the ending to be very unsatisfying, and could have been done better.

Although since Picard can bore people to death with his speechification, perhaps that is an apt punishment after all?

How was he going to do that? A Martian lands on Earth and tells the United Nations with proof he just killed every living sentient being on Alpha Centuri, who on Earth has the legal right to charge him? No one.

 

[Tenacity]

Or because the act took place on a Federation colony is that your suggestion?

This would be the only (thin) legal foothold Picard would have. Kevin was standing on Federation soil when he "disappeared" the Husnock.

Although there, Kevin might only be charged with the deaths on the Husnock ships in orbit of the Federation planet, and not all Husnock everywhere.

If I (a planet American citizen) launched a genocide weapon at planet Iceland from planet Canada, would Canadian law be in play?

 

[RAMA]

Interstellar law must be universal or it means nothing.

Nonsense, laws vary everywhere on the Earth. Certainly murder is considered serious but the punishments are different. Laws only exist were it is mutually agreed upon or by force.

Imagine an Indian from the late 19th century trying to get justice for murder for a family member in the UK. The power levels there are just so different, and still pale in comparison to the Douwd.

We like to think of Starfleet as the most advanced form of law in the Trek galaxy, but not everyone ascribes to it.

 

[Tenacity]

Interstellar law must be universal or it means nothing.

Nonsense, laws vary everywhere on the Earth

I would think that it would be similar inside the Federation, with different Members having different laws and punishments.

Even with decisions that came from the Federation Council there would be different interpretations and applications. And Members local governments probably have say as to whether to implement the decisions at all.

 

[Idran]

I think GR dropped the ball on this one.

Michael Wagner.

 

[Lance]

I interpreted that line as meaning, there is no law severe enough that reflects the enormity of the crime.

This was how I interpeted the line, too. Genocide is one thing, but mass genocide of an entire species on the scale that Uxbridge commited it, with only a thought, is on a totally different level to anything the Federation's law-makers were necessarily equipped to handle.

My memory is a little fuzzy, but what penalty (if any) was discussed in relation to the crimes of Kodos the Executioner from "The Conscience of the King"? 'cause that's probably Trek's only other precedent.

 

[Timo]

EVERY single nation on planet Earth has laws prohibiting murder. You are equating soldiers killing other soldiers on a battlefield as murder - that is not the accepted legal definition by any country or international accord.

No nation has laws making it legal for an enemy soldier to kill one of yours (even if most have laws making it legal for YOUR soldiers to kill ENEMY ones, and have international recognition for this asymmetry because everybody else wants to be allowed to legally commit murder, too). Formally, every battlefield killing is still murder. It just doesn't matter because prosecution is not customary/practicable.

Which is of course beside the point, because FACTUALLY it's always murder anyway, no matter what cowardly name you wish to hide it behind. But if we define murder specifically as an illegal taking of life (the textbook definition, alien to everyday use), then infantry combat amply meets that definition as well.

You could argue that the US's bombing of Hiroshema and Nagasaki was tantamount to murder; others will tell you that the US found it strategically necessary to end the war once and for all and that it would have caused even more loss of life to mount a traditional invasion campaign.

Legally, this would be irrelevant: if you murder a mass murderer, your crime is still dealt with under the heading "murder", and mitigating circumstances just apply within that reference frame.

(That is, unless you deal with the mass murderer from the position of the immediate and concrete next victim, in which case various self-defense formulations probably take precedence and your actions may be considered a different crime or, in special cases, not a crime at all. When two mass murderers slug it out with each other, as above, the legal battlefield will be equally bloody.)

You could even argue that drone strikes against terrorists in Afghanistan is murder, although I'd personally suggest that rules of the battlefield apply.

Again, there is no civil law establishing that rules of the battlefield overwrite civil law - except when it's you yourself violating civil law, yours or theirs. If you declare martial law, it only makes it legal from your POV for you to slay your enemies, not for the enemy to slay you. It's purely a matter of might makes right in the end, with asymmetric concepts of right in mutual contradiction.

My memory is a little fuzzy, but what penalty (if any) was discussed in relation to the crimes of Kodos the Executioner from "The Conscience of the King"? 'cause that's probably Trek's only other precedent.

TOS was pretty consistent with this: no crime formally carried any sort of punishment.

When Lenore Karidian murders people, she is facing therapy. When Garth of Izar does, ditto. When Harry Mudd cheats and steals, ditto. And when Kodos is exposed, no punishment is suggested for his past actions (indeed McCoy ridicules the idea, even if Kirk thinks it may make the dead "rest easier").

Of course Kirk personally thinks he himself should murder Karidian. Or at least Kirk makes that explicit threat in the discussion with the mass murderer. But that's not the legal aspect of it, or the criminological, or even the practical.

(Interestingly, Kodos' actions amount to "butchering" and the like in hero dialogue, but were they a crime? Kodos was the governor of the colony, even if only through a coup. We never quite learn whether he had the power to "sentence" - his own words - the 4,000 to death or not. Starfleet only has one death penalty in the books, its exact nature varying from year to year, but do civilian books have more of those? Or do the laws have clauses allowing for sentencing to death even when this is not a "penalty" for anything?)

There is a final bit on punishment and murder in "The Ultimate Computer" where Kirk claims to M-5 that the punishment for murder is death. But we know from elsewhere in TOS that it isn't, not factually. Perhaps Kirk is exploiting the fact that M-5 is really Richard Daystrom, and ca guess from the engineer's previous reactionary rantings that the two men share the illegal fantasy of punishing murder with counter-murder?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tenacity]

Kirk claims to M-5 that the punishment for murder is death. But we know from elsewhere in TOS that it isn't, not factually.

From where?

While it is stated that Starfleet ("the books") only has a death sentence for violating a single general order, where is it said that the Federation itself, or that individual Federation members, have no death sentence?

On Deneb Five (Federation member? Maybe) fraud is punishable by death. Now if fraud carries the death penalty, how many other offenses do to?

In The Ultimate Computer, M5 said that murder is contrary to the laws not only of God, but also of Man. And that the penalty for murder was death.

 

[Timo]

We see several people conduct murder in TOS. Lenore Karidian will "receive the best of care" for that. Garth of Izar, likewise. And while both can plead insanity, this goes double for M-5/Daystrom. And never mind that the whole backstory in "Dagger of the Mind" is that crime is defined as insanity in the first place.

OTOH, even if some alien law specifies counter-murder for punishing murder, why would this apply to Daystrom, who is human? Was the Excalibur primarily crewed by Uptightians and Medievalonyerassians?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[matthunter]

From where?

While it is stated that Starfleet ("the books") only has a death sentence for violating a single general order, where is it said that the Federation itself, or that individual Federation members, have no death sentence?

On Deneb Five (Federation member? Maybe) fraud is punishable by death. Now if fraud carries the death penalty, how many other offenses do to?

In The Ultimate Computer, M5 said that murder is contrary to the laws not only of God, but also of Man. And that the penalty for murder was death.

Yes, but you could argue that M-5 wasn't citing the law, but Daystrom's own views and beliefs imprinted onto it - Kirk was just taking advantage of that.

 

[MacLeod]

From where?

While it is stated that Starfleet ("the books") only has a death sentence for violating a single general order, where is it said that the Federation itself, or that individual Federation members, have no death sentence?

On Deneb Five (Federation member? Maybe) fraud is punishable by death. Now if fraud carries the death penalty, how many other offenses do to?

In The Ultimate Computer, M5 said that murder is contrary to the laws not only of God, but also of Man. And that the penalty for murder was death.

It's stated in "The Menagerie"

KIRK: What every ship Captain knows. General Order 7, no vessel under any condition, emergency or otherwise, is to visit Talos Four.

MENDEZ: And to do so is the only death penalty left on our books. Only Fleet Command knows why.


And as you point out we don't know if Deneb V was a Federation member. So if General Order 7 is the only death penalty on the Federation books logic would seem to indicate Deneb V isn't a Federation Member.

 

[Timo]

This has to be balanced against the fact that "the only death penalty in the books" apparently is something fairly impermanent. A short while later, it's General Order 4 that carries such a punishment! So death penalties go and, more importantly, come - they are not on their way out yet.

"The books" may well mean Starfleet books, as opposed to civilian ones. Does that mean that Starfleet officers face death penalty from all the usual civilian causes, murder, patent violations, jaywalking, whatnot, in addition to their one and only Starfleet penalty? Or do they skip being tried for civilian crimes such as murder by virtue of being professionals?

Remarkably, Starfleet still believes in punishment, throwing offenders in the brig and so forth. But that's a "field" solution, and Garth, an officer, ultimately receives medical care for his crimes. Eddington alludes to such as well, even if his therapy involves him sitting in a Fleet cage at times (at least when allowed to chat with Sisko).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[DonIago]

I think the General Order 4 bit is generally understood to be an error in the episode, not a change.

I do agree, however, that the scope of the discussion is ambiguous.

 

[Timo]

It would be a bit odd to retain the death penalty for GO7 violations after Kirk in "The Menagerie" proves that it's useless in stopping the Talosians from conquering the universe...

Much of Trek consists of creative errors anyway. And some of the more interesting stuff comes from addressing those errors as if they were in-universe features.

Timo Saloniemi