We always hear that kirk broke the PD more times than any other starfleet captain,but what about archer,surely starfleet would of had rules like the prime directive to follow,look how many times he stopped to help aliens in need who havent reached warp capability yet,wouldnt he be the captain to break the prime directive more than kirk?.
breaking the prime directive
- Thread starter Mr Pointy Ears
- Start date
Evidently not, but it seems the Vulcans had something similar.
There's actually been only one onscreen mention of Kirk breaking the Prime Directive, and that was in an episode of VOY. More often than not, Kirk tried to restore the balance in a society where the Prime Directive was already broken by somebody else.
But there were provisions in the Prime Directive during Kirk's time that did allow him to intervene if an underdeveloped society was being enslaved or kept from progressing (usually by some super computer). By the 24th-Century, though, these provisions seemed to have been withdrawn....
Technically there has been no Prime Directive yet in the days of Archer and despite his temperament he learned relatively quickly from T'Pol and Phlox.
In Archer's case, you can't break a rule that doesn't exist.
In Kirk's case, Voyager seem to be trying to "grandfather" in their contemporaneity interpretation of the prime directive, to apply to people in historical times.
well put. The TOS PD was not the later Trek PD. It's revisionism to say that Kirk was constantly breaking the PD. Maybe by Picard's standards but the Kirk-era Federation was more flexible.
I do not remember where Kirk violated the PD. Bend it like Picard, yes, not care about it, no. It is not like he let guys like Tracey who really violated the rule number one get away with it.
About flexibility, somehow the 23rd century Federation seems more harsh with the death penalty being implemented and so on.
About flexibility, somehow the 23rd century Federation seems more harsh with the death penalty being implemented and so on.
The Apple - Even Spock told him.
Return to the Archons - destroyed the ruler of a society & fostered a revolution.
Friday's Child - Violated custom
Private Little War - Kirk becomes JFK/LBJ on Vietnam, following idea that domino theory = balance of power theory.
The Cloud Minders - Accused of and Guilty as well (kidnapping).
Actually, all that was said that it might be considered a violation, but it was never said to be actually.
In all of these cases, Kirk was acting within the provisions of the Prime Directive as it existed at the time. But by the time of Picard, Sisko, and Janeway, the Prime Directive became much more conservative and many of Kirk's actions would have been considered violations by 24th-Century standards.
Not to mention that in Return of the Archons and The Apple the Enterprise was under attack from those same computers.
I gotta watch TOS again so please accuse my ignorance but didn't Kirk talk the computer in Return to the Archons to death via some paradox?
Of course from a strict sense it is a violation of the PD but in this story as well as in The Apple these societies were stagnant because of some stupid supercomputer.
I am usually a hardcore PD advocate but to me these two instances do not seem to be gross violations of it.
Private Little War was more problematic but if you compare it to the Klingon Civil War in TNG the only difference is that Picard passively prevents the interference of the Romulans whereas Kirk actively helps one side.
Problematic but not a gross violation as the Klingons are involved .. and above all once again Kirk's motivation is to even out the playing field.
Well Kirk wasn't "guilty," that's a determination. Simply committing an act doesn't make you guilty. And in the case of the Cloud Minders, Kirk wouldn't seem to have violated the PD, in the end he effected no changes on the planet of Ardana, the social order was the same, and so was the existing government.
Would kidnapping (in of itself) even be a offense under the PD?
The only times we hear of the death penalty in the 23rd century is for murder (DDM), and visiting Talo Four (CM). I can't recall it being applied to the PD as a penalty.
While Tracy definitely violated the PD, his being taken into custody the way he was at the end of the episode likely had more to do with murder (Starfleet personnel and indigenous people) that than his violation of the PD.
by the era of TOS there is only one offense whic carries the dearth penalty, General Order 7 (visiting Talos IV). There is nothing to suggest that order doesn't continue to exist by the TNG era.
I am sure there is some TNG episode which states that the death penalty doesn't exist anymore. What I wanted to say is that the 23rd century is harsher than the 24th. Life is tougher and the laws are firmer.
Just because Kirk is an easy-going guy doesn't mean that the Prime Directive is treated more flexibly than latter. Picard doesn't get punished for mildly bending it either.
Just because Kirk is an easy-going guy doesn't mean that the Prime Directive is treated more flexibly than latter. Picard doesn't get punished for mildly bending it either.
"Justice."
Which probably means that General Order Seven has been either revoked or revised so that it no longer merits capital punishment.
I think I heard somewhere that the actual amendment to the Federation Charter that removed those provisions was called the Orchiectomy Amendment.
So let me get this straight: if I go out and kidnap someone, I'm not actually guilty of kidnapping?
^ Oh, you would be responsible for a immoral and criminal act. But your guilt in the matter would come after being found to have violated a criminal law.
In the case of Kirk "kidnapping" the Ardanan leader, while he did commit the act, he was (apparently) never found to be guilty, and so he wasn't. But he still committed the act.
If he had been tried, and found (hypothetically) not guilt, he still would have committed the act, but wouldn't have been guilt of it.
In the case of Kirk "kidnapping" the Ardanan leader, while he did commit the act, he was (apparently) never found to be guilty, and so he wasn't. But he still committed the act.
If he had been tried, and found (hypothetically) not guilt, he still would have committed the act, but wouldn't have been guilt of it.
I wonder how some of his half hour interventions worked out on the whole. The brains who bet in quatloos, what do you think they taught their 'former' slaves? And the gangsters, how do you think they developed from then on? Of course, we can't blem Kirk for the strong television imperative to solve huge problems in half an hour, or for the difficulty of doing so in real life.
