Was just wondering if there is an complete work on all of Federation law, if it would be wildly different from the laws currently around the world...
Federation Law
- Thread starter Maccyj571086
- Start date
you might get a better list of the Rules of Acquisition .. there might be more entries here than in the laws of the federation but --- memory alpha might have federation law items as well I will look in a moment. ---
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition
I doubt that there is, because why would the people involved in the show bother to come up with such a thing?
But that aside, since this is a Star Trek topic, I'm going to send it off to GenTrek...
Somehow I think Federation Law would be massive, much like our own contemporary body of laws, but squared (to allow for all very different societies there would be in the Federation).
Take something "simple" like the Prime Directive. It has 47 suborders according to Naomi Wildman. (OK, that's Starfleet, not Federation, but still ...) Who would bother to write that all out, just for a TV show?
Or do you mean just a compilation of every tidbit that happens to be mentioned somewhere in one of the shows? (not that I would know one)
Take something "simple" like the Prime Directive. It has 47 suborders according to Naomi Wildman. (OK, that's Starfleet, not Federation, but still ...) Who would bother to write that all out, just for a TV show?
Or do you mean just a compilation of every tidbit that happens to be mentioned somewhere in one of the shows? (not that I would know one)
Well, the law they keep bringing up over and over again is the Prime Directive, and that doesn't resemble any real law I know of. I'm not sure, but I think on the few other occasions they mention laws, they resemble the United States' Bill of Rights.
Here is a start, from "Mudd's Women" in TOS, in the hearing for Harry Mudd:
I believe that seven separate crimes are mentioned there.
And there are "only" a few hundred other productions which might potentially mention other offensives against Federation laws.
I believe that seven separate crimes are mentioned there.
And there are "only" a few hundred other productions which might potentially mention other offensives against Federation laws.
You're not allowed augments/genetic engineering since the 1990's.
Don't go to Talos IV.
Ummmmmm
You're not allowed sythetic life forms since 2385.
Don't go to Talos IV.
Ummmmmm
Last edited by a moderator:
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Articles_of_the_Federation
I can recommend this book. It's not canon, as novels are never canon.
The standard defense for anything from slavery to dueling to interfering with alien affairs is "I am a member/citizen of the Federation, so Starfleet can't touch me". So why bother writing up laws? Nobody enforces them anyway, what with Starfleet being the only known police organization within the UFP.
The Federation has rights and liberties. But it does nos seem to believe in punishment at all; in its stead it metes out therapy. Fines and jail time are for aliens, the military, or for archaic crimes like genetic manipulation. Theft and murder carry the same "penalty" of medical care. So the list of dos and don'ts is a bit different from today's laws on a fundamental sense already: there is no matching of offense with punishment for deterrence, and you very literally face the same consequence for smuggling medical supplies and attempting genocide.
(Incidentally, it's then pretty natural for Yar in"Justice" to browse the local laws for what not to do on this planet, but skip studying the associated punishments - be it on the assumption that primitives won't decapitate you for jaywalking or other mild crimes the landing party might theoretically and accidentally commit, or that advanceds won't decapitate you for massacring the royal family. Too bad the locals were of neither sort...)
Timo Saloniemi
The Federation has rights and liberties. But it does nos seem to believe in punishment at all; in its stead it metes out therapy. Fines and jail time are for aliens, the military, or for archaic crimes like genetic manipulation. Theft and murder carry the same "penalty" of medical care. So the list of dos and don'ts is a bit different from today's laws on a fundamental sense already: there is no matching of offense with punishment for deterrence, and you very literally face the same consequence for smuggling medical supplies and attempting genocide.
(Incidentally, it's then pretty natural for Yar in"Justice" to browse the local laws for what not to do on this planet, but skip studying the associated punishments - be it on the assumption that primitives won't decapitate you for jaywalking or other mild crimes the landing party might theoretically and accidentally commit, or that advanceds won't decapitate you for massacring the royal family. Too bad the locals were of neither sort...)
Timo Saloniemi
You're right, in "The Drumhead" Picard mentions a Seventh Guarantee of the Federation's constitution. That same episode brings up a presumption of innocence and protection against self-incrimination.
Yeah. That guarantee is one thing I dimly remember, and I think Spock once said something about a law with a number, and at the time, it reminded me of the Bill of Rights too.
I've watched a couple of those. The slicked back hair gives that lawyer a real creepy, ambulance chaser vibe. I just instinctively don't trust him,
^ Not sure if I would necessarily feel the need to instinctively trust my lawyer, as long as I thought he was good and I paid him good money to defend my case. (Unless of course I was afraid he might actually be bribed).
Though I am not versed in the U.S. judicial (system) at all, never having had any inclination to develop myself in that direction and being from Europe, I wonder how much of his feedback is based on universal principles, and how much on practices specific to the U.S. After all, this is 400 years into the future, which is a substantial time in terms of societal development (and we know society underwent a few drastic changes between now and then).
I'll add though that a lot of the stuff he says sounds fairly universal to my layman ears.
Though I am not versed in the U.S. judicial (system) at all, never having had any inclination to develop myself in that direction and being from Europe, I wonder how much of his feedback is based on universal principles, and how much on practices specific to the U.S. After all, this is 400 years into the future, which is a substantial time in terms of societal development (and we know society underwent a few drastic changes between now and then).
I'll add though that a lot of the stuff he says sounds fairly universal to my layman ears.
Last edited:
If your lawyer is giving off that sort of vibe, it's not a good thing for your case, IMO. A judge or jury might be less inclined to rule in your favor if they instinctively dislike the guy. Yes, I know they're supposed to be impartial and not let things like that affect the verdict, but I have no doubt that it happens every day. Plus, a shady-looking lawyer automatically makes you look guilty.
^
I certainly agree that judges are also just people and probably have such (unconscious) biases, even though they should be impartial.
I don't need to consider a jury (they don't exist in my country), so I only need be concerned about how the judge perceives him. As they are both professional men, and somewhat part of the same (professional ) work and social circle, his opinion might differ profoundly from mine (or it might be the same- I really couldn't say).
Also, if that lawyer really gives off a universal bad vibe, then very few people would hire him, so he would quickly be out of business anyway, right?
I certainly agree that judges are also just people and probably have such (unconscious) biases, even though they should be impartial.
I don't need to consider a jury (they don't exist in my country), so I only need be concerned about how the judge perceives him. As they are both professional men, and somewhat part of the same (professional ) work and social circle, his opinion might differ profoundly from mine (or it might be the same- I really couldn't say).
Also, if that lawyer really gives off a universal bad vibe, then very few people would hire him, so he would quickly be out of business anyway, right?
Last edited:
Maybe. I wasn't trying to speak for everyone, though. Just my gut feeling on the guy.
Fair enough, but he makes some excellent points here. For starters, why was Data allowed in Starfleet in the first place if the question of his sentience was never settled? Moreover, the idea of Louvois summarily ruling against Data if Riker refuses to argue against him is ridiculous. On top of that, Riker rightly should not be arguing a case he so vocally opposes. (Maddox could've claimed that his case was hindered by Riker's bias against it). There was no "ticking clock" here, and therefore no "in universe" reason for them not to wait for counsel to arrive.
He made some great points in the video on "A Few Good Men" too. Lawyer don't raise their voice in court, as Tom Cruise did. (Makes them look like unprofessional hotheads). They don't talk over the witness, as he also does. (Messes up the stenographer's transcripts). And finally, witnesses on the stand do not just blurt out admissions of guilt, as Nicholson's character so stupidly does.
Similar threads
