Just how bad is Janeway, Captain wise?
- Thread starter Shintaek
- Start date
I don't think it was solely that. She was also concerned about how his actions would reflect on Starfleet in general, and as the only other Starfleet ship in the area she had a duty to stop him. She was also trying to stop him from continuing to kill the creatures. So it was for for the aliens and for Starfleet, as well as for herself.
I never understood what Janeway expected Lessing & Co. to do. Mutiny? Where could they go? At what point can you stop obeying orders? Look what Janeway did to Chacotay when he disagreed with her.
Wasn't fond of the ending, it was a bit of a cop out, Janeway and Ransom suddenly snap out of it and back into normal mode.
Wasn't fond of the ending, it was a bit of a cop out, Janeway and Ransom suddenly snap out of it and back into normal mode.
Well they seemed capable of mutiny at the end of Equinox 2.
Human rights defenders, hello!
LeadHead, you don't condemn someone for something they almost did. It means it didn't happen, making your argument specious. For all I know, the controversial scene in question can be seen as a good cop-bad cop routine.
You mean mass murderers?
Nobody successfully wipes out an entire race/species (hopefully). Partial genocide IS genocide. Especially with established intent.
Now, going back to the beginning of the thread,
I think it is pointed out in 30 Days that the Prime Directive is not broken if the interested party asked for your help. The Caretaker is not the Ocampa but he speaks for them. Thus making Janeway's decisive action not a violation of the PD. It also makes Tom Paris less guilty in 30 Days, although it was his suggestion. The reason he was punished seems to be mostly giving satisfaction to the offended aliens - and serving as an example that it is the captain's prerogative to violate the PD, really.
To you Janeway bashers, I'll say no captain is perfect. Those who only go by the book tend to be disappointing and lack initiative.
The main interest of Voyager in my opinion is that the crew is isolated from Starfleet and they have autonomy. They could make their own rules if they wanted but Janeway "keeps a tight ship" (is that the coined phrase?). She is actually very disciplined. For instance, when she gets a chance to have a relationship with Chakotay, she gives it up in order to maintain hierarchy, authority, discipline, order...
So sometimes she's strict and sometimes she meddles. She's a human being, isn't she? (And the writers are many.) At any rate, she sets herself rules and boundaries - however adaptable these are. She has to make a lot of judgement calls in a quadrant not regulated and levelled out by the Federation. And that has to be somewhat subjective. Her situation is not unlike young captain Kirk's, or Archer's - and they are considered heroes.
You mean mass murderers?
Nobody successfully wipes out an entire race/species (hopefully). Partial genocide IS genocide. Especially with established intent.
The Intent of Genocide IS Genocide. Genocide being the systematic elimination of an entire species. There is no evidence to conclude that if they had knowledge of their numbers being insufficient to get them home that they would have wiped out every last one of them. Lack of said evidence leaves the genocide unproven.
As for them being mass murderers instead of serial killers, both names work for their crimes.
Back to the whole original point of the thread as to whether or not i this instance Janeway crossed the line, she did as far as the law goes, she did, in fact by your line of reasoning "Partial genocide is genocide" the Attempted Murder or Attmpted Criminally Negligent Homicide of Noah Lessing is proved.
Ledhead, I was hoping this would slip by. But I expected you would catch me on the notion of intent. So I'm saying, you can't condemn someone on a charge of intended murder only. OK, it's wrong, but if you can't prove actual intent, you can't prove it. All the logic in the world will not replace hard evidence. And you can't compare that alleged intent to the genocide in this case because the latter is already consummated and not accidental. So please do not twist my words. 
You cannot substitute your assumptions of intent or probability of happening, however based in logic, to actual proof - like a confession, which is what Capt. Ransom does, if memory serves.
Sorry, guys, for rekindling a somewhat bitter debate.
Oh, and... is mass murder 
really the same thing as serial killing , since we're debating psychology?
You cannot substitute your assumptions of intent or probability of happening, however based in logic, to actual proof - like a confession, which is what Capt. Ransom does, if memory serves.Sorry, guys, for rekindling a somewhat bitter debate.
Oh, and... is mass murder
really the same thing as serial killing , since we're debating psychology?
Ledhead, I was hoping this would slip by. But I expected you would catch me on the notion of intent. So I'm saying, you can't condemn someone on a charge of intended murder only. OK, it's wrong, but if you can't prove actual intent, you can't prove it. All the logic in the world will not replace hard evidence. And you can't compare that alleged intent to the genocide in this case because the latter is already consummated and not accidental. So please do not twist my words.
Sorry, guys, for rekindling a somewhat bitter debate.
Oh, and... is mass murder
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/inchoate2.pdf
You might want to restate your premise.
Thanks, but I don't feel like looking that up for now. I don't care enough. This thread annoys me.
Prove my law wrong, that's fine. Not that I claim much knowledge in that field.
If you are going to defend Janeway's acts in law, then you need to do so from a solid legal base.
I doubt that the second worst Federation Captain as seen on film can be defended successfully at all due to her many serious criimes we see her commit, but I have little doubt that she acted in a criminal fashion in this specific case and on it alone, she is subject to legal sanctions up to and including imprisonment..
I doubt that the second worst Federation Captain as seen on film can be defended successfully at all due to her many serious criimes we see her commit, but I have little doubt that she acted in a criminal fashion in this specific case and on it alone, she is subject to legal sanctions up to and including imprisonment..
Find her guilty already and me along with her and anybody who would keep us company and throw us in the brig for the rest of this trip, why don't you?
I realize you have all of four posts under your belt but I'll point out this is a discussion board, not a court of law. Everyone has a right to their opinion. Also, the law doesn't determine what is right it determines what is legal - not always the same thing. (Jim Crow, anyone?) Also, what's on the books in our century will most likely not mean a hill of beans in the 24th.
The concept of murder is as old as law itself.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
I realize that you think that your numerous posts might make you qualified to bring some admonition to me, but you need to realize that you aren't in a position to assess my qualifications, or to rank the basis for my opinion. You don't know me.
You also need to rethink your stated position, too, if you don't realize that law is directly based on what the community accepts as moral behavior.
That is why it is called justice when you proportionately punish the crime.
Which part of everyone is entitled to their opinion are you not comprehending?
Post number has nothing to do with it. Any poster who has their name in green is a board moderator and those in gold are admins. with an interest in keeping the board a place that is comfortable for everyone to post in. Anyone, board mod/admin or not is free to disagree with you.
Once you have enough posts to pm then please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns on the Voyager forum since I'm one of the forum mods. In the meantime I suggest you read the rules under the "Announcements" forum.
