Long overdue improvements to Starfleet

[pengbuzz]

Improvements to Starfleet...hmmmm.

Well:

1) A better training program for Away Team security personnel (namely, how to DUCK!!!)

2) Padding ALL OVER the interior of the ship (they had some on the corridors onboard the refit E)

3) SEATBELTS!!! (aforementioned in several posts)

I'll ponder this topic a bit more and see what else I can come up with, folks.

 

[JB2005]

I agree with ditching the Prime Directive or at least rewriting it so that it isn't as inhumane and callous as it is in the TNG era. Allowing whole civilizations to die isn't something that should be advocated by the protagonists because some rule says they shouldn't get involved in stuff happening to pre-warp civilizations.

The question then is, who made them God? Should they deflect every incoming asteroid or comet that would cause an extension level event for every pre-warp civilization they know?

Frankly, that's non-sense.

You are unconfortable with some actions seen in trek because they display a level of power you superstitiously think should belong only to God.

Well, whether you're unconfortable or not with it, beings in the trekverse (and even in the real world, in certain areas) have that level of power.

Who made them "God"?
Themselves, be gaining such power.
And 'God' is not a fitting word for what they are.


Also - you thing just standing on the sidelines gets one out of the moral hook - when he had the aility to intervene?
If one stopping an asteroid is playing 'god', then one not stopping it despire having the ability to stop it is also playing 'god'.
Inaction is just as morally (and legally) binding as action - read criminal law and cases (from ANY law system known to man) if you don't beleive me.

Not for nothing - English law makes inaction defensible unless there are specific reasons why you should have acted...

So if I see a randomer being attacked, I'm under no obligation to do anything...

 

[T'Girl]

I'm under no obligation to do anything...

In America, you could be held culpable for your inaction. If you literally "do nothing," like summon the police to a assault. Or the fire department to a burning house. Or the Coast Guard to a sinking boat.

There is this thing call "depraved indifference to human life."

So if I see a randomer being attacked ...

You could also face civil liability too, I believe the legal term is personal negligence.

 

[JB2005]

Yeah, I think I saw an episode of Seinfeld that dealt with that?

Always struck me as odd!

 

[scotpens]

In America, you could be held culpable for your inaction. If you literally “do nothing,” like summon the police to a assault. Or the fire department to a burning house. Or the Coast Guard to a sinking boat.

There is this thing call “depraved indifference to human life.”

That’s not what “depraved indifference” means in a legal sense.

Wiki:

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies.

. . . In many jurisdictions such as California, malice may be found if gross negligence amounts to willful or depraved indifference to human life. In such a case, the wrongdoer may be guilty of second degree murder.

At present, Minnesota and Vermont are the only states that require a person at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance (calling 911 is enough to satisfy the law) to persons in need.

And now, we return to our topic, already in progress . . .

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Inaction is punishable when there is (the law imposes) a duty to act, yes.
But this duty is not imposed only on professionals.

When the crime is severe enough and a person (any person) can with ease/with little risk prevent/help prevent said crime, then the law imposes an obligation to act and this person is criminally responsible for his inaction (mens rea can be intention or negligence) - in several law systems.

In english law, there appear to be surprisingly few examples of such crimes - nevertheless, there are some: Misprision of treason, for one.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

A submarine is not a starship.

Truth but it and/or airplanes will probably be what they look at if we ever build one.

 

[Rojixus]

A submarine is not a starship.

Truth but it and/or airplanes will probably be what they look at if we ever build one.

I can't see why, starships would be radically and fundamentally different from any vehicle that came before. Submarines were designed to keep pressure out not in and airplanes are useless outside of an atmosphere.

 

[JB2005]

Inaction is punishable when there is (the law imposes) a duty to act, yes.
But this duty is not imposed only on professionals.

When the crime is severe enough and a person (any person) can with ease/with little risk prevent/help prevent said crime, then the law imposes an obligation to act and this person is criminally responsible for his inaction (mens rea can be intention or negligence) - in several law systems.

In english law, there appear to be surprisingly few examples of such crimes - nevertheless, there are some: Misprision of treason, for one.

There are 5:

Have you assumed responsibility
Are you a family member
Have you created the dangerous situation
Does your professional position require you to act
Are you contractually obliged to act?

(Law Student)

 

[RAMA]

Just some basics that the budget didnt allow: Personnel equipment, they should still need some sort of backpack or belt. They should have a personal shield generator. No away team should go down to a uninhabited or similar technology world without a vehicle...they should be beamed down in it...even with transporters and shuttles it makes sense to cover ground and explore with something close to the surface and to use less power. Don't even get me started on nanotech....

 

[JB2005]

Cloaned Organs
24th Century Smart Phones
A Space Elevator from SF Command to Starbase 1
Dress Uniforms that look like more like suits
A Marine Corps
Show us the Federation Navy?
A seperate Fleet Auxillary
Civilian Contractors
Stairs between decks/ramps
Reorganise the Fleet into a clearly demarkated defence force and exploration force and always place the budgetary emphasis on the former while extolling the virtues of the latter
A seperate Federation "Coast Guard" and Federation "RNLI" so that Starfleet isn't always being called to rescue people in shuttles...

Basically remove the military from a good number of places and make it much more effective!

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Inaction is punishable when there is (the law imposes) a duty to act, yes.
But this duty is not imposed only on professionals.

When the crime is severe enough and a person (any person) can with ease/with little risk prevent/help prevent said crime, then the law imposes an obligation to act and this person is criminally responsible for his inaction (mens rea can be intention or negligence) - in several law systems.

In english law, there appear to be surprisingly few examples of such crimes - nevertheless, there are some: Misprision of treason, for one.

There are 5:

Have you assumed responsibility
Are you a family member
Have you created the dangerous situation
Does your professional position require you to act
Are you contractually obliged to act?

(Law Student)

Misprision of treason does not fit any of these 5 cases.

 

[The Green Mushroom]

Cloaned Organs--Don't they have those already?

24th Century Smart Phones--Doesn't seem necessary since computers are all voice activated.

A Space Elevator from SF Command to Starbase 1--Why?

Dress Uniforms that look like more like suits--More like 21st or 23rd/24th Century suits? And why?

A Marine Corps--Didn't we see that in the MACOs and on several DS9 episodes?

Civilian Contractors--We've seen plenty, just maybe not in the places that the modern military would use them. For example we've had Leah Brahms, Keiko O'Brien, that weird guy who worked with the Traveler, Riker's father, the guy who ran those war games that pitted Riker against Picard, O'Brien's Bajoran engineers (at least some of them), Tom Paris (sort of) and that's just off the top of my head.

A separate Fleet Auxiliary--Maybe. But since Starfleet also seems to be the cargo service for federation worlds, its possible that this job isn't considered a separate job. Though it would have made a lot of sense in wartime.

Stairs between decks/ramps--Yes. Absolutely one hundred percent. I can see it being naval style stairs that are almost ladders anyway, but if they can put in elevators galore and Jefferies Tubes that are all over the place, they can put in something easier to use than a ladder.

Show us the Federation Navy? Reorganise the Fleet into a clearly demarcated defence force and exploration force and always place the budgetary emphasis on the former while extolling the virtues of the latter. A separate Federation "Coast Guard" and Federation "RNLI" so that Starfleet isn't always being called to rescue people in shuttles...

--Here is where I disagree the most. Everything we've seen, at least as far as I can remember, has shown us that Starfleet IS the navy AND the coast guard AND possibly even the army/marines and FBI of the federation.

I don't have a problem with that and it kind of makes sense to me. I read this not too long ago on another post, but Starfleet really is the (U.S) Coast Guard in space. The real U.S. Coast Guard does law enforcement, search and rescue, port inspections, ice breaking, drug interdiction and even some scientific research and exploration. As I understand things, a lot of what the Coast Guard does in the U.S. would be done by the navy in other countries.

Maybe it might make sense for certain things to be placed in a single purpose task force for better training and a defensive strategy that doesn't rely on the Enterprise being the only ship in position to defend Earth. But the Federation clearly prefers to have all of these functions under one roof. It makes sense, at least to me.

And specifically on the "need" to have a separate coast guard/life saving service, there is nothing that says individual worlds don't have it, only that Starfleet policy seems to be that its ships will answer distress calls when it hears them. I would be concerned if a modern warship didn't.

 

[JB2005]

Inaction is punishable when there is (the law imposes) a duty to act, yes.
But this duty is not imposed only on professionals.

When the crime is severe enough and a person (any person) can with ease/with little risk prevent/help prevent said crime, then the law imposes an obligation to act and this person is criminally responsible for his inaction (mens rea can be intention or negligence) - in several law systems.

In english law, there appear to be surprisingly few examples of such crimes - nevertheless, there are some: Misprision of treason, for one.

There are 5:

Have you assumed responsibility
Are you a family member
Have you created the dangerous situation
Does your professional position require you to act
Are you contractually obliged to act?

(Law Student)

Misprision of treason does not fit any of these 5 cases.

I had to go to a history book to find out what it was! We don't regularly (ie for the last few hundred years) bring this crime out!

 

[MacLeod]

Inaction is punishable when there is (the law imposes) a duty to act, yes.
But this duty is not imposed only on professionals.

When the crime is severe enough and a person (any person) can with ease/with little risk prevent/help prevent said crime, then the law imposes an obligation to act and this person is criminally responsible for his inaction (mens rea can be intention or negligence) - in several law systems.

In english law, there appear to be surprisingly few examples of such crimes - nevertheless, there are some: Misprision of treason, for one.

There are 5:

Have you assumed responsibility
Are you a family member
Have you created the dangerous situation
Does your professional position require you to act
Are you contractually obliged to act?

(Law Student)

I agree, with those and a quick google check on them confirms them. In English criminal law is the Law of Omission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)

 

[Edit_XYZ]

There are 5:

Have you assumed responsibility
Are you a family member
Have you created the dangerous situation
Does your professional position require you to act
Are you contractually obliged to act?

(Law Student)

Misprision of treason does not fit any of these 5 cases.

I had to go to a history book to find out what it was! We don't regularly (ie for the last few hundred years) bring this crime out!

One doesn't often have to deal with crimes that endanger thousands.
Misprision of treason is quite easy to find by google, though.

Just as the Minnesota and Vermont laws are - instituting the legal obligation for any person at the scene of a crime to help, as long as it's reasonable help - whithin said persons' power/with little risk involved.

 

[JB2005]

Google search gives me Wikipedia and American cases!

I can't think of a situation when you'd need to use the Misprision of Treason rules, because apart from anything else, we don't really utilise the crime of Treason anymore either! In 2006, the government discussed "reviving it" to deal with the July 21st bombers...

I think that in a case such as that, you'd just be treated as an accessory to the crime, but honestly I don't see it ever coming up in our lifetimes!

The five i listed aren't all that common, but they do come up from time to time!

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I think that in a case such as that, you'd just be treated as an accessory to the crime, but honestly I don't see it ever coming up in our lifetimes!

Only if there won't be a serious war in our lifetimes.
And, bear in mind, treason is a far less severe crime than genocide.

The five i listed aren't all that common, but they do come up from time to time!

And they're not exhaustive, either - most definitely not in Minnesota and Vermont.

In other law systems, inaction is far more widely incriminated.
And, if Minnesota and Vermont are an indication, USA's law system started following this trend.

 

[JB2005]

I think that in a case such as that, you'd just be treated as an accessory to the crime, but honestly I don't see it ever coming up in our lifetimes!

Only if there won't be a serious war in our lifetimes.
And, bear in mind, treason is a far less severe crime than genocide.

Honestly, there's never been any doubt in my mind that treason is less severe than a crime against humanity! But in England we don't have the death penalty, so you'd still get a life sentence no matter which you committed!

The five i listed aren't all that common, but they do come up from time to time!

And they're not exhaustive, either - most definitely not in Minnesota and Vermont.

In other law systems, inaction is far more widely incriminated.
And, if Minnesota and Vermont are an indication, USA's law system started following this trend.

I should clarify - I was speaking to English law where - military rules and ancient laws aside - those are the 5!

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I think that in a case such as that, you'd just be treated as an accessory to the crime, but honestly I don't see it ever coming up in our lifetimes!

Only if there won't be a serious war in our lifetimes.
And, bear in mind, treason is a far less severe crime than genocide.

Honestly, there's never been any doubt in my mind that treason is less severe than a crime against humanity! But in England we don't have the death penalty, so you'd still get a life sentence no matter which you committed!

It's not about the sentence, it's about who is held responsible for the crime:

For treason (a crime endangering tens/hundreds/thousands), not only the traitor, but the one who did nothing to stop the traitor when he could have (Misprision of treason).

For crimes against humanity - crimes endangering thousands/millons?

The five i listed aren't all that common, but they do come up from time to time!

And they're not exhaustive, either - most definitely not in Minnesota and Vermont.

In other law systems, inaction is far more widely incriminated.
And, if Minnesota and Vermont are an indication, USA's law system started following this trend.

I should clarify - I was speaking to English law where - military rules and ancient laws aside - those are the 5!

'Military rules and ancient laws' - and the recent Minnesota and Vermont laws, which also exceed those 5 categories.

English law is not my native law system - meaning I can't say with any certainty whether there are more examples exceeding those 5 categories.

And, given that you were not familiar with the Minnesota and Vermont laws:
(

Yeah, I think I saw an episode of Seinfeld that dealt with that?

Always struck me as odd!

)
You also can't say with certainy what exceptions exist or not in the english law systems.