eh? In the TNG era at least, we've seen several instances where the PD is invoked in cases not involving pre-warp cultures-just off the top of my head, how about the Klingon Civil War, or the Cardassian-Bajoran conflict?
in DS9, what about Tosk?
Trek morality
- Thread starter RB_Kandy
- Start date
eh? In the TNG era at least, we've seen several instances where the PD is invoked in cases not involving pre-warp cultures-just off the top of my head, how about the Klingon Civil War, or the Cardassian-Bajoran conflict?
in DS9, what about Tosk?
OK, since everyone wants to know what the hypothetical crime was, here it is:
He was outside with his wife, on the holy day. As by law, they had to be cuffed together. She sneezed, and he did not place the veil of blessings on her, and say the blessing "shama!" with one hand raised.
In other words, a wacky behavior that would have absolutely no bearing on our society, but is seen as the utmost sacred thing in theirs.
The story of their religion claims that when a wife sneezes, it is the adultery demon Lustus, that has infected her. If the air of her sneeze is breathed in by anyone, Lustus will possess them, and tempt them into adultery. All of this can be stopped by the husband doing the earlier mentioned actions. He refused to do so, claiming that his wife's sneeze was so dainty, that surely no one could breathe the air of her sneeze. And that she sneezes a lot, and he's fed up with doing the blessing, if only she'd just take her allergy medicine yada yada yada.
By his refusal to do the blessing, he endangered the marriages of all the men around him, and wished sickness upon his wife, according to this religion which is central to their culture and political system.
He was outside with his wife, on the holy day. As by law, they had to be cuffed together. She sneezed, and he did not place the veil of blessings on her, and say the blessing "shama!" with one hand raised.
In other words, a wacky behavior that would have absolutely no bearing on our society, but is seen as the utmost sacred thing in theirs.
The story of their religion claims that when a wife sneezes, it is the adultery demon Lustus, that has infected her. If the air of her sneeze is breathed in by anyone, Lustus will possess them, and tempt them into adultery. All of this can be stopped by the husband doing the earlier mentioned actions. He refused to do so, claiming that his wife's sneeze was so dainty, that surely no one could breathe the air of her sneeze. And that she sneezes a lot, and he's fed up with doing the blessing, if only she'd just take her allergy medicine yada yada yada.
By his refusal to do the blessing, he endangered the marriages of all the men around him, and wished sickness upon his wife, according to this religion which is central to their culture and political system.
yes I did make that up off the top of my head. And thanks
And after I read it, I could just see this alien standing before the judge "Your honor, my wife sneezes as dainty as a mouse. She sneezes, I check the mouse trap. And she does it all the time. All day with the sneezing, and I keep yelling 'Edith, did you forget to take your pills?'" And the whole time his wife is just sitting there, arms crossed, fuming at the indignation. And then picture Archer and Tucker in the court room just looking at each other in confusion when they hear this
If this person had made it to the EU today he couldn't be extradited back because he'd be threatened with the death penalty. So, I'd hope the answer to the question in the OP was yes.
Knight Templar
Commodore
Anyone mentioned "Rock and A Hard Place"? The ST:TNG novel by Peter David that featured a hardened Starfleet officer who had apparently been driven just a bit crazy.
It turned out the thing that did it was when he was leading a Starfleet team conducting negotiations with a new culture at which point a coup against the leader of the planet occurs.
Right in front of the Starfleet teams eyes, the entire family of the planetary leader is murdered. Including his pregnant daughter. Her near term baby is cut out of her stomach and then beaten to death while the Starfleet team watches and does nothing (the officer mentions the babies blood splashes on his nice clean boots).
The new rulers are so happy that the Starfleet team does nothing to intervene that they gladly ally themselves with the Feds.
It turned out the thing that did it was when he was leading a Starfleet team conducting negotiations with a new culture at which point a coup against the leader of the planet occurs.
Right in front of the Starfleet teams eyes, the entire family of the planetary leader is murdered. Including his pregnant daughter. Her near term baby is cut out of her stomach and then beaten to death while the Starfleet team watches and does nothing (the officer mentions the babies blood splashes on his nice clean boots).
The new rulers are so happy that the Starfleet team does nothing to intervene that they gladly ally themselves with the Feds.
Well that's probably not strictly true, if an Agreement was made not to apply the death penalty if the person was found guilty of the crime for which extradition was applied, an extradition could no doubt occur.
But first of of all he would have to apply for asylum in the first EU country they arrived in (in the example above I'm guessing it would be religious persuction)
Well, then he wouldn't be threatened with the death penalty now, would he?
(Which is why I added that half-sentence)
The whole idea behind the original post was that it was something we would not think of as a crime, not capital murder. And that's the spirit in which I answered the question.
I think her point was "look at it if the roles were reversed".
But the parameters of the argument are different. She should have used public urination or loud noise. No one is going to offer asylum to a proven butcher.
Except the U.S. Government.
Sounds like this society is the kind of third world theocratic hellhole that the Federation is better off not having diplomatic ties with.
I don't believe the prime directive was involve in the case of the Klingon civil war, rather the "non-interference" there had to do with the Klingon Empire being a sovereign power. Not every incident of non-interference is directly tied to the prime directive.
Given that this is Star Trek, is this "Lustus" a real entity? Who the people of this planet have had previous exposure to, and know through long historical experiences what will actually transpire?
Their legal code is based upon careful observation of cause and effect.
It really does.
*** *** *** *** *** ***
My post did not pertain to the OP, but rather to your previous post that asylum/exile has the same effect as being punished by death for a capital crime. The same effect because the society would never see the offender again. Which makes no sense.
Regardless of the offense, being allowed to simply pick-up and move somewhere else is not the same as being executed by your society.
Travel back 2000 years or so and in certain places, the same sentence would have been given out-- for picking up sticks on a holy rest day. What would Starfleet have done then as well...
"Justice" TNG--
The crew is on an alien planet. Wesley is playing catch with some young locals. Wesley simply falls over a simple patch of grass trying to catch the ball. That patch was a randomly selected "forbidden zone".
The sentence for simply crossing over a forbidden zone--death.
Picard in the end, refused to hand over Wesley, and the Prime Directive did come up.
But...Wesley was one of Picard's people.
"Justice" TNG--
The crew is on an alien planet. Wesley is playing catch with some young locals. Wesley simply falls over a simple patch of grass trying to catch the ball. That patch was a randomly selected "forbidden zone".
The sentence for simply crossing over a forbidden zone--death.
Picard in the end, refused to hand over Wesley, and the Prime Directive did come up.
But...Wesley was one of Picard's people.
It is the same from the perspective of the society because they are permanently removing what they see as a disruptive element. The government is free to spin his removal any way they see fit. But you tried to add the spin of murder to prove your point, which is simply wrong and misrepresented my position. I wouldn't even entertain offering asylum to someone facing the death penalty because he/she went around butchering people. But if they wanted to stone someone to death for public urination, I'd see if I couldn't come to a solution that satisfied ALL parties.
And trust me, I'd rather take the death penalty than be forced to move to some areas on Earth. Just because the accused escaped death for breaking a cultural taboo, doesn't mean his life will automatically be easy or any better.
The Federation Ambassador: "Excuse me, but "Your Planet's Sovereignty?"
Pardon me Mister Prime Minister while I step into the corridor and laugh hysterically."
No, because the "disruptive element" isn't being held responsible for their own actions. If taken into a asylum environment, they are getting away with their crime. Their debt to their society would never be fully paid, the fugitive merely faces the inconveniences of relocation.
Your (original) position was that asylum/exile is the same as execution for the overall society that sentenced the convict to execution, because the convict is removed from the societies sight.
If you are sentenced to death for "spitting on the sidewalk" (whatever) and, that sentence isn't carried out because an outside power allowed you to simply walk away, it isn't "the same."
Would that include telling the complete truth on what actually happen? That an outside agency has empowered itself to decide which of the indigenous societies laws can be enforced and what convictions can be handed down by the justice system.
To draw a modern parallel with the society I live in, a conviction for murder with the sentence of death was necessary.
If granted asylum by the Federation, the fugitive would be living in the Federation.
But the convict does escape the consequences of committing a capital crime.
Change murder to pissing on the sidewalk then we will be having a discussion about the same thing.
And no where did I say that I'd simply take the convicted. Merely that I would try to broker a solution that works for all parties. Once again, you simply misrepresent a position.
And no where did I say that I'd simply take the convicted. Merely that I would try to broker a solution that works for all parties. Once again, you simply misrepresent a position.
I was talking about your contention that exile is the same as execution.
I never said that you did.
My position has been consistent.
Asylum all the way.
What they do in their own society is none of my business, but if someone wants to get out and leave, he should. Essentially he leaves their society. They should be glad they got rid of him instead of feeling insulted. And it's also none of their business what we do in our society, so they should leave him be.
What they do in their own society is none of my business, but if someone wants to get out and leave, he should. Essentially he leaves their society. They should be glad they got rid of him instead of feeling insulted. And it's also none of their business what we do in our society, so they should leave him be.
Similar threads
