TUC: They Don't Prosecute?

[urbandefault]

Spock probing Valeris mind, could constitute an assault

Could, yes, but probably doesn't. Spock had probed the minds of several Starfleet officers prior to this incident (not to mention nerve-pinched or violently beaten several, even strangling one to death!). It's difficult to see any illegality to the act in light of this.

On more general terms, Valeris' right to privacy of thought is debatable to begin with. No such right has been mentioned anywhere in Star Trek, and examples to the contrary are legion. OTOH, Valeris is Spock's subordinate in a hierarchy that further limits her rights from the civilian standard.

Nor is there any indication she would find it possible to resist the treatment, even though she shows no fear of speaking her mind or otherwise using verbalization to her advantage in this supposedly threatening situation. If Spock were violating her, or planning to, would she not point this out?

Timo Saloniemi

Valeris tried to avoid the mind meld by backing away, but Spock grabbed her wrist and she didn't try to object any further. That tells me that she thought she was mentally strong enough to block Spock's attempt to find the truth. She was mistaken.

And it was as painful for him as it was for her.

 

[Timo]

We don't even know if she resisted - mentally, that is. Might be she saw the logic of cooperating right there and then. Funnily enough, people who cooperate with a meld appear to be in pain or other distress, but people who resist remain calm and composed (that is, our only case of successful resistance, Gul Dukat in DS9 "Maquis", goes like that)...

It only seemed to get decidedly painful when Spock asked where the conference would be held, and apparently mistook her failure to provide the answer for resistance.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Silvercrest]

Spock probing Valeris mind, could constitute an assault

Could, yes, but probably doesn't. Spock had probed the minds of several Starfleet officers prior to this incident (not to mention nerve-pinched or violently beaten several, even strangling one to death!). It's difficult to see any illegality to the act in light of this.

Legal/illegal aside, is mind-probing even acknowledged by Federation law in the first place? Or is it written off as "Vulcan mysticism"?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Kirk might just as well be crucified to appease the Klingons and secure the peace.

Maybe not. One of the conspirators WAS Klingon, and he was dealt with the only way Klingons know how - by destroying his ship and killing him. So I assume the Klingons were satisfied by that.

We don't know how well liked Gorkon was in the Empire, but he was the duly appointed Chancellor, and any Klingon shifty enough to conspire against their own Chancellor send disguised assassins after him would be considered cowardly and dishonorable in the Klingons' view. As far as they're concerned, Chang is in Gre'thor.

[
We witnessed in TVH The Enterprise command crew being prosecuted for amongest other things.


Failing to obey the chain of command.

In TUC we are clearly told they are to return to spacedock, they refuse that order. It's clear cut they disobeyed a direct order.

But any order given them by members of the conspiracy, such as Cartwright, was an illegal order.

Spock probing Valeris mind, could constitute an assult

I suppose so. Whether it was considered a physical assault is debatable, but very possible.

As to the use of any information gained thereby: We actually don't know how admissible, if any, a mind meld is in a Federation court. I don't think they've ever dealt with a legal question like that.

 

[Timo]

But any order given them by members of the conspiracy, such as Cartwright, was an illegal order.

I don't see this argument working. When a man is charged with murder, it doesn't follow that his every business transaction should be considered fraud and his every signature forgery. Crimes are extremely specific things, in any legal system of worth.

Even if partaking in the conspiracy would make Cartwright ineligible to continuing in Starfleet service, he was still very much serving when he gave the as such perfectly legal orders for Kirk's ship to return home!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trekker4747]

Sure they were prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war generally aren't given a counsel, a trial, and sentenced to serve in a (regular) prison.

They weren't prisoners, they were captured for committing a crime, given a trial and then sentenced.

 

[USS KG5]

Valeris wasn't arrested for her feelings. She was arrested for conspiracy. Uhura and Chekov simply stated that everyone agreed with Valeris point of view. Not that they would be prosecuted for it. It was small talk, you're taking it way too literal.

Exactly, Valeris also murdered Burk and Sandlow, and seeing she conspired to take Kirk's authority on the Enterprise (By allowing/ordering crew to murder the Chancellor) she is also probably guilty of mutiny.

The whole message of the film is that peace isn't easy, after 45 years of proxy wars, nuclear threats and brinkmanship the NATO allies had every reason to distrust the new Russia, and vice versa, but for a better future they had to suck it up and get on with the peace. The cautious hope of 1991!

 

[OpenMaw]

The whole message of the film is that peace isn't easy, after 45 years of proxy wars, nuclear threats and brinkmanship the NATO allies had every reason to distrust the new Russia, and vice versa, but for a better future they had to suck it up and get on with the peace. The cautious hope of 1991!

Of course, i'd love to see a Star Trek continue those themes.

Not only is peace not easy to achieve, it's perhaps even harder to maintain. For, we see now, that even after decades of uneasy truce, there are rumblings in the water between the US/NATO and Russia. The wrong choice, too much ego, and we could see something nasty spill over once again. Star Trek could make something of that if it so chose.



Not to mince words, but wouldn't Kirk and McCoy, perhaps, be considered "political prisoners" ? I swear i've heard that term used for certain detainees in the past.

 

[CoveTom]

Even if partaking in the conspiracy would make Cartwright ineligible to continuing in Starfleet service, he was still very much serving when he gave the as such perfectly legal orders for Kirk's ship to return home!

Timo Saloniemi

Except that you could argue the order was issued specifically to prevent the Enterprise from investigating the matter and discovering the truth, and therefore to cover Cartwright's butt for his part in the conspiracy. If that was the situation, it would surely be an illegal order.

 

[MacLeod]

But any order given them by members of the conspiracy, such as Cartwright, was an illegal order.

I don't see this argument working. When a man is charged with murder, it doesn't follow that his every business transaction should be considered fraud and his every signature forgery. Crimes are extremely specific things, in any legal system of worth.

Even if partaking in the conspiracy would make Cartwright ineligible to continuing in Starfleet service, he was still very much serving when he gave the as such perfectly legal orders for Kirk's ship to return home!

Timo Saloniemi

There is also the fact that at the time they didn't know Cartwright or anyone else at HQ was invovled.

 

[Blamo]

Kirk: Once Again, we've saved civilization as we know it.
Bones: And the good news is, they're not going to prosecute.

I never quite understood this exchange

See Star Trek IV.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

but breaking out of a Klingon prison might even be Kirk's sworn duty!

Using "The Great Escape" as an example, POW's have a duty to try to escape and thus cause the enemy to expend as much energy as possible trying to keep them.

Except that the W in POW stands for war. They weren't POW's, just plain P's. Legally, prisoners have no right to break out or be broken out of prison. They're supposed to wait for the conviction to be overturned.

Sensible as it seems, that's actually not a universal principle. In Belgium, for instance, escape attempts are considered a natural consequence of humanity's need for freedom. Prisoners who try to (or even succesfully do) escape receive no extra punishment. I'd be very surprised if the writers didn't intend that the Federation worked more like the US rather than Belgium (in this particular matter) but, off the top of my head, I'm not sure there's ever been a specific onscreen situation which clearly stated how the Federation responds to such a situation.

 

[Timo]

There's curious flip-flopping between whether Starfleet personnel have to obey UFP/Starfleet laws or local ones. Sometimes, the latter actually seem to override the former, so that e.g. Worf can slay his personal enemies and suffer no legal consequences in the UFP/Starfleet context.

I very much doubt this would have been the case back when Kirk was captured, tried and imprisoned, though: letting Klingon law stand would be a major political concession, and the alternative of going in with strike teams, killing a few (thousand?) Klingons, bailing Kirk out and then charging the Klingons for the expenses might actually be the legally binding and expected one. Seventy years later, Klingons would be allies, and the alliance would probably have been bought with concessions, such as the one that makes it possible for Worf to be a true Klingon despite being a UFP citizen and Starfleet officer, too.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mudd]

They didn't prosecute Kirk and crew because Kirk was right.

The only reason the Ent-A crew did what they did was because they were victims of Chang and Cartwright's conspiracy. Kirk's subsequent actions were not only to free himself and McCoy, but to expose that conspiracy and bring Cartwright's bunch to justice. It would take a total lack of ethics to prosecute Kirk for that.

True, but the kids today are used to never-ending angst and brooding characters, and don't remember that it wasn't always that way, and I think THAT is the real objection here.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

They didn't prosecute Kirk and crew because Kirk was right.

The only reason the Ent-A crew did what they did was because they were victims of Chang and Cartwright's conspiracy. Kirk's subsequent actions were not only to free himself and McCoy, but to expose that conspiracy and bring Cartwright's bunch to justice. It would take a total lack of ethics to prosecute Kirk for that.

True, but the kids today are used to never-ending angst and brooding characters, and don't remember that it wasn't always that way, and I think THAT is the real objection here.

I'm more amused that he made the flat out wrong assumption that the TOS crew never had angst.