|
|
Join us each Tuesday as Bob Ingersoll analyzes how the law
is portrayed in comics then explains how it would really work.
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
THE LAW IS A ASS for 08/24/1999
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 7
Originally published in The Comics Buyer's Guide # 521
November 11, 1983 issue
I lied.
Time for a little "The Law is a Ass" behind-the-scenes true confession. Several weeks passed between the third and fourth installments of "The Law is a Ass" in Comics Buyer's Guide. In the column installment that follows, I offered an explanation, which you can read. Just don't believe it.
Oh, it's true, in part, I do have a full-time job and it did keep me busy. But the main reason that so much time passed between installments, is I was waiting for the "overnights."
When I first pitched "The Law is a Ass," back in 1983, I wrote three spec installments and sent them to Don and Maggie. They agreed to publish the column and I quickly wrote a fourth installment. Then I didn't write any more for several weeks, so I could see what kind of response the column got in CBG's letters page. Would the column be sufficiently well- received to warrant my doing more?
I was gratified to read the mail of people asking where the column was and to learn that it was well received. So wrote some more, to this very day.
For which I thank you.
"The Law is a Ass"
Installment # 7
By
Bob Ingersoll
WELL, HERE I AM AGAIN DEPARTMENT
I offer a short explanation as to why my column has been missing of late. Writing this column is not, unfortunately, my only occupation. Sometimes my other job, that of a public defender, interferes with the important concerns. In other words, I've been too busy getting scum I know to be guilty off on stupid technicalities. Sorry about that, Vigilante.
I'm back now and with a potpourri covering multiple topics, so without further ado, I turn to...
On second thought let me ado a little further. I think I'll do this topic second, it's too aggravating. First, I'll turn to...
HOW'S THAT AGAIN DEPARTMENT
Stan Lee, while rightfully considered a master of the American comic book (or, at least, the scripting thereof), had some very strange ideas about how the law works. I've always been especially fond of his myopia about what is against the law. Stan had this silly notion that if there wasn't a law specifically outlawing a certain act, then said act was not illegal. Two cases in point, complete with explanations detailing how the law would work more broadly than Mr. Lee thought, follow.
The Amazing Spider-Man # 21 Page 2, Panel 1 finds Abner (The Beetle) Jenkins released from prison. As he exits the iron gates, Abner thinks, "They had to give me my Beetle equipment! There's no law against a man owning an armored costume."
Well that's true. There's no law that I know of forbidding one from owning an armored costume. If there were Tony Stark would have more problems than a cold Seagram's 7. (However, that's no law that I know of. If your city or state has a law outlawing armor, write me and let me know. I love to hear about obscure local laws on the esoterica.)
My question is, did Stan or anyone really believe that the police or the prosecuting attorneys were so short-sighted that they'd only look up laws forbidding armor? So after hours of extensive legal research Blake Tower, Marvel Manhattan's resident D.A., would say, "Nope. No law against armor. Jenkins gets his
specially-designed-for-criminal-purposes Beetle suit back."
Sorry, Stan, but the police and D.A. would search out the other existing laws to see if one of them just might keep Jenkins from regaining his suit. The most obvious such law would be the criminal tool statute.
A criminal tool statute is a catch-all law, which makes it illegal to use ordinary property in a criminal manner. When Joe Car-Thief uses a screwdriver to pry back the window on your late-model GM, then uses a bent coat hanger to pop the lock, he violates the criminal tool statute. While there's nothing wrong with owning a screwdriver or a bent coat hanger, there is something wrong with using them to steal cars. Most jurisdictions have a criminal tools statute, which makes possessing the tools illegal. Moreover, because possessing criminal tools is illegal, the tools, themselves, are contraband, which the police may lawfully seize and not return to its owner under forfeiture laws.
Many readers have already seen where I'm heading. If Abner Jenkins used his Beetle suit for a criminal purpose back in Strange Tales # 123 (his first appearance), his suit would have been a criminal tool or contraband. And the police would not have to give it back to him, even given the fact that there's no law against owning an armored suit.
The question, then, is did Abner use his Beetle suit for a criminal purpose in Strange Tales # 123? Pardon me, while I check. (Don't complain, it shouldn't take long, I figure my legally-trained eyes can spot a crime in short order. While you're waiting, you can listen to the Glory Hallelujah Chorus its rendition of Having My Baby.)
...There that didn't take long, did it?
I'll bet you didn't even miss me. (Other than the part about having to listen to that song.)
In Strange Tales # 123 Abner used his Beetle suit to steal a cash register with the money still in it, steal a cash box from the 1964 New York World's Fair, and commit various assaults. Not major crimes perhaps, more mundane than the types that usually require the combined powers of Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm, but crimes nonetheless.
Which means the Beetle suit was a criminal tool and subject to forfeiture as contraband.
Sorry, Abner, you don't get your suit back.
Second case in point: Fantastic Four # 490 Page 8, Panel 4. Mole Man has just broken free from the FF and makes good his escape. Reed tells the other members to let him go, as Mole Man had not broken any law. "It's a strange paradoxical world we live in," explains Reed, "a man can be arrested for illegal parking... but there's actually no law against trying to conquer the planet!"
How's that again, Reed? Not only is it ungrammatical—dangling participles, indeed!—it's wrong.
On two levels.
First, a man can't be arrested for illegal parking. Non-moving traffic offenses are minor misdemeanors for which the only possible penalty is a fine. One cannot be arrested for illegal parking. (True, if one doesn't appear in court for the parking ticket, one can be arrested for the contempt of court occasioned by the non-appearance, not for illegal parking.)
And there is a law against trying to conquer the planet.
The last time I looked, the United States of America was still part of the planet, despite what some Persian Gulf countries might claim. Thus Mole Man's intent to conquer the planet included an intent to conquer the United States. According to my dictionary, Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1976 ed.) (2,662 pages and a 32 page Addenda of real small print) conquer means "to gain or acquire by force of arms: take possession of by violent means: gain dominion over: SUBJUGATE."
I believe there's still a federal law or three outlawing the overthrow of the United States government by force of arms. Which means, in the United States, where the story in question took place, it is illegal to try and conquer the planet.
If Mole Man's intent had been to conquer the planet, except for the United States, where it's illegal, he might have been okay. But he got greedy and wanted to take over the whole planet, so he broke the law. Reed should have checked with the Feds, before he let Mole Man go.
Even if there were no law against planetary conquest, square-jawed Steve McGarrett isn't going to say, "Don't book him, Dano," when dealing with some would-be world-conqueror. McGarrett, Columbo, Starskey, Hutch, and even Offica Pup all know you look not just at intent, like trying to take over the planet, you also look at acts done to achieve said intent. If said acts are illegal, then the would-be conqueror did break the law.
More to the point, if Mole Man broke any laws in his attempts to conquer the planet, they could have held Mole Man for these crimes. These prior crimes could include more than what Mole Man did in Fantastic Four #'s 23, 88 and 89. As Marvel times is slower than real time, the statute of limitations wouldn't have run out on things Male Man did as far back as Fantastic Four # 1.
What had Mole Man done? To be fair to Reed I'll only concern myself with Mole Man's prior appearances in the Fantastic Four. We have no way of knowing that Reed knew what Mole Man did in X-Men # 34, for example. (Many readers, I'm sure, will also realize that this way I don't have to do as much research. Who remembers every Mole Man appearance prior to Fantastic Four # 90?)
In F.F. # 88 and 89 Mole Man constructed a blindness machine, with which he hoped to blind the world. He tested the machine on the F.F., after they trespassed in Mole Man's house. Under Reed's reasoning, there's nothing really illegal there. After all, it's not against the law to build a blindness machine. Using it may be another matter, but here, Mole Man was defending his house from trespassers, which the law does permit. Although an enterprising D.A. would possibly find something illegal here, but let's give Reed the benefit of the doubt and say he was justified in believing Mole Man hadn't broken any law in Fantastic Four 88 and 89.
So let's move back.
In Fantastic Four Annual #3, Doctor Doom's Emotion Charger fired up Mole Man's hatred so that he attacked the Thing and The Beast. Both acts are assaults, both illegal. But let's give Reed the benefit of more doubt. Reed deduced that Doctor Doom had somehow compelled Mole Man's attack. Thus he knew that Mole Man did not act out of a free will, but because of a foreign and irresistible compulsion. Free will is a necessary component of any crime. If someone does something illegal, because he had been forced to do so against his will, he is not guilty of a crime. The law recognizes duress as a valid defense in criminal prosecutions. So Reed knew Mole Man hadn't done anything illegal in Fantastic Four Annual # 3.
Again, let's move back.
In Fantastic Four # 23 Mole Man built huge hydraulic lifts under every major city on Earth. He intended to lower these cities beneath the surface of the Earth, create a panic and start World War III. In Fantastic Four # 1, using similar technology, Mole Man did lower nuclear power plants in Russia, Australia, South America, and French Africa. Lowering a building beneath the Earth's surface is an exertion of control over the property of another with the intent to deprive the owner of the property. That's grand theft. (When you're talking about lowering a whole city, that's really grand theft.) As there were also people in the plants who were deprived of their liberty when Mole Man lowered the plants, Mole Man also committed several counts of kidnaping. It is true that Mole Man didn't commit any of these crimes in America, but Reed still could have held onto him long enough to see if Russia , Australia, South America, and/or French Africa wanted to extradite Mole Man. I'm betting the answer would have been "yes."
Even if there were no extraditions pending, Reed still had enough to hold Mole Man because of Fantastic Four # 23. Mole Man had built the machinery to lower major cities including New York beneath the ground and had pressed the button to activate the machines. He failed, because Reed rewired the circuitry so no city was lowered, only Mole Man's island headquarters. (Incidently, Reed, that was a cute trick. The hydraulic lifts were under major cities. When did you find the time to build another one under Mole Man's island?)
When Mole Man pressed the button believing it would lower cities, he committed crimes. First there was attempted really grand theft of all of the buildings in all of the major cities involved and attempted kidnaping of all of the people in all of the buildings in all of the major cities involved. He committed several counts of each. Several million, in fact. The indictments for New York City alone would have required so much paper that a small redwood forest would have to have been sacrificed.
Mole Man was guilty of some crimes. Reed, you'd better go back and get him.
WELL HE'S DONE IT AGAIN DEPARTMENT
The sound that you hear is me dragging my soap box out. Many readers will now realize that the "he" I'm referring to is Adrian Chase, the Vigilante.
I really hadn't intended to deal with Adrian again so soon. After all, I thought I had pretty much covered him in my third column. I apologize to all of you who think I am being unfair to poor Adrian, hut I really have to say something about Vigilante # 2. Adrian didn't just offend my ideals, he impugned my morals.
"The law is important, but the intent of the law is even more important! " railed Adrian (Page 22, Panel 31), when he explained to his father, why he couldn't practice criminal defense work. Well, that's fine, Adrian. Whether or not one has the stomach for criminal defense work is a personal and moral decision that each must make for himself. I won't fault you for deciding you don't.
But don't attack those of us who do practice defense work. Don't assume we're unconcerned with justice and trying to warp the law, so we can get rich by getting people we know are guilty off. Don't condemn us, because of your cinder block mentality.
Adrian, we don't know our clients are guilty. Indeed, until a jury says, "guilty," they're innocent. We defend our clients, not because we have no compassion for the victims, but because we have great compassion for the law and for the Constitution. The Constitution, you see, guarantees everyone the right to effective assistance of counsel, when they've been accused (accused, remember, not convicted) of a crime.
We defend our clients as effectively as we can (instead of concluding, "Oh hell, he's guilty as sin, let's let him hang! "), because their right to such defense is the very foundation of our free society.
And, Adrian, we don't know they're guilty. Not any more than you knew Leonard Kord was guilty of raping Sister Mary Elizabeth, which, if you'll recall, he wasn't, even though you "knew" he was. That's why there are trials and juries and that whole "presumed innocent" thing, so that, hopefully, innocent men don't get railroaded by over-zealous prosecutors.
Adrian, we do care about justice, and justice demands that all men have a fair trial with the best possible legal assistance. Because, as you said, "The law was made to protect the innocent," and until a man is found guilty, he is innocent and entitled to that protection. Anything else is not a free and ordered society.
While I'm on the subject, I'd like to thank Adrian's father, Charles Chase for his eloquent defense of the criminal defense bar. ("The law is made by people, usually wealthy
people ... use[] the law as it's written and make it work for you." Is that the best you could come up with, Chuck. Was it typical of the sort of defense you've been giving your clients all these years? If it is, how did you build up that palatial estate of yours, pad your bills?
Okay the soap box has been put away again. I promise to try not to talk about Adrian (The Vigilante) Chase again for a long time. That's try, however. There's no telling what delights await me in issue 3.
BOB INGERSOLL
<< 08/17/1999 | 08/24/1999 | 08/31/1999 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
