|
|
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 05/08/2001
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 94
Originally written as installment # 83 and published in Comics Buyer's Guide issue # 667, August 29, 1986 issue
And it was such a famous quote, too. The whole, "the law is a ass" quote from Oliver Twist. I figured if I used it for my column, enough people would recognize it that I wouldn't constantly be asked, "Shouldn't it be the law is an ass?" or, "Isn't that title obscene."
Sadly, in these days of John Grisham potboilers and Jackie Collins crud filling up the best-seller list, a lot of you may be reading, but Dickens has become an acquired taste.
It's enough to make me wonder what would have happened if I had used a Shakespeare quote for a title.
******
"The Law is a Ass"
Installment # 94
by
Bob Ingersoll
I thought I'd let you know what I was doing, why I was doing it, and answer some mail.
First off: I'm not crude--in print, anyway. The name for this column isn't obscene. It doesn't refer to human anatomy. And, while it is ungrammatical, that's not my fault. The title comes from Charles Dickens's novel, Oliver Twist. One of the characters, Mr. Bumble, a vulgar, common, and ungrammatical man, is told that he is liable for the actions of his wife, because English law at that time presumed that a man was responsible for the acts of his wife. Bumble responded: "If the law supposes that... the law is a ass--a idiot... The law is a bachelor."
I've always liked that line, and I've always liked titles derived from quotes. So, when it came time to title this column, "The Law Is a Ass" seemed natural. I did suggest other titles to Don and Maggie, in case they had problems with my first choice. They didn't. So, if you have any problems with the title, blame Don and Maggie. After all, they let me us it. And if you like the title, it was all my suggestion. (Am I a stand up kind of a guy or what?)
What I do in the column is to comment on comics. I usually do this by making humorous--well, they're supposed to be humorous, anyway--observations about the misapplication of law in comics and explain how the law would really work in the "Real World." I do this, because it gives me an opportunity to explain legal principles to lay persons using examples they are familiar with and which they will understand. I do this also because of attitudes like "It's only comics, so who cares?" or, the attitude Bob Harras expressed in the letter column of a recent Spitfire and the Troubleshooters, "well if we got it wrong this time, we'll try to do better the next." And, finally, I do this, because CBG pays me to do it.
I don't happen to subscribe to either theory--that is the, "It's only comics," or "We'll try better next time" theory--not the paying me theory. Comics are a form of heroic fantasy purportedly set in the real world. We, the readers, are asked to believe that a man can fly, lift buildings by one corner, or six other impossible things before breakfast. However, that willing suspension of disbelief is harder, if the real world elements of the story are just as fantastic as the fantasy elements. The real elements in comics, such as the law, should be researched and portrayed as realistically as possible. Any other attitude shows scorn and contempt for the intelligence of the readers.
This attitude, however, does not apply to comics like Richie Rich or Star Brand. No one really believes they take place in the real world, anyway.
Sometimes I don't analyze comics. Sometimes I answer your questions from the mail. I probably don't do this enough. I just went through the unanswered mail pile, and some of it is over a year old. I apologize. I can only write so many columns in any given year, and my limited free time prevents me from making personal responses to all the mail I receive.
I want to thank Dennis Petilli of Smithtown, New York, Robert Ingram, Roger Dutcher, and Barton Lash for their letters (I meant to compliment you on Wolff and Byrd in a column, Barton, but someone else in the CBG beat me to it.) They didn't ask questions, but I wanted their letters to be acknowledged.
To Charles Croce of Revere, Massachusetts: I have no idea if ex-cons can become private detectives. Each state has its own licensing laws. In some they can, in others, maybe they can't. You'll have to check the licensing laws of the state, where the characters in your story are going to work. And if, in that state, ex-cons can't become private detectives, you'll either have to change the background or change the setting.
To Mark Wayne Harris of Newark, New Jersey: thank you for the preview of Street Wolf. I enjoyed it, which was something of a surprise. Based on the ads I had seen for the book, I thought it was going to be another Death Wish re-tread. It isn't and it's much the better for that. And lest any cynics out there think I'm only saying this, because Mark dedicated the story to me; that is simply not the case. I mean, really. I can be bought, but not that cheap.
To Bruce Mai of Webster Groves, Missouri: the constitutional right to a public trial means that the government cannot, as a general rule, close a trial to the public. The public must be allowed to watch it. This was written into the Constitution to insure criminal defendants that their trials would be open to public scrutiny, so the prosecution couldn't pull any shenanigans. If the government wants to close the trial for national security reasons, it has to be able to prove some absolutely compelling reasons to establish that national security is greater than the defendant's right to a public trial. As to your question, "How would a group of people be tried?" in a really big room at a really big table. And for a really long time. Don't forget that each defense attorney gets his or her own chance to cross-examine each witness, so each attorney gets to ask the same questions as the one who went before him asked. I've been in a few of those multi-defendant trials in my time. I'd rather read Kickers, Inc. It's a quicker death.
To Roger Norris of Willoughby, Ohio--just a hop, skip and a leap over a tall building away from my old South Euclid home: I don't know if Professor X is legally dead. I know he died and was cloned some time back in X- Men, but as clones don't really exist, there is no known body of clone law. However, in X-Men # 200, the World Court ruled that Magneto, who had returned to adulthood after being turned into a baby but who still had the same genetic code and memories as the original, was a new person. So I guess Professor X is dead and the clone is a new person. (How do I get into these things? Better I should plead the fifth. Better yet, I'll drink a fifth.)
Clayton Emery of Brookline, New Hampshire asked about a story in which police officers refused to testify after a court they couldn't testify with their guns on, because it's intimidating--a ruling which violated police policy that they must always testify with their guns on--and whether the same would apply to Batman and his utility belt. Just because some courts ruled cops can't testify with their guns doesn't mean that Batman couldn't testify with his utility belt. It's not a weapon. Even if it is, Batman, unlike the police force, doesn't have a policy against testifying without the weapon. He'd just drop the old belt and take the stand. Hopefully, his pants don't need the belt for support, so he wouldn't be testifying in his Bat-boxers.
Also to Clayton Emery, who may not still be of Brookline, New Hampshire--his was one of those year-old letters: yes much of the heroes' equipment would constitute deadly weapons, so, yes, the bad guys captured by super-hero weaponry could try to charge them with assault with a deadly weapon. "Yes, I know you're one of the good guys, Mr. Queen. Still, don't you think shooting that pickpocket with an arrow was a bit extreme?"
To Eric Carver of Penn Yan, New York and J. Bay Jacobs of Arlington, Virginia: you're both right I did make a slip of the typewriter, when I said the FDA could get Hourman for eating Miraclo Pills. Drugs are illegal, only after they've been declared illegal by the DEA and there has been no indication that Miraclo's listed on the Schedule of Controlled Substances. You caught me in a mistake; too bad I don't give No Prizes.
Finally, to Patrick O'Connor of Hinsdale, New Hampshire: I'm not to blame for stating that one breaks a federal law by defacing currency without trying to pass the defaced currency first. I was quoting from the story. On the other hand, I didn't know one had to pass the defaced coin before one could break this law. I didn't realize defacing the coin by itself wasn't enough.
Does this mean I can come out of hiding for those pennies I put on the train tracks, when I was eight?
BOB INGERSOLL
<< 05/01/2001 | 05/08/2001 | 05/15/2001 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
Last Kiss
