|
|
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 11/13/2001
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 121
Originally written as installment # 110 and published in Comics Buyer's Guide issue # 705, May 22, 1988 issue
You know what's worse that going over these old columns one a week to bring them up to date and being reminded of really bad old stories which I had, mercifully, forgotten about in the intervening years? Coming across an old column that talks about more than one really bad old story which I had, mercifully, forgotten about in the intervening years. Misery may want company, but that doesn't mean that you want more than one thing at a time making you miserable.
******
"The Law is a Ass"
Installment # 121
by
Bob Ingersoll
Having recently returned from a vacation which sent me to Disney World, probably the biggest theme amusement park in the world, my mind has turned to things thematic. That being the case, I wanted a theme for my column, something which could unify the seemingly unconnected segments and give it that much needed sense of cohesion.
After long thought, I found my theme. Therefore, today's column will be built around the phrase: Something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue.
Well, I never said it was a good theme.
******
SOMETHING OLD. Batman #212 (June, 1969) is pretty old, isn't it? It's so old that I forgot about it--although wanting to block this story from my mind forever might have had as much to do with said forgetfulness as the age of the story did. Randy Freeman of Riverside, California reminded me of its existence by sending me a copy and asking about the legal accuracy. Unfortunately, in order to answer the question, I had to read the story again. (I may never forgive you for that, Randy).
Here's why. Current Gangland boss of bosses, Li'l Studs, has just returned to his job after a successful heart operation. His second-in-command, Quirk, isn't too happy. He wanted Studs to die, so he could take over the mobs in Gotham City. So he decided to kill Studs anyway and hired three hitmen to do the deed. Each of the hitmen has a different speciality; guns, poisoned darts, and electrocution respectively. (I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I only report these stories, I don't make them up.) The assassins plot to kill Mr. Studs simultaneously. I don't know why. A staggered attack, in case someone failed, would make more sense. But we're talking about a story which posits a hired killer who uses poisoned darts and a blow gun for Zoroaster's sake! How much sense can you expect? Anyway, as Li'l Studs is cutting the cake at his welcome back party, the gun man shoots him and a deadly leaden missile is on its way to kill Studs. At the same time, the poison dart man blows into his blowgun and a deadly fletched missile is on its way. Meanwhile, the eletrocutioner has wired the cake to electrocute Studs when he touches it with the metal knife.
But scant seconds before the bullet, dart, or volts hit Studs, he dies of a heart attack. Yes, I know that's a huge coincidence. There is an explanation of how such a convenient coronary could occur. But it's every bit as horrible as the rest of this story. Believe me, you don't want to know what it is.
No, you don't. Trust me on this one.
You still want to know? Despite all my warnings? Okay, but one of these days you are going to learn to trust me.
Studs had a bad heart. The operation I mentioned earlier was a "noble experiment," the implantation of an experimental, new pacemaker in his heart, one that operated by way of radio signals sent from the hospital to regulate Studs's heart. At the same time as Studs's party, Batman and some bad guys were fighting in the hospital across town. During the course of the fight, Batman knocked one of the bad guys into a bank of machinery and he landed on the main power switch to the hospital, turning off the electrical power in the hospital. Because the power was turned off intentionally and wasn't part of a malfunction, the back-up generators in the hospital didn't kick in. (Huh?) So Studs's pacemaker wasn't receiving its radio signal and failed and Studs died of a heart attack five seconds before the murder attempts could have killed him.
Aside from the massive coincidence of Batman having power-interrupting fight at the same time as Studs's birthday party, the story raises a practical questions: What hospital would make a pacemaker which relied on an outside power source to work? The answer is none. And for reasons of exactly what happened in the story. A simple black-out or a clumsy workman falling against the main power switch of the hospital could kill anyone equipped with the medical "miracle."
And, for that matter, back-up generators are designed to come online whenever the main power to the hospital is interrupted. They aren't equipped with smart circuitry which can discern whether some turned the power off intentionally or the power went off by accident. The power goes off, they come on. For that matter, in this story the power wasn't turned off on purpose, but was an accident, because someone fell into the main switch. If the back-up generator were that discerning, how come it couldn't tell that this time the main power switch was thrown because of accident and not intentionally, so that it did kick in? And why...
No, too much of this will only make my head hurt.
See, I told you, you didn't want to know.
Ultimately, Batman and Robin track down the hitmen and Quirk. They will all stand trial for attempted murder. Randy wanted to know whether they could be tried for attempted murder, seeing as their intended victim was already dead.
Yes, they could. Under New York Penal Law 110.00, anyone is guilty of an attempted crime, if he "engages in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime." I don't think anyone out there wants to dispute the fact that shooting a gun, blowing a dart, or wiring a cake so as to kill someone qualifies as conduct tending to effect the commission of the crime of murder. I also don't think anyone really wants to dispute my using New York Penal Law. I know that Batman stories are supposed to take place in Gotham City, but we all know what city that really is, don't we? (And while I'm on the subject, my thanks to Tom Hegeman of Oneonta, New York for sending me an old copy of the New York State Penal Code for reference. Seeing as most stories take place in New York City--if we include all Marvel Comics and Gotham City and Metropolis--this volume should prove invaluable.)
Under Penal Law 110.10 it is not a defense to an attempt crime, that the crime attempted is impossible (as killing a dead man would be). What controls is the actor's intent at the time he acted. If the conditions were as the actor believed them to be when he acted, then the actor is guilty of the attempt. As the hitmen believed Studs was alive at the time they acted, the fact that he was already dead wouldn't be a defense to attempted murder.
Actually, in this case the assassins would have been guilty of attempt, even if impossibility were still a defense. At the time they acted, Studs was still alive. Any of their actions could have killed Studs, would have killed Studs had there not been the intervening event of the power blackout in the hospital and the resultant malfunctioning pacemaker. (But let's not go into all that again). Studs died seconds after each of the hitmen initiated their attacks but seconds before any of their attempts were realized So, when they made their attempts, the crime was still possible anyway.
It should be noted that Randy sent me another old Batman comic to review, Batman #180 (May, 1966), "Death Knocks Three Times." I did remember that story. That's why I chose to write about the other story. Nothing could make me relive "Death Knocks Three Times." Ever!
******
SOMETHING NEW Justice #8. Justice was arrested for the murder of Rebecca Chambers. At his preliminary hearing, the judge finds that there is not sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause and throws the charges out. However, since Justice is the prime suspect in the case, the judge sets the bail at $100,000.
Is that wrong?
Does Ma... Ma... Max Headroom sta... sta... stammer?
Bail is, and I quote from Balatine's Law Dictionary, "The means of procuring the release from custody of a person charged with a criminal offense or with debt by assuring his future appearance in court and compelling him to remain within the jurisdiction." Note those key words, "charged with a criminal offense." If a man is not charged with a crime, as he isn't if the judge throws the charges out, then there is no need for a bail bond to guarantee his future appearances to answer to nonexistent charges. Thus, if a man is not charged with a crime, the state can not impose a bail bond on him.
Once the preliminary hearing judge failed to find probable cause and dismissed the charges, Justice was no longer charged with a crime. It was, therefore, completely wrong for the judge to have imposed bail.
It's true that the State could go to the Grand Jury and ask it to indict without a preliminary hearing bind over. Such indictments are referred to as "secret indictments" because the defendant doesn't know it coming. And maybe the state will end up doing this with Justice. But it hasn't done so yet. Until the state does that, there was no charge pending against Justice, so no bail would have been required to secure his release.
I must thank my editor, Don Thompson, for bringing this error to my attention. Although, I didn't exactly miss it, when I read Justice #8, I did decide I wouldn't write about it. It was such a stupid mistake, that I couldn't believe anyone could make it. I figured I must have mis-read the scene. But I didn't want to re-read the comic to find out if I had been wrong--it's punishment enough that I read the New Universe titles in the first place; forcing me to re-read them violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. So I simply decided not to write about the scene. However, when Don point blank asked me why I hadn't written about it, I knew I hadn't mis-read the bit after all, so I could write about it.
I did re-read the comic for the column, incidentally. I wanted you to know. I figure, if I can get enough sympathy votes, I may finish in first place in the annual CBG readers' poll next year.
******
SOMETHING BORROWED Secrets of the Unknown #238, a british reprint book loaned to me by Tony Isabella, contains a two-chapter Fly story called "The Countess of Crime" and "The Case of the Evil Fly Girl", which is reprinted from Adventures of the Fly #25. In it, Fly Girl is hypnotized into committing crimes by the Countess. After she's arrested for her crimes, Fly Girl stands trial and is defended by Tom Troy, who, as long time readers of this column might remember, also happens to be the secret identity of Fly Girl's partner, the Fly.
Actually, the law in this story isn't too far off. The court room scenes may be a bit dramatic, but not inaccurate. The writer even got correct the fact that a person who is hypnotized is not criminally liable, because he is not acting of his own free will. So, if you want to read a story which is accurate in its portrayal of the law for a change, pick up Adventures of the Fly #25 at your next convention. I can't imagine it will set you back much, other than the shoe leather you'll wear down going from dealer to dealer looking for it.
(Aside to the ever-present Randy Freeman. I know you sent me a copy of this story over a year ago. I hope you understand why I had to use the version I borrowed from Tony, instead of the one you gave me. I needed something borrowed for my theme. You wouldn't want me to lose a perfectly good theme on a technicality, would you?)
******
SOMETHING BLUE Star Trek #40. Alright, so it's not exactly blue. But it is unexpected. It's about the future, and I don't write about the future, because how can I say the portrayal of the law was inaccurate, when all the laws could have been re-written by the time the story takes place? But if Star Trek is unexpected, then it came from out of the blue. That's close enough. (Cut me some slack here! When you enter Tomorrowland, you don't really go into tomorrow, do you?)
Of course, I'm going to talk about the scene when Captain Kirk arrests Harry Mudd. When Mudd asks Kirk on what charge, Kirk answers, "I haven't the faintest idea, Harry--but knowing you, you're guilty of something."
I refuse to believe that the law could change so much that the Federation of Planets would allow its officers to arrest someone without any probable cause to believe that the person committed any crime. Past history just don't cut it as sufficient PC. Not even in the Rehnquist Court.
Of course, I'm more interested in what Kirk is going to do with Mudd now. He's arrested Mudd, because he figures Mudd must have broken a law somewhere, so some planet must want him for prosecution. But how does Kirk find out which planet? I'm somehow stuck with and amused by the image of Harcourt Fenton Mudd offered up to the universe for extradition to the first taker like a K-Mart Blue Light Special.
Wait! Blue Light Special. There's my blue connection!
******
BOB INGERSOLL, Cleveland public defender and CBG's legal columnist, having finished his theme column, promises never to do anything this stupid again. What the hell, if I can't get the sympathy vote, maybe I can bribe my way to the top of the reader's poll!
Bob Ingersoll
<< 11/06/2001 | 11/13/2001 | 11/20/2001 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
