Had someone actually arguing that it's legal for someone like Superman to use his X-Ray Vision to look into people's houses anytime he feels like because 'well he doesn't have super-powers those are just natural abilities for a Kryptonite (his word) so it's okay for him to use them like that' and because he's got 'special police powers' he can't commit crimes like invasion of privacy because it's legal when he does it. Man talk about nonsense, even said it was explicitly made legal in the comics which would be ridiculous in the extreme given all the constitutional rights it would violate. That's what you expect out of a police state which the US isn't.

Following that line of thinking, anything Superman could do by virtue of his "natural" abilities could be considered legal.

• If he threw someone's car into deep space because the car was illegally parked in a handicap spot, no problem... the car should be insured anyhow.
• If someone was smoking in a public, non-smoking place and Superman decided to fight fire with heat vision and reduced the offender's head to a charred skull because he thought they were being rude, that's just his natural ability and the person shouldn't have been smoking there anyhow.
• If Superman was feeling super-aroused after seeing someone in a tight skirt and he used his natural Kryptonite (his word) strength to sexually assault the woman, it's not illegal because she was asking for it the way she was dressed and the laws don't apply to him like everyone else.

Yeah... first off, Superman's powers are not exactly natural. On his home world, neither he nor any other Kryptonian had them --only the potential to develop them in the right environment. Since he's not native to Earth, the powers he gains from our yellow sun are unnatural. Secondly, the laws apply to everyone. Sometimes they can't be enforced... such as when a foreign national with diplomatic immunity breaks them, or when a superhuman hides behind their secret identity to avoid accountability for their actions, or even just because no one realizes that a law was being broken... but there's always the chance that the crime will catch up to the individual. A foreign national who brazenly ignores laws to the point of straining relations between America and his home country could be recalled by his government to answer for his crimes in their courts, and a superhuman breaking laws will eventually be confronted by another superhuman looking to bring them to justice. Even in the case of no one knowing, it's only a matter of time before someone discovers a crime no one else knew was occurring.

Clearly, the individual you are referring to has no idea how laws work. And just because we don't have any real superhumans to worry about having laws for in reality, if they were real, the laws would be extended to cover their powers... natural or not.

But hey, if you want to point out how things would work in a legal system with superpowered heroes, just point to Wonder Woman and her lasso. It is a magical artifact created by ancient Greek gods and can be proven to work flawlessly... yet any confession coerced from a criminal under it's influence has been determined in the past to be absolutely and 100% inadmissible as evidence in court. Why? Something about violating the suspect's rights, probably falling under the category of self-incrimination.

Time for you to introduce a Civil War inspired storyline into your game!

When Brandon Routh Superman was using his X Ray vision in the movie, I Immediate thought "Peeping Tom Superman", stalking Lois. It just wasn't right.

I always felt like such acts as using his X-ray vision and other powers to circumvent basic human privacy illustrated a huge morale ambiguity in Superman's character, and his comic has portrayed such happenings since its inception. Anyone caught violating another individuals right to privacy without a court order is a criminal, no matter if it has good intent behind it or not.

I find this conversation about as engaging as one I saw on YouTube a few weeks back where some guy was making biased claims of ignorance and he had followers backing his deluded belief that the Maestro version of Hulk could beat Galactus down. Some how I feel the fans Nightmask had this encounter with must have been at about the same level.

The background of Superman's powers being natural, supernatural or freak accident would not have any bearing on the situation. It would boil down to a simple case of ethics and if one has them or not. In a court of law they are only going to be interested in DID he use his X-ray vision to violate someone's privacy. The HOW and WHY part of it do not even play into it.

Interesting legal questions might arise if Superman was unable to turn off his X-ray vision. But as long as it's a voluntary ability, it's basically the same as breaking into someone's house. If you do it because you have reason to believe the occupant is in imminent danger, that's one thing. But you obviously can't go around breaking into people's houses willy nilly.

It does bring up an interesting moral and ethical debate about people with super powers. Where is the line drawn on what violates someone's rights? I remember a story where the Stepford Cuckoos stopped a bank robbery by forcing the bank robbers to dance to the music they were listening to. In fact, Spider-Man even tried to reign them in and then they made him dance along with the robbers.

I think that kind of telepathic abuse is a gross violation of human rights. Not only were the criminals' (and Spider-Man's) minds invaded, but they were forced to perform in a humiliating way. It's one thing to force them to put down their weapons and remain still until the authorities arrive, but making them into living puppets seemed to cross both the ethical and moral lines.

Actually, this whole topic reminds me of another post you made 4 or 5 years ago... about shower peeping powers. There were a lot of interesting suggestions --including a couple of my own, I must admit-- for how powers could be abused for the sake of getting an eyeful of someone naked.

For shame... that people would think about doing such things. But yeah, if people had the powers, you know they'd totally be doing this stuff.

Your favorite shower-peeping power

A few more unethical uses of superpowers for invasion of privacy... back in the early days of Firestorm, he was dealing with the terrorist Plastique who had explosives attached to her costume and hostages. Firestorm used his atomic restructuring powers to turn her explosives and costume into harmless soap suds, leaving her naked and exposed but for a quickly disappearing covering of bubbles. I'm sure all he had to do was transform the explosives themselves and could have left her clothing intact.

And then there was the Invisible Woman in an issue of Amazing Spider-Man. She and Torch and Spider-Man were dealing with the Fearsome Four, and she ended the fight by turning the bad guys' clothes invisible, revealing his cheesy boxer shorts to the world to embarrass him. As I recall, a police officer on the scene arrested Sue for indecent exposure. To be fair, a charge of indecent exposure would be someone exposing themselves, and there was no evidence that the bad guys wanted that. So what she should have been charged with was some kind of invasion of privacy or possibly even assault because what she did was no different than if someone else had physically pulled down a person's pants against their will.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Following that line of thinking, anything Superman
> could do by virtue of his "natural" abilities
> could be considered legal.
>

• If he threw someone's car into deep space
  > because the car was illegally parked in a handicap
  > spot, no problem... the car should be insured
  > anyhow.
  >
• If someone was smoking in a public, non-smoking
  > place and Superman decided to fight fire with heat
  > vision and reduced the offender's head to a
  > charred skull because he thought they were being
  > rude, that's just his natural ability and the
  > person shouldn't have been smoking there anyhow.
  >
• If Superman was feeling super-aroused after
  > seeing someone in a tight skirt and he used his
  > natural Kryptonite (his word) strength to
  > sexually assault the woman, it's not illegal
  > because she was asking for it the way she was
  > dressed and the laws don't apply to him like
  > everyone else.

>
>
> Yeah... first off, Superman's powers are not
> exactly natural. On his home world, neither he
> nor any other Kryptonian had them --only the
> potential to develop them in the right
> environment. Since he's not native to Earth, the
> powers he gains from our yellow sun are unnatural.
> Secondly, the laws apply to everyone. Sometimes
> they can't be enforced... such as when a foreign
> national with diplomatic immunity breaks them, or
> when a superhuman hides behind their secret
> identity to avoid accountability for their
> actions, or even just because no one realizes that
> a law was being broken... but there's always the
> chance that the crime will catch up to the
> individual. A foreign national who brazenly
> ignores laws to the point of straining relations
> between America and his home country could be
> recalled by his government to answer for his
> crimes in their courts, and a superhuman breaking
> laws will eventually be confronted by another
> superhuman looking to bring them to justice. Even
> in the case of no one knowing, it's only a matter
> of time before someone discovers a crime no one
> else knew was occurring.

Pretty much, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a super-hero who hasn't committed some measure of minor crime (of which there are a number of minor crimes that are still considered felonies), but that's generally overlooked for one reason or another. Depending on the version some versions of Superman (particularly the Silver Age Superman) were especially bad about breaking the law like that. Heck he routinely violated the laws of Lexor trying to kidnap it's most revered citizen when it explicitly had no extradition treaties or allowed for anything of the sort, with the last time Superman came looking to kidnap him he brought about the planet's destruction and the genocide of the entire race.

> Clearly, the individual you are referring to has
> no idea how laws work. And just because we don't
> have any real superhumans to worry about having
> laws for in reality, if they were real, the laws
> would be extended to cover their powers... natural
> or not.

Obviously he doesn't or he wouldn't be making such arguments. Would be funny seeing him encounter the one forum member we've got who's so anti-power he thinks any crime by someone with super-powers should be treated like you murdered someone even if you picked someone's pocket, although they'd have quickly gotten warnings or even a banning I imagine given how heated I'm sure it would have gotten.

> But hey, if you want to point out how things would
> work in a legal system with superpowered heroes,
> just point to Wonder Woman and her lasso. It is a
> magical artifact created by ancient Greek gods and
> can be proven to work flawlessly... yet any
> confession coerced from a criminal under it's
> influence has been determined in the past to be
> absolutely and 100% inadmissible as evidence in
> court. Why? Something about violating the
> suspect's rights, probably falling under the
> category of self-incrimination.

Flipside of that though is that it can prove without doubt that someone's innocent as well yet also would be excluded, so WW could go into a prison and prove half the prison population actually IS innocent and they'd remain in prison all the same. A version of that happened towards the end of the original Specter's run, he exercised his powers in a prison killing EVERYONE prisoner and guard EXCEPT for one guy on death row because all but him were villains heinous enough to rate his involvement. The governor refused to even stay the guy's execution until the Specter showed up and made it clear that if they knowingly executed the guy he'd promptly work his vengeance on them because they'd be guilty of murder. End result? Guy gets to spend the rest of his life in prison because the governor commuted his sentence to life without possibility of parole because he didn't want to look 'weak', never mind that he was knowingly keeping an innocent man in prison for life and the real killer was still running free.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A few more unethical uses of superpowers for
> invasion of privacy... back in the early days of
> Firestorm, he was dealing with the terrorist
> Plastique who had explosives attached to her
> costume and hostages. Firestorm used his atomic
> restructuring powers to turn her explosives and
> costume into harmless soap suds, leaving her naked
> and exposed but for a quickly disappearing
> covering of bubbles. I'm sure all he had to do
> was transform the explosives themselves and could
> have left her clothing intact.

I've actually always thought that myself, he could have just converted the explosives but instead intentionally humiliated her but to be fair that was to discredit her and the movement she was supposedly acting in support of.

> And then there was the Invisible Woman in an issue
> of Amazing Spider-Man. She and Torch and
> Spider-Man were dealing with the Fearsome Four,
> and she ended the fight by turning the bad guys'
> clothes invisible, revealing his cheesy boxer
> shorts to the world to embarrass him. As I
> recall, a police officer on the scene arrested Sue
> for indecent exposure. To be fair, a charge of
> indecent exposure would be someone exposing
> themselves, and there was no evidence that the bad
> guys wanted that. So what she should have been
> charged with was some kind of invasion of privacy
> or possibly even assault because what she did was
> no different than if someone else had physically
> pulled down a person's pants against their will.

Well given she stopped at leaving them with boxers on there wasn't any actual indecent exposure going on and it'd be hard to say it was a crime to make the rest of their clothes invisible since they still were actually dressed.

J Bone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Time for you to introduce a Civil War inspired
> storyline into your game!

Naa, the concept is simply awful and having an actual such war would NOT end as nicely as it did in the comics it'd be like what we see for the Sentinels-dominated future for the X-men. THAT'S what you'd actually end up seeing when the non-powered population set about enslaving the powered portion.

MajorSteel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When Brandon Routh Superman was using his X Ray
> vision in the movie, I Immediate thought "Peeping
> Tom Superman", stalking Lois. It just wasn't
> right.

Something primarily ignored by the majority of viewers though or spun in a positive light because hey it's Superman it can't be creepy if he's doing it right?

Necromancer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always felt like such acts as using his X-ray
> vision and other powers to circumvent basic human
> privacy illustrated a huge morale ambiguity in
> Superman's character, and his comic has portrayed
> such happenings since its inception. Anyone
> caught violating another individuals right to
> privacy without a court order is a criminal, no
> matter if it has good intent behind it or not.

Exactly, while he might get leeway on the Super-Hearing since it's kind of always on and he has to actively tune out what he's hearing his other powers like his X-Ray Vision are always up to him whether or not he uses them, frankly Lex lining the walls of all his buildings with lead is totally justified because he KNOWS Superman will violate his civil rights without hesitation by using his super-hearing and X-ray Vision to spy on him. It's a wonder that lead paint didn't see a resurgence for the public since it also could block his vision with the public fighting to be able to still use it.

> I find this conversation about as engaging as one
> I saw on YouTube a few weeks back where some guy
> was making biased claims of ignorance and he had
> followers backing his deluded belief that the
> Maestro version of Hulk could beat Galactus down.
> Some how I feel the fans Nightmask had this
> encounter with must have been at about the same
> level.

Sounds like it.

> The background of Superman's powers being natural,
> supernatural or freak accident would not have any
> bearing on the situation. It would boil down to a
> simple case of ethics and if one has them or not.
> In a court of law they are only going to be
> interested in DID he use his X-ray vision to
> violate someone's privacy. The HOW and WHY part
> of it do not even play into it.

Ah but with Superman in particularly he gets from his fanboys the 'well it must be okay because he's Superman' demonstrating circular reasoning at its worst.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, this whole topic reminds me of another
> post you made 4 or 5 years ago... about shower
> peeping powers. There were a lot of interesting
> suggestions --including a couple of my own, I must
> admit-- for how powers could be abused for the
> sake of getting an eyeful of someone naked.
>
> For shame... that people would think about doing
> such things. But yeah, if people had the powers,
> you know they'd totally be doing this stuff.
>
> [url=http://www.classicmarvelforever.com/phorum/re
> ad.php?3,44632,page=1]Your favorite shower-peeping
> power[/url]

Well I did create that after one of the bouts of flaming that was going on at the time to provide a 'breather episode' as it were, it obviously wasn't meant to be thought of as if any of that was ethical or moral (and it's not that uncommon in harem anime if the male protagonist is a pervert and has a helpful magical girl for him to have her make him look female so he can go into the girls' showers and other changing areas).

FTJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting legal questions might arise if
> Superman was unable to turn off his X-ray vision.
> But as long as it's a voluntary ability, it's
> basically the same as breaking into someone's
> house. If you do it because you have reason to
> believe the occupant is in imminent danger, that's
> one thing. But you obviously can't go around
> breaking into people's houses willy nilly.

You wouldn't think so going by Superman's behavior, it's amazing how often he was shown flying around casually looking into buildings.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It does bring up an interesting moral and ethical
> debate about people with super powers. Where is
> the line drawn on what violates someone's rights?
> I remember a story where the Stepford Cuckoos
> stopped a bank robbery by forcing the bank robbers
> to dance to the music they were listening to. In
> fact, Spider-Man even tried to reign them in and
> then they made him dance along with the robbers.
>
> I think that kind of telepathic abuse is a gross
> violation of human rights. Not only were the
> criminals' (and Spider-Man's) minds
> invaded, but they were forced to perform in a
> humiliating way. It's one thing to force them to
> put down their weapons and remain still until the
> authorities arrive, but making them into living
> puppets seemed to cross both the ethical and moral
> lines.

I imagine it'd take creative legal action to prosecute something like that under existing laws, you'd almost need a set of laws covering such things specifically.

Nightmask Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I imagine it'd take creative legal action to
> prosecute something like that under existing laws,
> you'd almost need a set of laws covering such
> things specifically.


Yes, I would love to see the idea of laws concerning superhumans handled in a more thoughtful way than bashing readers over the head with the big issue of superhero registration. How do the states and the federal government handle various super powers and/or vigilantism which are all tolerated for the most part, but when laws come up we get a comparison to how real world laws would apply. I think in a world where powers were real and so prevalent, there would be a lot more legislation introduced to protect people and/or limit use of powers.

Why aren't flying heroes required to obey FAA regulations? Where are the laws concerning evidence gained via magically or telepathically gained coercion? Where are the lawsuits for the excessive force used against various criminals?

Marvel had a great forum for this and touched on a few issues of legal precedent back when She-Hulk was working for the law firm of Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway, but that series didn't last and I've no interest in seeing what the current book is like.

Nightmask Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thrudjelmer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Actually, this whole topic reminds me of another
> > post you made 4 or 5 years ago... about shower
> > peeping powers. There were a lot of interesting
> > suggestions --including a couple of my own, I must
> > admit-- for how powers could be abused for the
> > sake of getting an eyeful of someone naked.
> >
> > For shame... that people would think about doing
> > such things. But yeah, if people had the powers,
> > you know they'd totally be doing this stuff.
> >
> Your favorite shower-peeping power
>
>
> Well I did create that after one of the bouts of
> flaming that was going on at the time to provide a
> 'breather episode' as it were, it obviously wasn't
> meant to be thought of as if any of that was
> ethical or moral


And it was entertaining when it was originally brought up as people explored the depths of their twisted imaginations for additional creative uses. It may not have been intended for serious thought at the time, but in retrospect, there are some great examples of how powers could be abused in unethical and immoral ways, specifically in reference to the invasion of privacy topic at hand.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nightmask Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I imagine it'd take creative legal action to
> > prosecute something like that under existing
> laws,
> > you'd almost need a set of laws covering such
> > things specifically.
>
>
> Yes, I would love to see the idea of laws
> concerning superhumans handled in a more
> thoughtful way than bashing readers over the head
> with the big issue of superhero registration. How
> do the states and the federal government handle
> various super powers and/or vigilantism which are
> all tolerated for the most part, but when laws
> come up we get a comparison to how real world laws
> would apply. I think in a world where powers were
> real and so prevalent, there would be a lot more
> legislation introduced to protect people and/or
> limit use of powers.
>
> Why aren't flying heroes required to obey FAA
> regulations? Where are the laws concerning
> evidence gained via magically or telepathically
> gained coercion? Where are the lawsuits for the
> excessive force used against various criminals?
>
> Marvel had a great forum for this and touched on a
> few issues of legal precedent back when She-Hulk
> was working for the law firm of Goodman, Lieber,
> Kurtzberg & Holliway, but that series didn't last
> and I've no interest in seeing what the current
> book is like.

I remember a one-shot showing a hero loaded down with gear because as a flying hero they were forced to obey aircraft flying rules which meant a ridiculous amount of gear that was totally superfluous and indeed hampered the hero's ability to fly let alone actually do anything to help someone else. But for things like that one has to remember that flying heroes AREN'T aircraft, they're far more maneuverable and can easily avoid colliding with a plane unlike another aircraft.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nightmask Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thrudjelmer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Actually, this whole topic reminds me of
> another
> > > post you made 4 or 5 years ago... about
> shower
> > > peeping powers. There were a lot of
> interesting
> > > suggestions --including a couple of my own, I
> must
> > > admit-- for how powers could be abused for
> the
> > > sake of getting an eyeful of someone naked.
> > >
> > > For shame... that people would think about
> doing
> > > such things. But yeah, if people had the
> powers,
> > > you know they'd totally be doing this stuff.
> > >
> >
> [url=http://www.classicmarvelforever.com/phorum/re
> ad.php?3,44632,page=1]Your favorite shower-peeping
> power[/url]
> >
> >
> > Well I did create that after one of the bouts
> of
> > flaming that was going on at the time to provide
> a
> > 'breather episode' as it were, it obviously
> wasn't
> > meant to be thought of as if any of that was
> > ethical or moral
>
>
> And it was entertaining when it was originally
> brought up as people explored the depths of their
> twisted imaginations for additional creative uses.
> It may not have been intended for serious thought
> at the time, but in retrospect, there are some
> great examples of how powers could be abused in
> unethical and immoral ways, specifically in
> reference to the invasion of privacy topic at
> hand.

Unfortunately I doubt a 'Powers and how they relate to the Law' thread would work out well, given previous heated discussions in that area.

Like this?
[1.bp.blogspot.com]

It was actually a discussion like this that lead to the creation of this book: [www.amazon.com]
As well as a corresponding website that deals with the matter.

In short is it legal? Depends. If he's acting in a police capacity and he has a warrant then sure.
Otherwise it is not legal.

It's one thing to say the X-Ray visioned person is using their powers illegally / unethically... but, how do you prove someone has violated your privacy with x-ray vision?

How about Professor X? That dude can violate the privacy of your mind (and worse) with his powers, including changing your thoughts or controlling your mind. How do you prove a telepath made you rob a bank?

Savagex1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like this?
> [1.bp.blogspot.com]
> AAAAAAAAOAA/3-7cg_cuStg/s1600/superman701+-+arson.
> jpg
>
> It was actually a discussion like this that lead
> to the creation of this book:
> [www.amazon.com]
> -redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
> As well as a corresponding website that deals with
> the matter.
>
> In short is it legal? Depends. If he's acting in a
> police capacity and he has a warrant then sure.
> Otherwise it is not legal.

That's a very good example. He clearly had no warrant to use his powers to spy into their houses and definitely had no authority to destroy their drugs, heck his way of doing so risked burning down the entire block and certainly caused a lot of collateral damage. He MIGHT have had a case if he were certified like a drug-sniffing dog but even then it's iffy and he certainly couldn't go around destroying evidence like he did he actually ended up committing several felonies.

The issue of super human laws has been addressed in both Marvel and DC in various ways.
You guys are correct in thinking it can lead to interesting things happening. For instance once Spider-Man sued JJ Jameson for libel, and then was himself sued as Peter Parker in the same legal action. The authors did it incorrectly as far as lawsuits are arranged but confusion like this could happen.
DC has changed the 14th amendment to the constitution to allow for superheroes to testify in court as their heroic identity.
Marvel doesn't have the same law, which could explain why there is such a revolving door in comic books.

More directly to the issue of invasion of privacy by Superman, if you can't prove it nothing happens. Case in point, most of the time when legal action is brought against someone say most recently with Hulk Hogan suing Gawker and Erin Andrews suing about the video of her in the shower. (Sorry I don't remember the defendant in the case and don't feel like looking it up.) That should actually show you something there. Most legal action in regard to invasion of privacy is civil. In the case of Peeping Toms it becomes criminal more because of the unlawful trespass then actual laws of a criminal nature.

So there is little to stop Superman legally from using his xray vision.
Mind control, that on the other had we do have things in the current legal system to help protect victims against prosecution when under undue influence of another's actions.
First controlling someones mind would be Assault. As for someone being mind controlled to say rob a bank or commit a murder, in those cases it does depend on the form of mind control. Prof X for example would absolve criminal culpability because they literally are not in control of their own mind.
Defense is actually easier then you may think. The defendant does not have the burden of proof, the prosecution does. So using a "mind control" defense would fall on the prosecution to prove isn't true rather than you prove it is. In worlds where this thing can happen, expert witnesses would most likely be those that could control someones mind or someone that can show the results of it. There was a DC comic that showed a MRI scan of the brain before and after showed the effects of mind control.

That'll be all for now if you have any further questions just ask.

Savagex1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The issue of super human laws has been addressed
> in both Marvel and DC in various ways.
> You guys are correct in thinking it can lead to
> interesting things happening. For instance once
> Spider-Man sued JJ Jameson for libel, and then was
> himself sued as Peter Parker in the same legal
> action. The authors did it incorrectly as far as
> lawsuits are arranged but confusion like this
> could happen.
> DC has changed the 14th amendment to the
> constitution to allow for superheroes to testify
> in court as their heroic identity.
> Marvel doesn't have the same law, which could
> explain why there is such a revolving door in
> comic books.

On occasion they'd bring such things up, often as part of the 'this loser is you' for Spider-man, where law enforcement would complain about him stopping a crime because too often a good lawyer would get the case thrown out for things like chain of custody to prove that the criminals actually committed the crimes Spider-man stopped them for.

> More directly to the issue of invasion of privacy
> by Superman, if you can't prove it nothing
> happens. Case in point, most of the time when
> legal action is brought against someone say most
> recently with Hulk Hogan suing Gawker and Erin
> Andrews suing about the video of her in the
> shower. (Sorry I don't remember the defendant in
> the case and don't feel like looking it up.) That
> should actually show you something there. Most
> legal action in regard to invasion of privacy is
> civil. In the case of Peeping Toms it becomes
> criminal more because of the unlawful trespass
> then actual laws of a criminal nature.
>
> So there is little to stop Superman legally from
> using his xray vision.

I think you mean there's nothing legally that one can really do to stop Superman from illegally invading people's privacy since it's so difficult to prove (and is just one of the many things that puts the lie to the idea that he never breaks the law).

> Mind control, that on the other had we do have
> things in the current legal system to help protect
> victims against prosecution when under undue
> influence of another's actions.
> First controlling someones mind would be Assault.
> As for someone being mind controlled to say rob a
> bank or commit a murder, in those cases it does
> depend on the form of mind control. Prof X for
> example would absolve criminal culpability because
> they literally are not in control of their own
> mind.
> Defense is actually easier then you may think. The
> defendant does not have the burden of proof, the
> prosecution does. So using a "mind control"
> defense would fall on the prosecution to prove
> isn't true rather than you prove it is. In worlds
> where this thing can happen, expert witnesses
> would most likely be those that could control
> someones mind or someone that can show the results
> of it. There was a DC comic that showed a MRI scan
> of the brain before and after showed the effects
> of mind control.

Uh no the defense has as much burden to prove it's defense as the prosecutor has to prove his point. 'Well you can't really PROVE my client wasn't mind controlled so you have to let him off' is use of fallacious reasoning, although admittedly there are morons on juries who let criminals off all the time for that kind of reasoning.

Nightmask Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> Uh no the defense has as much burden to prove it's
> defense as the prosecutor has to prove his point.
> 'Well you can't really PROVE my client wasn't mind
> controlled so you have to let him off' is use of
> fallacious reasoning, although admittedly there
> are morons on juries who let criminals off all the
> time for that kind of reasoning.

Actually in criminal court the defense has no burden of proof.

burden of proof
n. the requirement that the plaintiff (the party bringing a civil lawsuit) show by a "preponderance of evidence" or "weight of evidence" that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are presented and are probably true. In a criminal trial the burden of proof required of the prosecutor is to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond a reasonable doubt," a much more difficult task. Unless there is a complete failure to present substantial evidence of a vital fact (usually called an "element of the cause of action"), the ultimate decision as to whether the plaintiff has met his/her burden of proof rests with the jury or the judge if there is no jury. (Left out most of the civil aspect to try to avoid confusion)

FROM THE LAW.COM NEWSWIRE



The People's Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill Publisher Fine Communications


That being said their defense must hold up to scrutiny to create enough doubt for an acquittal. The defense says “My client cannot be held liable for the crime(s) committed because his/her actions were being controlled against their will.” (Read diminished capacity or possibly temporary insanity)

The prosecution will then try to prove that isn't true. The defense will try to counter and further prove their claims.

This subject was covered in the book I showed before but the author did cover this on his website here: [lawandthemultiverse.com]

Basically in criminal cases they shouldn't be held liable: “In fact, the MPC (Model Penal Code) explicitly states that “conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion” is not voluntary. MPC § 2.01(2)(c).” (Full title of the MPC by me)

However in civil cases they could be held liable for damages and the burden of proof does lie with the defendant as well. The plaintiff makes a claim and the defendant has to prove they are not at fault as much as the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant is. Fact: if someone sues you for $1,000 in civil court and you fail to answer they are granted a default judgment as long as they follow proper court procedures. If the court you're sued in doesn't hold jurisdiction over you they can't collect, yet. They would then be able to file in a court that does and there you would have to explain why that judgment shouldn't stand in order to be granted a trial there.

-------------
>I think you mean there's nothing legally that
>one can really do to stop Superman from
>illegally invading people's privacy since it's so
>difficult to prove (and is just one of the many
>things that puts the lie to the idea that he
>never breaks the law).
--------------


For the most part, illegal invasion of privacy happens all the time. Revenge Porn is a good example, legally the person who shot the footage owns it, barring contract or similar obligation. This extends to video shot with or without the 2nd parties consent.

In the US there is only 1 state that has a law criminalizing revenge porn.
Superman's sex tape would fall under this.

An interesting tidbit that you may find interesting is a conversation similar to the one in the OP actually got James Daly to research legality and Superheroes.

Burden of proof does fall on the prosecution, but once they've made their case, if the defense makes a statement to deflect the prosecution's evidence of guilt, then they have to show some merit for the defense plea they've offered. Otherwise every crackpot criminal could just claim they were framed by the police or the prosecutor or even just some unknown enemy for some unknown reason and then it's entirely on the prosecutor to prove they aren't framed? No... you need some evidence to substantiate the claim or that kind of defense just won't fly.

If I get a traffic ticket for running a stop sign and I tell the court that the officer pulled me over for something else and just didn't like my attitude and made up the stop sign charge, who are they going to believe? Do they have to prove my statement false before proceeding with a guilty verdict and fining me, or am I going to have to show some recorded video of the cop's belligerent attitude toward me over my license plates being too dirty because I didn't "yessir" and "nosir" meekly enough at his admonishments?

So if I committed some other crime and then say "someone mind hypnotized me to make me do it, and also to make me forget who it was that hypnotized me," are they going to have to prove that I was not hypnotized when I did whatever? Or do I have make a good argument for the hypnosis being a believable factor?

Whether Purple Man or Professor X made you do it, the best legal argument you'd have is some sort of insanity / loss of reasoning defense, which rarely flies in real life, but in comicbookland there's likely some sort of precedent. ::shrugs::

Either way, you get locked up with a Thorazine drip in a padded cell.

So I talked with my wife about the discussion here because I keep missing something and I wasn't sure what.

Basically the issue at hand is a misunderstanding. Television put so much stock into the defense proving their case and the role of motive in the trial but in reality these two things are not required, though they are incredibly helpful. The burden to prove something is on the prosecution. They are the only side required to prove anything for a conviction. Proof can strengthen the defense's case but is not required the only thing that they have to do is create enough doubt that a jury cannot convict. This has been seen in real world examples.

Casey Anthony, the prosecution failed to prove she killed her daughter but the defense never proved anything, they threw so many things out in the court room the jury was basically nullified as to whether or not she did the crime.

Amanda Knox, she was tried and convicted in Italy but was released on appeal, to further complicate matters after returning to the States the appeal was over turned and the US is under no obligation to extradite because no American Court would have found her guilty in the first place. Reading about the case is more or less an itemized list of what not to do when charging someone with a crime. She was convicted in the court of public opinion long before the case was finished.

George Zimmerman, shot and killed Trayvon Martin and was found not guilty he felt "his life was in danger" the jury reported later that the prosecution failed to prove anything in that trial.

Those are some of the high profile cases of the last few years where you can see people that were likely guilty were found not guilty because the prosecution couldn't prove anything despite horrible defense strategy. And the one person that was most likely not guilty was found guilty because the defense didn't do their job properly. (Later a non-profit group that investigates crimes found that the evidence actually did point to the guy that is still in jail for the murder and that she herself was not guilty.)

In a court of law the prosecution must prove 2 aspects of a crime Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Mens Rea is the criminal intent or the guilty mind when directly translated. Actus Reus is the criminal act or guilty act. In a criminal court for someone to be convicted the prosecution must prove both. The defense must present their case to their fullest ability but does not actually need to prove anything. The more evidence the better, actually proving their defense will most likely help but these are not required. After all they are found guilty or not guilty, not innocent.


For the mind control issue, let's say instead of mind control the claim is "I wasn't there" the prosecution has to prove I was there.
With mind control the same thing applies. "My mind was controlled and I didn't have control of my actions... my drink at a party was spiked... I was on my period and couldn't control my hormones... I was suffering from depression and my change in diet caused me to not know what I was doing"

More reading on a Mind Control type of affirmative defense:

Here Josh Gilliland, Esq. discusses the possibility of an insanity defense with Mind Control being the reason: [thelegalgeeks.com]

Here is a podcast that he did with Dr. Janina Scarlet, who specializes in PTSD, where they discuss expert testimony involved in Kilgrave's victim's court defenses. [thelegalgeeks.com]

Here he discusses the legal defense for an Inhuman affected by Hive from Agents of SHIELD: [thelegalgeeks.com]

The second one is quite interesting and something most RPGs don't delve into but will come up in comic books and tv shows based off of them. Mind Control would leave evidence behind. Neural pathways are manipulated, potentially causing new pathways to be forcibly shifted and most likely causing PTSD. This is seen at length in the AKA Jessica Jones series.


Dead Sidekick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whether Purple Man or Professor X made you do it,
> the best legal argument you'd have is some sort of
> insanity / loss of reasoning defense, which rarely
> flies in real life, but in comicbookland there's
> likely some sort of precedent. ::shrugs::
>
> Either way, you get locked up with a Thorazine
> drip in a padded cell.

See above ^^