• SSTF
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4311 months ago

      Me personally? I’m going to back away slowly without giving him my name.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3211 months ago

      It’s like that scene in “The Dark Knight”

      Lucius Fox : Let me get this straight, you think that your client, one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante, who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands, and your plan is to blackmail this person?

      [Reese’s face falls and Fox smiles]

      Lucius Fox : Good luck.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
      link
      fedilink
      English
      911 months ago

      With a thought, because he was pissed off, and Wesley’s big brain idea is to fuck with him. Picard had the wisdom to shrug and go “whatcha gonna do?”

  • verity_kindle
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6411 months ago

    That guy put himself in solitary confinement, forever. What could the feddies do to him that is more fitting?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5711 months ago

    I mean, I sort of imagine it to be less the “rule on the books” part, and more the “do we actually have the physical capacity to enforce those rules” end of it. They cant really imprison him (I mean while he’s feeling guilty he might stay willingly, but they cant keep him in if he eventually changes his mind, so itd more be him imprisoning himself). Trying to despite the futility of it would seem somewhat dangerous, because again, if he should ever change his mind, you clearly dont want to seem hostile to something with that kind of power, especially when you dont have it. Saying “Our law is not sufficient for you” could just be interpreted as the most diplomatic way given his mental state to justify leaving and not returning.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4611 months ago

    To be fair Janeway wasn’t around at the time, so they didn’t have any examples of genocide to go off of.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2111 months ago

        He just made it uninhabitable by humans. Not exactly the same as wiping it out, but since it forced displacement of a whole planet, it was genocide.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              9
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I would love to see the source for that. e.g. Oxford Languages says

              the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                16
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                The dictionary isn’t a legal framework or international organization. The UN has a convention on genocide:

                In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
                (a) Killing members of the group;
                (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
                (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
                (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
                (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

                Item (c) comes the closest to what Sisko did, but he did it in a way that gave them a chance to get out, so it’s not a perfect match. Forcing conditions for removing a group probably wouldn’t qualify under any of these. That said, it can be a factor in Ethnic Cleansing, but the Maquis aren’t really an ethnic group.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4211 months ago

    If the Federation was in the business of putting higher beings on trial, don’t you think the second they learned Q was human they’d slap him in a courtroom so fast it’d make his head spin?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2211 months ago

    Shut up, Wesley! We must be circumspect with those who could visit genocide upon US with a thought. Also, don’t bring up how often I challenged Q when he could have done the same or I’ll just tell you to shut up again.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Genocide requires intent. Whereas this alien just had a fleeting moment of anger at the time of his wife being murdered.

    Can he really be tried for genocide? It’s hard to say, but I’d say not. We all have dark intrusive thoughts, and in this instance it had disastrous consequences.

    It’s all moot anyway. If you have no means or intention to enforce a law, does it really exist?

    • Cosmic Cleric
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      Genocide requires intent.

      Is that actually, legally, true?

      In other words, does the word identify the cause, or the effect?

      Can he really be tried for genocide? It’s hard to say, but I’d say not.

      How so? The facts seem self-evident.

      It’s all moot anyway. If you have no means or intention to enforce a law, does it really exist?

      You can still classify someone though in such a way, in hopes that in some future time you can enforce the law on them, having being previously judged as a criminal.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 months ago

      The heat-of-passion is something to argue to mitigate culpability. Yes, he killed an entire species, and wasn’t exactly justified, but his emotions and passions were inflamed by the aliens murdering his wife making his actions involuntary.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 months ago

        Yeah but we aren’t talking heat-of-the-moment shoving someone into traffic during a bar fight, we’re talking heat-of-the-moment naughty thought during an aerial bombardment from a hostile force where his wife was killed.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        We’re talking thinking something, at a moment of extreme stress and anger, after everybody on the planet he lived on was killed, including his wife.

        We aren’t talking someone physically doing something.

        You’ve never had any intrusive thought, ever? Can you affirm that you wouldn’t have an angry thought even if everybody on Earth was murdered, including loved ones?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 months ago

    The dude snapped when he’s loved ones were killed, that is considered exculpatory of violent actions in almost all legal systems. The difference is that instead of a knife or a gun he had almost omnipotent powers of destruction.

    In an ideal society he would get psychological counseling to deal with the trauma and ensure it doesn’t happen again, but I think it’s obvious he was a bit above Troi’s pay grade.