Post by FreeKresge on Jul 7, 2017 5:29:06 GMT
This is a thought exercise to give us something on topic to discuss while waiting until January. Feel free to provide any additional arguments on behalf of either side of the case. In fact, you may want to hold off on delivering your verdicts for a couple of days so that you can read other people's opinions first. Be aware that the prosecutor or the defense counsel may attempt to rebut any additional arguments made. I will keep the poll open for three weeks before finalizing the verdict.
Note that this is a military court martial. There is an old joke that military justice is to justice as military music is to music. This court martial may not be as fair as a civilian trial. First, a unanimous verdict is not necessary. Instead the median vote will be decisive. For example, if there are two votes to convict as charged (aiding and abetting homicide), three votes to convict on manslaughter, and four votes to exonerate the defendant, the verdict will be guilty of manslaughter. Furthermore, jurors are not required to find that the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. They may use whatever standard of proof that they desire. Worst of all, neither the prosecutor, the defense counsel, nor the judge are trained lawyers and may not know the finer points of the law.
While this may appear to bias the trial for prosecution, the defendant has powerful friends. It is suspected that they pulled strings to get a jury sympathetic to the defendant, perhaps enough to overcome the factors against her.
Prosecution's case:
The main evidence in this case is presented in the recordings of incident #3.10 (codename "Maveth"). The prosecution trusts that all jurors have seen these recordings and will not repeat the evidence in great detail. To summarize, in the course of the incident, the defendant, Jemma Anne Simmons, intentionally freed Dr. Andrew Garner (a.k.a. "Lash"), a known mass murderer, from a containment cell. Furthermore, the defendant did so in the presence of 12 Inhumans, the preferred target of Dr. Garner. The defendant did so knowing that Garner was a murderer, that Garner specifically chose Inhumans as targets, and that there were Inhumans present. The consequence of these actions are the deaths of 12 Inhumans that Hydra was holding captive. Therefore, the prosecution charges the defendant with 12 counts of aiding and abetting homicide.
Defense's case:
The defense acknowledges that Simmons did free Dr. Garner, that she knew that Garner was a known murderer of Inhumans, and that there were Inhumans present. However, the defense asserts that there are extenuating circumstances.
First, the defense asserts that S.H.I.E.L.D. is at war with Hydra. This war is not a War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Women, or War on Christmas type war; but a real war. In war, one kills enemy soldiers wherever they are found. This need not be limited to pitched battles. Ambushes and surprise attacks are acceptable. One does not worry about whether the enemy soldiers were conscripts enlisted against their will or if they are nice guys when not part of the enemy army. We kill enemy soldiers regardless. It is very likely that these Inhumans were with Hydra against their will, and it is possible that some or all of them were nice people away from Hydra. While they are under the control of Hydra, however, they were enemy soldiers. An action that kills 12 enemy soldiers merits a medal, not a court martial.
Also, in the safety of this court, it may be clear that freeing a known killer in the presence of the killer's preferred victims would result in deaths. However, the defense asserts diminished capacity. The defendant was captured and tortured by Hydra during incident #3.09 (codename "Closure"). During incident #3.10 (codename "Maveth"), she had just escaped from Hydra and was being hunted by hostiles. She made the decision to release Dr. Garner in a state of panic. One may assert that a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent should maintain full mental capacity even in this situation. However, the defendant is a S.H.I.E.L.D. scientist, not a field agent. In fact, she had failed her field exams. If anyone deserves responsibility, it is Agent Phillip Coulson for repeatedly sending an unqualified agent into the field. [Note that the defendant gave her counsel a dirty look at the last statement.]
Prosecution's rebuttal:
The prosecution is aware that the defendant failed her field tests, and thus probably should not be sent out into the field. However, the defendant knew this as well, yet she did not object to being sent into the field. If she is unable to think straight in stressful situations, then she needed to have spoken up before being sent into the field. The fact that she did not do so suggests that this incident was at least manslaughter.
The prosecution recognizes that Hydra and S.H.I.E.L.D. may be in a state of war. That is why the defendant is not charged with the additional deaths of Hydra agents. However, it stretches logic to suggest that captives suspended in gel-matrix cubes constitute enemy soldiers.
Judge's instructions:
To find the defendant guilty of the 12 counts of aiding and abetting homicide, jurors must find that (1) the 12 victims in question died, (2) that the cause of death was homicide, and (3) that the defendant's actions played an important role in causing the deaths but was not the immediate cause. The defense has not challenged any of these points, so it is assumed that jurors will not challenge these. A conviction of aiding and abetting homicide also requires jurors to find that (4) the victims were not legitimate targets in a war against Hydra, and (5) that there were no mitigating circumstances.
If the first four criteria are met but the jurors find that there are mitigating circumstances, a verdict of manslaughter may be in order. One example of a mitigating circumstance justifying a manslaughter verdict could be an honest but unreasonable belief that the victims were an immediate threat to the defendant or that they were legitimate targets. Another example would be if the defendant's mental capacity at the time of the incident diminished, but did not completely impair, her ability to comprehend the consequences of her actions.
A not guilty verdict based on justifiable homicide would be in order if jurors find that the victims were legitimate targets in a war against Hydra. A not guilty verdict based on fully impaired capacity would be in order if jurors find that the defendant's mental state left her completely unable to comprehend the consequences of her actions. Jurors who find the defendant not guilty will be asked for their reasoning. They may choose either or both of these reasons, or they may volunteer reasons of their own.
Note that this is a military court martial. There is an old joke that military justice is to justice as military music is to music. This court martial may not be as fair as a civilian trial. First, a unanimous verdict is not necessary. Instead the median vote will be decisive. For example, if there are two votes to convict as charged (aiding and abetting homicide), three votes to convict on manslaughter, and four votes to exonerate the defendant, the verdict will be guilty of manslaughter. Furthermore, jurors are not required to find that the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. They may use whatever standard of proof that they desire. Worst of all, neither the prosecutor, the defense counsel, nor the judge are trained lawyers and may not know the finer points of the law.
While this may appear to bias the trial for prosecution, the defendant has powerful friends. It is suspected that they pulled strings to get a jury sympathetic to the defendant, perhaps enough to overcome the factors against her.
Prosecution's case:
The main evidence in this case is presented in the recordings of incident #3.10 (codename "Maveth"). The prosecution trusts that all jurors have seen these recordings and will not repeat the evidence in great detail. To summarize, in the course of the incident, the defendant, Jemma Anne Simmons, intentionally freed Dr. Andrew Garner (a.k.a. "Lash"), a known mass murderer, from a containment cell. Furthermore, the defendant did so in the presence of 12 Inhumans, the preferred target of Dr. Garner. The defendant did so knowing that Garner was a murderer, that Garner specifically chose Inhumans as targets, and that there were Inhumans present. The consequence of these actions are the deaths of 12 Inhumans that Hydra was holding captive. Therefore, the prosecution charges the defendant with 12 counts of aiding and abetting homicide.
Defense's case:
The defense acknowledges that Simmons did free Dr. Garner, that she knew that Garner was a known murderer of Inhumans, and that there were Inhumans present. However, the defense asserts that there are extenuating circumstances.
First, the defense asserts that S.H.I.E.L.D. is at war with Hydra. This war is not a War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Women, or War on Christmas type war; but a real war. In war, one kills enemy soldiers wherever they are found. This need not be limited to pitched battles. Ambushes and surprise attacks are acceptable. One does not worry about whether the enemy soldiers were conscripts enlisted against their will or if they are nice guys when not part of the enemy army. We kill enemy soldiers regardless. It is very likely that these Inhumans were with Hydra against their will, and it is possible that some or all of them were nice people away from Hydra. While they are under the control of Hydra, however, they were enemy soldiers. An action that kills 12 enemy soldiers merits a medal, not a court martial.
Also, in the safety of this court, it may be clear that freeing a known killer in the presence of the killer's preferred victims would result in deaths. However, the defense asserts diminished capacity. The defendant was captured and tortured by Hydra during incident #3.09 (codename "Closure"). During incident #3.10 (codename "Maveth"), she had just escaped from Hydra and was being hunted by hostiles. She made the decision to release Dr. Garner in a state of panic. One may assert that a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent should maintain full mental capacity even in this situation. However, the defendant is a S.H.I.E.L.D. scientist, not a field agent. In fact, she had failed her field exams. If anyone deserves responsibility, it is Agent Phillip Coulson for repeatedly sending an unqualified agent into the field. [Note that the defendant gave her counsel a dirty look at the last statement.]
Prosecution's rebuttal:
The prosecution is aware that the defendant failed her field tests, and thus probably should not be sent out into the field. However, the defendant knew this as well, yet she did not object to being sent into the field. If she is unable to think straight in stressful situations, then she needed to have spoken up before being sent into the field. The fact that she did not do so suggests that this incident was at least manslaughter.
The prosecution recognizes that Hydra and S.H.I.E.L.D. may be in a state of war. That is why the defendant is not charged with the additional deaths of Hydra agents. However, it stretches logic to suggest that captives suspended in gel-matrix cubes constitute enemy soldiers.
Judge's instructions:
To find the defendant guilty of the 12 counts of aiding and abetting homicide, jurors must find that (1) the 12 victims in question died, (2) that the cause of death was homicide, and (3) that the defendant's actions played an important role in causing the deaths but was not the immediate cause. The defense has not challenged any of these points, so it is assumed that jurors will not challenge these. A conviction of aiding and abetting homicide also requires jurors to find that (4) the victims were not legitimate targets in a war against Hydra, and (5) that there were no mitigating circumstances.
If the first four criteria are met but the jurors find that there are mitigating circumstances, a verdict of manslaughter may be in order. One example of a mitigating circumstance justifying a manslaughter verdict could be an honest but unreasonable belief that the victims were an immediate threat to the defendant or that they were legitimate targets. Another example would be if the defendant's mental capacity at the time of the incident diminished, but did not completely impair, her ability to comprehend the consequences of her actions.
A not guilty verdict based on justifiable homicide would be in order if jurors find that the victims were legitimate targets in a war against Hydra. A not guilty verdict based on fully impaired capacity would be in order if jurors find that the defendant's mental state left her completely unable to comprehend the consequences of her actions. Jurors who find the defendant not guilty will be asked for their reasoning. They may choose either or both of these reasons, or they may volunteer reasons of their own.
