On the Defendant's State of Mind
It appears that we are finally getting to the heart of the Mental State / Insanity Question. Good.
The Prosecution is correct in asking pertinent questions and attempting to break down the argument in general.
As "Mental Insanity" is an affirmative defense, it's up to the defense council to prove mental insanity.
The Defense must prove the Defendant either lacked the capacity to know the nature & consequences of their conduct, or that such conduct was wrong.
The Defense, therefore, must:
- Establish the cause(s) of the psychological duress.
- Establish a rough timeline of when the psychological duress started and ended.
- Establish signs the Defendant displayed of mental duress, if any.
- Present a likely diagnosis, if possible.
- Illustrate exactly how this duress limited the Defendant's capacity to appreciate their behavior - through actions and speech.
- Tie it all together directly to the death of Charles Xavier.
- In general, educate the court on the relevant mental illness (was it a sudden, short burst, psychotic break? Or a long, progressively worsening, episode? Are your capacities always hindered, or do they come and go? etc., etc.).
So ordered.
Confirmed. Bonus points for you!
Last edited by Striderblack01; 06-30-2019 at 06:58 AM.
Marvel has never made it explicit on-panel whether it was Scott or the Phoenix Force that decided to kill Xavier. IOW, the evidence remains ambiguous (and I'm convinced Marvel prefers it this way).
My personal interpretation is that it was voluntary manslaughter--a crime of passion. Juiced up on the Phoenix Force, emotionally unstable and suffering from PTSD due to years of losing loved ones, and enraged by the events of AvX, Scott killed Xavier in a fit of rage.
However, he wasn't insane. Immediately after the killing, he begged to be killed. He recognized right away the wrong of what he'd just done. As angry as he was, he still understood the difference between right and wrong. In his anger, in the moment, he'd just stopped caring.
Again though, Scott's culpability remains canonically ambiguous.
Last edited by FUBAR007; 06-30-2019 at 08:01 AM.
Objection. At the time, Wolverine acted, as his staff can confirm, as if the defendant was his enemy. Therefore, all his actions towards or related to the defendant are questionable at best, since he would benefit from the defendant being discredited and all members of the X-Men living under his leadership.
The sequence of events is important here. Scott wasn't under undue mental stress (especially not by the PF) and he also wasn't in danger of corruption by PF until the Avengers intervened.
Scott wasn't pursuing the PF to harness for his own use, but to keep it out of the hands of the Avengers and to ensure that it could find its intended host. The power is corrupting - how can one be aware of their mental state under that influence? And the context for Scott's ultimate meltdown is important; practically every "hero" and "heroine" arrived at his home prepared to kill him, and it was only after an extended battle that he finally lost it.
Killing Xavier broke Scott - his comment about doing it all again was shown to be part of his desire to martyr himself in subsequent events.
By bringing an army, the Avengers have lost all rights to claim that they were attempting to cooperate with the Utopian X-Men. It certainly is a strategy - one used against adversaries, not allies. We can now move on from the ridiculous notion that the Avengers were acting in good faith.
During the events in question, Wolverine had already left the Utopian X-Men and was clearly no longer on good terms with Cyclops.
Your Honor,
Ulfhammer, counsel for the DEFENSE.
Upon reviewing the listed charges against the DEFENDENT, I note the inclusion of the following:
Abandoning His Mentor’s Ideology of Peaceful Coexistence and;
Being a bad Husband & a dead-beat Father
I would remind the court of the established Principle of Legality. As per the Third Geneva Convention, Article 99, first paragraph; Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 67 for which the United States of America is a signatory:
;prisoners of war and civilians respectively may not be tried for acts that were not criminal offences, provided for by law, prior to the commission of those acts.[1] Additional Protocols I and II repeat the same principle and add that a heavier penalty may not be imposed than that applicable at the time the act was committed but that if, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit from this.[2] This principle of legality is also set forth in the Statute of the International Criminal Court.[3]
Further upon review of Title 18 of the US Code, neither of the listed charges appears as a criminal offense, therefore I call for the immediate dismissal of these charges.
If this were a regular court of law, this argument would be justifiable.
But...
THIS. IS. AN INTERNET COOOOUUUURT!
And while this Court styles itself as a regular court of law - it is NOT your typical court of law.
If the people continue to charge the Defendant for those crimes, as we've seen time and time again in these forums, then the accused should at least have a forum where he may formally defend himself of those charges.
That is where we, the People's Court, come into play.
Last edited by Striderblack01; 06-30-2019 at 09:56 PM.
I go with guilty by insanity per being under the influence.
This seems an odd argument. The power is corrupting and one can't be sure of somebody's mental state under it's influence. It stands to reason then, that if this is the case, one can't count on a person's actions to predictable, rational, or beneficial to others. So if you can't expect Phoenix to behave rationally why would you want to have anyone under it's influence?Scott wasn't pursuing the PF to harness for his own use, but to keep it out of the hands of the Avengers and to ensure that it could find its intended host. The power is corrupting - how can one be aware of their mental state under that influence?
As for it not being for his own use, he was under the belief that the Phoenix force, would ultimate serve his own goals even if it did reach it's expected host.
The other heroes arrived after he had already made multiple threats against the world and demanded it's leaders do as he said. Some would argue that he never took control of any countries and allowed them to keep ruling themselves. However he made it clear that they could continue to do so ONLY if they did as he said. At this point he was clearly operating as a terrorist on a global scale.And the context for Scott's ultimate meltdown is important; practically every "hero" and "heroine" arrived at his home prepared to kill him, and it was only after an extended battle that he finally lost it.
1) The Phoenix will always do what it needs to do, and do that through her host. It's the reason some hosts like the Cuckoos or QQQ dislike it: they aren't really in control, even if their desires are made reality. Especially since it was heavily implied Jean was manipulating the events that created Hope in order to rescue mutantkind.
2) That's incorrect. The Avengers attacked Utopia, placing every student in their in danger, based on false information from Wolverine. After that, the P5 made the world a much better place in the eyes of some of the smartest people alive (Black Panther, Mister Fantastic, Beast). It was only after repeated attacks and the kidnapping of Hope did the P5 lose it.
Your Honor, the Defense would remind the Court that Charles Xavier himself presented a diagnostic of Scott Summers and Emma Frost' psychological condition shortly after they inadvertently inherited the Rasputin siblings' powers. The Defense would like to point out that Steve Rogers, T'Challa, son of T'Chaka, Ororo Monroe, James Howlett and Peter Parker were all present when aforementioned diagnostic was surmised and that not a single objection was put forward.
For the sake of transparency, the Defense would openly admit it doesn't have the slightest of efffin' clues why Steve Rogers chose that particular moment to shed what suspiciously looks like the most ridiculous tear in the history of ever.
Because every high-profile case needs one...
I'll be that casual malcontent who just shows up at the hearing and, given a moment of opportunity...stands up and yells...AVX-WAS-****!!!THIS-HEARING-IS-A-FARCE!!! AVX-WAS-****!!!THE-WRITERS-SHOULD-BE-ON-TRIAL!!!...before I'm forcibly escorted out of the courtroom by the judiciary guards.
Does this deadbeat father have diplomatic immunity?
Otherwise I would like to point out that precedence of forgiveness with minimal to no charges has already been set during the People vs. Hal Jordan, among many others.
Last edited by Cap808; 07-01-2019 at 02:36 PM.
Involuntary manslaughter. He wasnt exactly in his right mind due to the PF amping him up.