Admittedly, I have read Emily Bazelton on Slate and one of her discussions of a bullying case turned me off, so I know I would go in biased against her opinion. She may well written a book that is more complicated than the girl who committed suicide was a depressed girl who had sex before and DARED to flirt with a guy another socially acceptable girl considered hers and how dare the media and the school blame the highly privileged kids who went to her facebook and taunted her and called her a slut and a whore be criticized in the leas, especially because the bullying victim was IRISH. I do realize that the victim had to have some mental issues to commit suicide, but Bazelton's one series was a complete defense of why kids with money and social status shouldn't be called to account for concerted attacks on a vulnerable victim, accompanied by slut shaming.
I should give the law and superheros a glance. I admit I was not a big comic reader when I was younger. My brothers had some and the ones I picked up to try (Superman in the mid to late 60's) either were not ones that were classics or simply didn't catch me. Smallville radically formed my opinions on superheros testifying in masks or without revealing their true identities. If Superman gets to say Lex Luthor did horrible things, then Lex's lawyer needs to be able to bring up the facts that Superman did not meet Lex as an adult in Metropolis. That Clark Kent knew Lex in Smallville. That Lex married the girl Clark loved. That Clark was aware that at one point Lionel drugged Lex and put him in an institution when Lex was not, in fact, sane and that Clark, in an attempt to conceal his powers conspired with Lionel to keep Lex from regaining the memories of Lionel's abuse. The entire Asylum/Memoria arc made me deeply aware that permitting metahumans and superheros to testify without revealing their other identities does not permit any criminal from presenting a possible bias in observation and testimony. Mostly, I decided that if average, normal non-superpowered people have to testify in open court against mob bosses who can kill them and their family, then people with superpowers, the ability to heal, or not be hurt physically at all or having the money for 24/7 protection (Batman) shouldn't get to testify in a vacuum of else could be skewing their view of someone they decided was bad. Wanting to keep you private life secret isn't a good enough reason to be able to testify incognito and to not allow the defense to question the motives or underlying bias of a witness.
And don't even get me started on the fact that a virtually immortal Superman, raised in a country where segregation was acceptable, interracial marriages were an anathema, homosexual behavior was criminal is one of the main enforcers of "truth justice and the American way". Superman has been shown to move with the times as far a social issues go, but in reality I would really be concerned about a law enforcement officer, who is universally accepted as a perfect observer and who can not be harmed and who was raised with morals and laws that the country has outgrown is the one deciding who is a morally degenerate supervillian.
Smallville really made me think about the legal issues with Superman testifying against Lex. I missed the Oliver Queen years, but being able to testify against a boy you once bullied and NOT permitting that person to bring up the fact that there have always been underlying issues is just wrong.
The book doesn't get deeply into the testimony question (and the authors decided to ignore Smallville as far as I can tell anyway, which is understandable given just how much canon there is), but I agree that Superman's secret identity should be available to impeach any testimony he'd give against Lex!
FWIW, the Bazelon book doesn't come off that way to me. She describes teenagers slut-shaming, but doesn't do it herself, and she concludes that some of the things widely reported in the media didn't, as best as she can tell, happen in the way that they were reported. Her overall conclusion is that adult intervention has to happen much earlier and, in many ways, in less targeted fashion--focusing on the overall climate of a school.
As I said, I was responding to one particular set of articles on Slate, which may not be representative of her basic views or the book. I also have to admit, that the son of a friend committed suicide after intense bullying, so I am not coming at this issue from an unbiased view.
Actually, I think that any testimony Batman gives against the Joker (not the most recent reboot, but the earlier ones) where Batman knows (believes) that the Joker murdered his mother and father needs to be taken into account. But I have massive issues with ANY witness being able to testify without a thorough investigation into their back story and potential prejudices. Fortunately, I believe most comics, like many TV shows end with the arrest, not the trial and conviction.
Lord knows, I adore Cold Case and cry at virtually every episode, all while knowing that the only way the cases could be prosecuted is because the guilty parties are IDIOTS who refuse to call a lawyer and are based on the memories of so many years ago that they are not totally credible. Of course, I would personally make a horrible witness in any crime. I suffer a mild case of face blindness (I have to see a person multiple times to really recognize him), can't describe a person (or give directions) properly and all in all I have real trouble with people remembering details from 5-20 years ago. Still adore the show, while saying, there is no way the perpetrator should be found guilty due to legal issues.
I should give the law and superheros a glance. I admit I was not a big comic reader when I was younger. My brothers had some and the ones I picked up to try (Superman in the mid to late 60's) either were not ones that were classics or simply didn't catch me. Smallville radically formed my opinions on superheros testifying in masks or without revealing their true identities. If Superman gets to say Lex Luthor did horrible things, then Lex's lawyer needs to be able to bring up the facts that Superman did not meet Lex as an adult in Metropolis. That Clark Kent knew Lex in Smallville. That Lex married the girl Clark loved. That Clark was aware that at one point Lionel drugged Lex and put him in an institution when Lex was not, in fact, sane and that Clark, in an attempt to conceal his powers conspired with Lionel to keep Lex from regaining the memories of Lionel's abuse. The entire Asylum/Memoria arc made me deeply aware that permitting metahumans and superheros to testify without revealing their other identities does not permit any criminal from presenting a possible bias in observation and testimony. Mostly, I decided that if average, normal non-superpowered people have to testify in open court against mob bosses who can kill them and their family, then people with superpowers, the ability to heal, or not be hurt physically at all or having the money for 24/7 protection (Batman) shouldn't get to testify in a vacuum of else could be skewing their view of someone they decided was bad. Wanting to keep you private life secret isn't a good enough reason to be able to testify incognito and to not allow the defense to question the motives or underlying bias of a witness.
And don't even get me started on the fact that a virtually immortal Superman, raised in a country where segregation was acceptable, interracial marriages were an anathema, homosexual behavior was criminal is one of the main enforcers of "truth justice and the American way". Superman has been shown to move with the times as far a social issues go, but in reality I would really be concerned about a law enforcement officer, who is universally accepted as a perfect observer and who can not be harmed and who was raised with morals and laws that the country has outgrown is the one deciding who is a morally degenerate supervillian.
Smallville really made me think about the legal issues with Superman testifying against Lex. I missed the Oliver Queen years, but being able to testify against a boy you once bullied and NOT permitting that person to bring up the fact that there have always been underlying issues is just wrong.
Rant of the day, over.
Reply
FWIW, the Bazelon book doesn't come off that way to me. She describes teenagers slut-shaming, but doesn't do it herself, and she concludes that some of the things widely reported in the media didn't, as best as she can tell, happen in the way that they were reported. Her overall conclusion is that adult intervention has to happen much earlier and, in many ways, in less targeted fashion--focusing on the overall climate of a school.
Reply
Actually, I think that any testimony Batman gives against the Joker (not the most recent reboot, but the earlier ones) where Batman knows (believes) that the Joker murdered his mother and father needs to be taken into account. But I have massive issues with ANY witness being able to testify without a thorough investigation into their back story and potential prejudices. Fortunately, I believe most comics, like many TV shows end with the arrest, not the trial and conviction.
Lord knows, I adore Cold Case and cry at virtually every episode, all while knowing that the only way the cases could be prosecuted is because the guilty parties are IDIOTS who refuse to call a lawyer and are based on the memories of so many years ago that they are not totally credible. Of course, I would personally make a horrible witness in any crime. I suffer a mild case of face blindness (I have to see a person multiple times to really recognize him), can't describe a person (or give directions) properly and all in all I have real trouble with people remembering details from 5-20 years ago. Still adore the show, while saying, there is no way the perpetrator should be found guilty due to legal issues.
Reply
Leave a comment