March 2004 posts
Angel
and the Law -- Rose, 12:56:20 03/31/04 Wed
Why aren't Wesley and Gunn behind bars?
Gunn had illegally authorized the sarcophagus to leave Customs
and be sent to Wolfram & Hart's offices.
Wesley had committed cold-blooded murder with a gun; assault of
an employee with a gun; and attempted murder and assault with
a knife.
Why hasn't Angel turned them over to the authorities?
Replies:
[> They do work in a Law Office -- Majin Gojira, 14:17:58
03/31/04 Wed
Which apparently basically owns America (See Season 5, Episode
1), so the Law's REALLY not an issue.
[> The point of the law is to enforce certain standards
of society -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:25:28 03/31/04 Wed
Angel and Co., I feel, are outside of our society at the moment.
They live, work, and sleep in the world of demons, magic, and
vampires. Their actual involvment with a world that doesn't acknowledge
this is minimal. As such, they live in a society of (sometimes)
differing standards.
Besides, most of their work at Wolfram & Hart is illegal; and,
even back in Season 1, they still weren't entirely on the up and
up (Doyle: "(We're) vigilantes. There are laws against this
sort of thing.")
[> [> Re: The point of the law is to enforce certain
standards of society -- Claudia, 15:33:37 03/31/04 Wed
"Angel and Co., I feel, are outside of our society at the
moment. They live, work, and sleep in the world of demons, magic,
and vampires. Their actual involvment with a world that doesn't
acknowledge this is minimal. As such, they live in a society of
(sometimes) differing standards.
Besides, most of their work at Wolfram & Hart is illegal; and,
even back in Season 1, they still weren't entirely on the up and
up (Doyle: "(We're) vigilantes. There are laws against this
sort of thing.")"
Didn't both Wes and Gunn committed mortal crimes, despite working
for a law firm that deals with the supernatural? It's not like
both used magic to commit their acts, like Willow did in S6. So,
in the end, Angel is harboring criminals. And in Wes's case, he
committed MURDER - using a revolver. Not magic. He definitely
should be in jail.
[> [> [> Re: The point of the law is to enforce certain
standards of society -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:32:12 03/31/04
Wed
The law has nothing to do with "should"; people are
not obligated to accept the law as being morally just, even though,
to please people, it often makes mandates similar or identical
to common moral mandates. There are three real reasons for obeying
the law: one, when what the law requires happens to coincide with
you own interests; two, avoiding the reprecussions that come from
breaking the law; three, setting a precedent of respecting the
law so that those around you will do so as well (few people will
deny that some laws need to be in place in order for people to
function properly as a society).
The first reason seems like the most likely reason for Angel to
hand Gunn or Wes over to the authorities, since they did commit
acts he finds morally reprehensible. However, the Fang Gang has
managed to deal with and forgive immoral acts from each other
(Angel was allowed to come back after allowing a dozen lawyers
to die, for example).
The second reason isn't really a reason at all in this case. What
with controlling Wolfram & Hart's resources, the odds of the law
actually being able to hurt them is very remote.
The third reason is what my different socities thing was referring
to. Angel could turn Wesley in to the police to set an example
of obeying the law, but they're not really part of that society.
What happens among people in the supernatural community tends
to stay in the supernatural community, even when commited by mortal
means. Among people like Wesley and Knox, Angel (as LA's resident
vigilante) is the law; it is not the law he wants to teach them
to fear (since it is largely ineffectual against them); rather,
Angel wants the members of their society to look to him and the
rest of the Fang Gang as the authority they should fear (hence
the zero tolerance policy).
Now, should Wesley face some sort of punishment for his actions?
Perhaps. But the fact that Wesley acknowledges he was wrong, was
under a great deal of emotional stress, and the fact that each
member of the Fang Gang except Lorne has commited premeditated
murder at some point, and I doubt it will be too bad (this was
certainly no worse than what he, Fred, and Gunn did to Seidel,
yet I don't remember any reprecussions for that beyond the characters'
own guilt (and that seemed to be confined solely to Gunn and Fred)).
Also, as I mentioned back when people were suggesting jail for
Willow, we must remember exactly why such punishments exist. One
(in my opinion the most important) is to dissuade others from
following in criminals' footsteps. Since I doubt anyone besides
Illyria and the Fang Gang will be made aware of Knox's death,
it doesn't really do much to affect others' perceptions. Another
is providing vengeance for injured parties. Nobody really liked
Knox, so that's not an issue. Yet another is punishing someone
in such a way that they are restrained from commiting bad acts
in the future. Considering that Angel knows Wesley, he probably
knows he's not the sort of guy to go on a spree; Angel trusts
Wes to not kill anyone else, so, again, punishing him doesn't
really fit. Are there any reasons Wes should be jailed or otherwise
punished that I'm forgetting?
[> [> [> [> Re: The point of the law is to enforce
certain standards of society -- genivive, 03:07:49 04/01/04
Thu
Actually given Wesley's past track record there is every reason
to assume that he will kill again.
[> [> [> [> [> Not necessarily. He's only been
a part of two murders that I remember -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:48:51
04/01/04 Thu
Both cases involved pretty much dispicable human beings, and came
under extreme emotional stress (well, Wes wasn't stressed about
Seidel, but Fred was, and he had sympathy anguish). That's not
even three strikes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not necessarily. He's
only been a part of two murders that I remember -- Claudia,
12:17:54 04/01/04 Thu
"Both cases involved pretty much dispicable human beings,
and came under extreme emotional stress (well, Wes wasn't stressed
about Seidel, but Fred was, and he had sympathy anguish). That's
not even three strikes."
So what you're saying is that because Wes had killed and assaulted
"despicable" characters in cold blood, it was okay for
him to walk free? If it's not considered legal for a police officer
to kill or maim an unarmed criminal in cold blood, what excuse
does Wes have?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> There I was simply
arguing the unliklihood of Wes going on to kill again -- Finn
Mac Cool, 12:55:09 04/01/04 Thu
You seem to be confusing what is legal with what is moral.
(Note, when I postulate on the morality of Wes shooting Knox,
I'm going by what the characters seem to feel, not necessarily
what I feel. Personally, though, in Angel's position, I'd probably
do something like taking Wesley off all field assignments and
restricting him to office work, and perhaps arrange some other
sort of punishment, like a paycut.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thrid Strike (spoilers
for 'Lineage') -- Tyreseus, 12:59:48 04/02/04 Fri
I'm actually not disputing your point much here, but I think we
need to count the murder of his dad-bot, since Wes sincerely believed
that it was his father at the time of the shooting.
Plus, Wes's history of ever-more ruthless behavior would lead
me to believe that there's a very good chance Wes will kill again
- extreme emotional stress or not. Check out Masq's
list of his ruthles behavior.
Tyreseus
Now
an iBlog blogger!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, I found
that to be a defensible action -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:54:43
04/02/04 Fri
He killed what he thought to be his father to stop him from killing
Fred. Seems like a standard "self-defense/defense of others"
scenario.
[> [> [> [> Re: The point of the law is to enforce
certain standards of society -- Claudia, 12:14:56 04/01/04
Thu
You act as if Wesley and Gunn had committed acts that were beyond
the law (namely the police and the courts) to handle. But they
weren't. It's not as if they had used supernatural means to committ
their acts - like Willow did. Nor was it impossible for Angel
to find evidence to turn over to the law - as it was for the Scoobies
when they got their hands on Andrew. Heck, they didn't even realize
that he had committed a crime, until NLM (BtVS, S7) and not long
afterward, Robin Wood (under the influence of the First Evil)
had disposed of Jonathan's body and Andrew had cleaned the knife.
Gunn resorted to corruption to allow that sarcophogus into the
country. Wesley used a revolver and a knife to commit his crimes.
And he did so in front of witnesses. Why is it so hard for people
to realize that Angel could have simply turned them over to the
law? Instead, I'm reading complicated answers on why Wesley and
Gunn should remain in Angel's custody.
[> [> [> [> [> I didn't argue they couldn't
be turned over to the law . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:27:05
04/01/04 Thu
I argued that Angel didn't necessarily have to. Sure, he could
have the police take them in, but we must ask ourselves why he
would want to?
He certainly doesn't have to fear getting caught (he runs a law
firm which specialises in guilty people not getting caught).
He probably doesn't need to fear repeat offenses (both Wesley
and Gunn (mostly Gunn) have recognised that they did the wrong
thing, and were placed under highly stressful circumstances).
The only reason for sending them to jail would be for what is
(in my opinion) the main reason prison exists: if someone gets
away with murder, other people start thinking they can, too. However,
Angel's entirely capable of cleaning up the body so that the only
people who'd ever know are members of their own supernatural society,
which is populated mostly by people/things who couldn't be prosecuted
anyway.
Now, punishing Wesley and Gunn in some other way (W&H holding
cell, torture, death, etc.) might be a good idea when it comes
to setting an example for other members of the supernatural community,
but I doubt any of them will think Angel's being soft on killers;
they'll just see that he doesn't have as harsh an attitude towards
his human friends killing evil humans to demons he doesn't know
killing innocent people.
So, I must ask you, why would Angel want to send Wesley or Gunn
to prison?
[> Re: Angel and the Law -- skeeve, 08:50:13 04/01/04
Thu
It's not clear that Gunn's authorization was illegal.
Wes is another matter.
Turning anyone from W&H-LA over to human authority would
be a problem even if W&H-LA were otherwise on the up and up.
You see, some of the employees are vampires.
Trials are mostly held during daylight hours.
In the case at hand, there is another problem.
Even in murder cases, motive matters.
The jury would have a rather steep learning curve.
Supposing the jury were allowed to climb that curve,
it would doubtless be preceeded by a ruling on whether
Angel was legally human or not.
[> Re: Angel and the Law -- Anny, 10:41:27 04/01/04
Thu
So,in fact,these people(characters) are above human's laws.How
wonderful!And they can do everything they want without repercussions...because,well,they
cant be prosecuted and nobody loved the people they murdered.
It's a TV show,a fantasy tv show,but the message is becoming a
little muddy for my taste.
Do you remember these old movies with C.Bronson or C.Eastwood?Where
the "heroes" were allowed to kill the "bad guys"(very,very
unpleasant guys:murderers,rapists,... and nobody loved them ,they
were really "monsters",you know,a little like in Ats)
and they couldn't be prosecuted because of the "holes"
in the law and very,very smart(and unpleasant)lawyers.Of course,the
"heroes" were betrayed by their hierarchy,persecuted
by their colleagues(the"stupid good cops who believed in
law and didn't want the real "justice") and they ended
up all alone.
Poor heroes,they had to kill these bad,bad guys because they were
a treat for our society ...and everybody in the theater was cheering.Kill
them,kill them!
Let's face it,trials or sentences of jail was not what these people
deserved,they were just "animals","monsters",not
human beings.
Hey,if they were insane,why spend society's good money for rehabilitation
or jail or therapy when it's so easy to get rid of them with a
Magnum 357?
A long time ago,Angel & co. were protecting people and if people
were killed,it was an accident or Angel's insanity(Remember the
reactions of Wes,Cordy and Gunn when they learnt what Angel had
done to the lawyers just before he fired them all?)Can you imagine
them now saying something like that?You know,being the voice of
reason and humanism?
Yes?
No?Me neither and it's sad.
If there is a metaphor somewhere,or a morality in all that,I have
a lot of difficulty to find out what it is.
All I can actually see is Wesley or Angel killing "bad guys"
without a second thought and nobody(writers, a lot of viewers,characters)thinking
that it's "may be" a bad thing
That it deserves a little mention or reflexion here and there,you
know,just to think about it?
The law of the jungle,baby!An eye for an eye,a life for a life!The
new Ats modus operandi.
[> [> Actually, Wesley admitted what he did to Knox wasn't
just -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:02:43 04/01/04 Thu
The characters on Angel sometimes seem to be very much into the
"I know it's wrong, but I must do it anyway" type of
acts. It's just that, in deciding what to do with each other after
incidences like the Knox shooting, they aren't under any real
compulsion to follow the law, just their own sense of right and
wrong, which tends to have a big focus on forgiveness and redemption
(remember, Angel believes he's responsible for the crimes of Angelus,
so, following the punishment route, he shouldn't allow himself
to be walking around free).
[> [> [> Re: Actually, Wesley admitted what he did
to Knox wasn't just -- Claudia, 12:24:03 04/01/04 Thu
"The characters on Angel sometimes seem to be very much into
the "I know it's wrong, but I must do it anyway" type
of acts. It's just that, in deciding what to do with each other
after incidences like the Knox shooting, they aren't under any
real compulsion to follow the law, just their own sense of right
and wrong, which tends to have a big focus on forgiveness and
redemption (remember, Angel believes he's responsible for the
crimes of Angelus, so, following the punishment route, he shouldn't
allow himself to be walking around free)."
Granted, the law cannot convict a vampire for murder. But Wesley
had committed cold-blooded murder . . . using a gun. And he had
did so in front of witnesses. If Angel is in communication with
the LAPD, he should have turned Wes over to the police . . . regardless
of how "evil" Knox is. Wes HAD NO RIGHT to exact what
he thought was punishment or the law. And Angel should have known
better than to allow Wes to walk free, considering the crime the
latter had committed was not of a supernatural type.
In the end, neither Wes or Angel had an excuse.
[> [> [> [> Still not getting the point --
Finn Mac Cool, 12:49:51 04/01/04 Thu
After Angel killed the W&H lawyers in Season 2, Wesley, Cordleia,
and Gunn could have drugged him and locked him up somewhere where
he couldn't get out. It wouldn't have been punishment according
to the law, but it would have been a reasonable fascimili (or
however that's spelled). Does that fact that Angel isn't a legal
entity mean people aren't required to have him punished, but they
are required to have someone who is within the scope of the law
punished?
The law does not dictate what is right and wrong. People are under
no moral obligation to obey it if it happens to not align with
their own sense of what the right thing to do is.
[> [> [> What WOULD have been a just way of dealing
with Knox? -- Gyrus, 13:04:25 04/01/04 Thu
I'm hard-pressed to think of a better way Knox could have been
handled. He was directly responsible for Fred's death, but not
in a way that any court of law would understand. He was also still
a threat to society, as he showed in his efforts to help Illyria
bring about the Apocalypse. That being the case, what else could
have been done with him? What would be an appropriate punishment?
[> [> [> [> Well, they had holding facilities for
Nina and Pavayne -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:14:43 04/01/04 Thu
In fact, if "Angel" gets another season and they're
still at Wolfram & Hart, they should probably organize the funding
to create a small prison in the building for holding human employees
who commit crimes not punishable by standard law.
[> [> [> [> [> This situation is a bit different,
though. -- Gyrus, 15:22:21 04/01/04 Thu
Pavayne has to be kept alive because he will regain his power
if he dies again, but his punishment seems worse than death (i.e.,
way beyond "cruel and unusual") -- not something you
could justly inflict on other criminals.
To imprison Knox in a cell like Nina's seems a better alternative.
However, Nina only has to be held for 3 days a month, and her
imprisonment is voluntary. The logistics of keeping Knox in one
of those cells for a prolonged period would be much more problematic.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: This situation is a
bit different, though. -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:57:26 04/01/04
Thu
Well, Pavayne did send people to Hell, where they are punished
for all eternity, so it does fit the whole "eye for an eye"
standard (I don't necessarily agree with that saying, but I think
the characters, at least at some points, have that mentality).
Plus, there's nothing to say they couldn't keep Knox unconscious
the entire time, completely unaware of his surroundings.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: This situation
is a bit different, though. -- Gyrus, 07:44:11 04/02/04
Fri
Well, Pavayne did send people to Hell, where they are punished
for all eternity, so it does fit the whole "eye for an eye"
standard (I don't necessarily agree with that saying, but I think
the characters, at least at some points, have that mentality).
Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily argue that Pavayne didn't deserve
what he got -- just that that level of punishment doesn't seem
appropriate for Knox.
Plus, there's nothing to say they couldn't keep Knox unconscious
the entire time, completely unaware of his surroundings.
Keeping Knox unconscious until he dies of old age isn't really
any different from killing him outright. From his point of view,
his lifespan would seem just as short either way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I was
going under the assumption he'd still have REM -- Finn Mac
Cool, 10:54:35 04/02/04 Fri
Also, someone on this board once either posted or linked to an
article about morality and how our emotional reactions to seemingly
morally equivalent events vary. For example, pushing someone out
of a moving car will instantly send DON'T DO signals to our brain.
However, pulling a lever to steer a speeding car towards a group
of people, killing them, doesn't seem so bad. As such, killing
someone and putting them into an eternal sleep probably give off
different emotional reactions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> what,
on headphones? that'd be decent of them @>) -- anom, 13:21:47
04/02/04 Fri
[> [> Re: Angel and the Law/bis..Faith -- Anny, 12:17:39
04/01/04 Thu
And,BTW,let's remember Faith ,when the message was "take
responsibility for the things you've done",when Angel helped
her to see what she had to do(go to the police),when he chastised
Buffy for her lack of comprehension and her desire of revenge,when
he pleaded for a possibility of redemption even if Faith was a
murderer.And how Faith surprised everybody in showing that she
could act like a mature woman and accept to pay for her crimes...A
good proof that you can have faith in human beings...Sometime.
Now,it's a complete reversal and it began before they took W&H...Wesley
has always been (give or take) a little ruthless (Pylea,Justine,the
poor junkie...),but now he has completely jump the sharks,imo.
Gunn is lost and Angel prefers bickering with Spike about who
deserves the Slayer(poor Buffy,can't give her opinion,she's not
there!))than wondering about his actions.
And ,yeah,I know I'm harsh and it's a rant(sorry),but I'm an old-fashioned
moralist:nobody's perfect!
[> [> [> I Agree With You, Anny! Whole-heartedly!
-- Claudia, 12:26:21 04/01/04 Thu
[> [> [> [> Thanks ,Claudia! Good to know I'm not
the only one.*g*(NT) -- Anny, 14:30:41 04/01/04 Thu
it's that time...or it should be! call your
wb affiliate & tell 'em why you're not watching! -- anom,
18:22:19 03/31/04 Wed
Quotin' Rob, from a week ago:
"Don't forget to let your local WB affiliate know - politely
please - that you aren't watching during the five weeks that ANGEL
is on hiatus by contacting them by phone or by email during the
hour that the show would normally air. You can find the contact
information for your local WB affiliate here: http://thewb.com/Stations/Index/0,8112,,00.html.
You can also send your feedback to the general WB email address,
faces@thewb.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a quick note: that page with the contact information does
not have the numbers themselves but does give you links to your
local WB's website, where you can find the phone number. Look
for a link on the website that says something like 'Station Info'
or 'Contact Info' or that sort of thing to find it. To make things
easier for the New York City-area posters, the WB11's number is
(212) 949-1100. When the voice mail message starts, click on the
option that says something like 'Have a question or comment about
our programming?'"
And again, if you're calling the NYC WB station, you can bypass
the voice menu by pressing 4 to leave your comment.
Replies:
[> Called at 8:30 PM in my time zone. :) -- Ixchel,
23:21:01 03/31/04 Wed
[> [> I couldn't get to a phone between 9 and 10, so
I called at 10:45... -- Rob, 14:08:53 04/01/04 Thu
...I'm sure the fact that the message was sent is more important
than the exact time, though.
Rob
Current board
| April 2004