Question Question about MID and Police Questioning

So got a situation where a girl is getting sexually harassed by a guy on the street (he's lightly groping her). She beats him up, without showing any mutant powers. When police show up, she doesn't want them to know she's a mutant, so just acts normally and doesn't show her MID, of course it comes out she's a mutant.
So the question is, is there a punishment for not showing a police officer an MID?

Domoviye wrote: So got a situation where a girl is getting sexually harassed by a guy on the street (he's lightly groping her). She beats him up, without showing any mutant powers. When police show up, she doesn't want them to know she's a mutant, so just acts normally and doesn't show her MID, of course it comes out she's a mutant.
So the question is, is there a punishment for not showing a police officer an MID?

As far as it has been mentioned MIDs are only required when boarding an aircraft, or crossing international boarders. I'm sure the MCO would like it to be crime, but nothing to date as stated otherwise again as far as I can recall. Now the MCO could make it like the mutant in question has committed a crime to get them 'confess' to something, or by not saying they're a mutant by misleading or hindering an official investigation, that would be a crime but I'd hate to be the DA to try to pull that off. Any good defense attorney would crush that in a heartbeat, however depending on the level of mutant fear, going to trial would not be good idea.

Which brings up the interesting question if mutant is convicted of a crime by a jury, and none of the jury members are mutants, could that really be a jury of your peers?

Where is Jadis when we need legal advice...

My guess is it would be similar to not presenting ID, which isn't a crime in most places.
Would the 5th protect you in the USA?

Thought so, but wanted to make sure.
Thanks.

there is no clear cut answer in canon, more or less.

And no, Astro, you can be required to present identification. All the 5th allows is you not to be compelled to tesify agasint yourself.

Edit for clairifcation: The act of carrying or not carrying an ID is not in itself a legal matter, outside if you are performing tasts (driving, etc) that require some proof of ability.

HOWEVER, several US Circuit courts have ruled that by standing mute and refusing to provide identification of some form (does NOT have to be state issued, btw), you have given the police prob. cause.

The USSC hasn't directly overturned it, limited it, etc, etc, but... in primus, you're not in a good position if you don't present ID when the cops ask, more or less.

In one of Loophole's stories, and again in Part 1 of New York comes with Calamari, we are told that a RED MID border is for villains and former villains. The Wiki states that the red border is removed from the card upon release form confinement, which isn't quite sensible - while confined, why would the mutant's MID be in their possession? Note in Riddle of Sappho, Kayda's MID was surrendered as a condition of her remaining in 'escorted custody'. This makes it entirely reasonable that the red border is applied once convicted and might NEVER be removed, or might be removed after a probationary period following release from confinement.

This needs some thought.

I'm guessing what it would come down to is whether the Officer asked for an MID or not. If he doesn't ask, there is no reason to volunteer it. If he does ask, and you say that you aren't a mutant and don't have one, that would likely fall under the "False ID" laws.

I think that "he didn't ask" defense is probably applicable here.

Police officer asks for ID; the person offers drivers license. She DID comply with the request. As long as her being a mutant is not actually germane to the case and there are no laws saying that she HAS to volunteer that information, she probably will get away with it.

Thanks everyone. I'll have to think how I want the scene to go, this is really helpful.

My guess is that if should not get her in trouble. That could change depending on how pro or anti mutant the local police are. It could be used by the perp to beat the charges again depending on how anti or pro mutant the locals are.

Thank you very much.

This brings up another question concerning ID for Whateley students. Since most new students (both Gen 1 and Gen 2) are too young to have drivers licenses, what form of ID can they use? Students from outside the US will have passports.

Does a US passport show any info about whether the holder is a mutant or not? If not, it might make sense for Whateley admin to recommend that new students get a US passport to use as ID, even when not traveling.

Possible special case? Since mutant parents are likely to have children who eventually become mutants, would Whateley officially recommend to graduates that they obtain passport IDs for their children ASAP, perhaps avoiding later ID photos that show changed eye color, and other non-GSD changes.

Then again, some changes (like gender changes, major GSD, etc.) may be too noticeable to use an old passport. We are aware that there's a provision for newly emerged mutants to travel to Whateley once without an MID. However, might it be advisable by the time of Gen 2 for Whateley to issue a "Provisional MID" to new students which acknowledges that the holder is a mutant but has not yet had sufficient powers evaluation for a formal MID to be issued?

Amelia_R wrote: This brings up another question concerning ID for Whateley students. Since most new students (both Gen 1 and Gen 2) are too young to have drivers licenses, what form of ID can they use? Students from outside the US will have passports.

Does a US passport show any info about whether the holder is a mutant or not? If not, it might make sense for Whateley admin to recommend that new students get a US passport to use as ID, even when not traveling.

Possible special case? Since mutant parents are likely to have children who eventually become mutants, would Whateley officially recommend to graduates that they obtain passport IDs for their children ASAP, perhaps avoiding later ID photos that show changed eye color, and other non-GSD changes.

Then again, some changes (like gender changes, major GSD, etc.) may be too noticeable to use an old passport. We are aware that there's a provision for newly emerged mutants to travel to Whateley once without an MID. However, might it be advisable by the time of Gen 2 for Whateley to issue a "Provisional MID" to new students which acknowledges that the holder is a mutant but has not yet had sufficient powers evaluation for a formal MID to be issued?

At that age the only sort of real ID I had was a high school photo ID. They could a State Issued ID card, basically a Drivers License without Driver's License part, but issued by the State.

Modern passports have all sorts of digital data in them now. I would think it would flag up a mutant, so security can ask to see their MID. Some mutants have powers which make it unsafe for them to fly, so its certainly a sensible safety precaution.
Since the MID card is the 'real' mutant ID, probably all it needs to do is say mutant. Come to that, anyone with non-mutant powers that could be an issue when flying would need some sort of flag as well.

The appropriate way to frame this question is the more general one:

"What sort of ID an American student too young to drive would carry when traveling on their own, or going to a boarding school?"

That is, if you were sending your child unaccompanied to somewhere in other state, what sort of papers you would make sure they carry?

Here in Brazil there are official ID cards, which, while not actually compulsory for minors, are pretty common. Failing that, at least a copy of the birth certificate. Oh, and -- for children under 12, if I'm not mistaken -- if they aren't traveling with a close relative, there's a form you should get at the Children's Court, which basically states that yes, the kid's parents do know where they are and who they are traveling with, and are OK with that.

elrodw wrote: In one of Loophole's stories, and again in Part 1 of New York comes with Calamari, we are told that a RED MID border is for villains and former villains. The Wiki states that the red border is removed from the card upon release form confinement, which isn't quite sensible - while confined, why would the mutant's MID be in their possession? Note in Riddle of Sappho, Kayda's MID was surrendered as a condition of her remaining in 'escorted custody'. This makes it entirely reasonable that the red border is applied once convicted and might NEVER be removed, or might be removed after a probationary period following release from confinement.

This needs some thought.

I have a feeling that an appeal can sometimes remove the red border too

That should not read "release from confinement" it should read "release from Probation ". Now a judge can stipulate, as a way of shaming someone, that they serve two years in jail, five years probation, and seven years "of red band" meaning they have a red band MID for seven years; the five years of probation plus an additional two because the judge said so.

The thing about the MID boarder system I get but find REALLY counter productive, is that the red band is all encompassing for mutants that have been convicted, doesn't really address cases like Vamp where their crimes were under duress, granted those are a legal mess in the real world, as even with proof of duress it can go both ways very easily, that's why there's plea bargaining, to make those cases simpler, I mean I wouldn't expect an insanity plea to remove the red boarder either, not until a probationary period after rehabilitation, with the shrink's signature on the mental status and potential threat they present... Why do I suddenly get the feeling that Lady Havoc will end up at Arkham Research Consortium?

Actually, the wiki states that the red border is ASSIGNED upon release of confinement, not that it is REMOVED at that time. That is, villains don't get the red-border MID until they are paroled:

- If they are free to go to MCO office and renew their MID, then assigning a "villain" label to them would be opening oneself to a humongous civil rights case. So until they are jailed, there's no way to change the MID border color.
- During the time they are in jail, the color of their MID is irrelevant. They are in jail, and they don't carry the MID with them.
- But upon release, they are issued a new red-border MID. E.E. clarified that the assignment can be revoked after a time depending on meeting terms of parole etc.

(Funnily enough, the source for the statement that the red border is assigned on release apparently was... E.E. Nalley himself).

I'll attempt to clarify the wiki entry a bit.

mhalpern, what you are failing to grok here is that the MID's were designed to provoke a reaction. There issued by a private company with an agenda of setting humanity against mutants. They made it uniform by offering up for free to the governments the world and creating a streamlined model for them to co-opt, but the entire purpose was to be a modern-day scarlet letter. It's not meant to aid the mutant it's meant to aid the government keeping track of mutants, and provide enough offense to provoke incidents with mutants.

True, however the DPA should have been on the MCO's asses about their nature as it includes several civil rights violations, and if you look at the firearms regulations in WU, one could make the argument that having the power ratings on the MIDs is a civil rights violation itself, as a mutant's powers can be considered weapons, and you don't need a license to carry that which is a part of yourself, otherwise one would need a CNC to be a martial artist as a skilled martial artist can be legally considered armed with lethal weapons without actually owning a weapon... Not that it'd be easy to convince that to a jury, unless they were mostly members of the NRA that are neutral to mutant issues...

Besides the MCO and in the US the DoD, does any other goverment agency have the authority to make there own id's for mutants?

Department of Paranormal Affairs in the US, they document and monitor everything for the American MIDs, they just use the MCO system for ease of travel. The MCO is NOT a government agency.

You mean the MCO doesn't red border MID's for jay walking?

sam105 wrote: Besides the MCO and in the US the DoD, does any other goverment agency have the authority to make there own id's for mutants?

Likely the CIA, NSA, FBI, DOJ, and all those other interesting agencies do, or at least make good fakes.

I'm having trouble remembering if other scenes are from Canon or Fanfic stories, but certain "official" testing sites issued MIDs in some stories.

Let me see if I can draw better comparison so that this makes a little more sense.

I would like for everybody to close their eyes for a moment, if you're American, think back to the morning of 9/11. Try to capture that feeling of shock and disbelief and fear. If you're not American, I'm sure you have all heard all the silly speeches that have been given so for a moment and want you to suspend your disbelief and I want you to buy in to the thought of Islamic terrorism. It is a large unknown group of people, who fiercely hate you, they hate your way of life, if you're a woman they think it's their right to rape you, if your man they think it's their right to take everything you own and kill you or enslave you. Short of a few vague notions of people with brown skin and dark hair you don't truly know who these people are. You see them on TV the the men all have beards and the women are all dressed up in these head to toe garments to where you can only see their eyes, but the beard can be shaved off and the women can take the burqa off. You hear comments about how their religion says it's not only okay for them to lie but encourages it to they can more easily conquer your country, kill you, enslave your children and rape your wife.

You have absolutely no idea who these people are.

They strap explosives to their bodies and their children, they take over airplanes and crashed them into buildings, they live next door to you and seem to be perfectly normal for years until they suddenly one morning come out of their house with a machine gun yelling something in their own language and killing everyone in front of them.

I'm sure at some point in in this description some part of you has protested 'not all Muslims are like that', or 'terrorists aren't really Islamic', or even 'not all terrorists are Islamic,' and I understand where that...that need for fairness comes from. But I want you to grab onto it and in your imagination try to imagine it everything I just described was absolutely true. You have no way of knowing the difference between the good Muslim, or even if there is such thing, and the bad one.

Now, that fear is starting to poke you in the back of the mind as you begin to rationalize and buy into this thought experiment like I am asking you to do that gives you a little window into how terrified people are of mutants in this universe. They have no idea when one is going to just go insane and start killing everyone in front of them, they even have a word for it; Rager.

They've seen on television or been unfortunate enough to experience men who don't attack an army base, or jewelry store, they attacked the Federal Reserve and the entire city. Stop and think about that for a second, we've already shown Dr. Diablique in his attack. That's not the first time he's done that, and it won't be the last.

You don't have the quote the gun regulations to me mhalpern, I wrote them. I get how your brain is going this doesn't make sense, but when people are this scared, rationality is the first thing to go. Was the DPA all over the MCO because of the civil rights violations? Of course they were, and they have been for forty years. It's taken this long to make even the small strides that you saw take place in Wednesday Morning 5 AM. You're right, these are civil rights violations, and they shouldn't stand up in court, but they do, because prosecutors always make sure there's a jury trial as opposed to a judge, and juries are made up of people who are scared.

Kristin Darken wrote:

however the DPA should have been on the MCO's asses about their nature as it includes several civil rights

WTF time line misunderstanding on an epic level!

Civil rights. Ya. You realize that (in OUR world) that the Civil Rights Act was only signed as recently as 1964? 50 years ago. Almost 30% of the American population was born before the Civil Rights Act was signed. And even at the time, in 1964, it almost didn't happen. The bill was challenged using a fillibuster, and remains the longest fillibuster in Senate to this day (though, if they are seriously going to try to block Obama's appointment of a Supreme Court judge, they may have to top it)..

Just a bit of trivia here. They don't have to filibuster an appointment to the Supreme Court they can simply not call a vote if they control the senate. Something similar happened for two years with a Bush appointee.

Ok political geek hat off now.

Domoviye wrote:
Just a bit of trivia here. They don't have to filibuster an appointment to the Supreme Court they can simply not call a vote if they control the senate. Something similar happened for two years with a Bush appointee.

Ok political geek hat off now.

Technically they don't even have to do that. Once the Majority Leader names the chairman of the subcommittee that will hold a hearing to interview the appointee (the first step in the confirmation process) chairman sets the date for the hearing. There's no law stating when he has to do this. And even if there were, how hard is it to say the hearings will be held on Monday, February 6, 2017? For those outside the United States that would be the first Monday of the first full month of whoever the new president is sworn in the month previous is.

Kristin Darken wrote:

however the DPA should have been on the MCO's asses about their nature as it includes several civil rights

WTF time line misunderstanding on an epic level!

Civil rights. Ya. You realize that (in OUR world) that the Civil Rights Act was only signed as recently as 1964? 50 years ago. Almost 30% of the American population was born before the Civil Rights Act was signed. And even at the time, in 1964, it almost didn't happen. The bill was challenged using a fillibuster, and remains the longest fillibuster in Senate to this day (though, if they are seriously going to try to block Obama's appointment of a Supreme Court judge, they may have to top it).

In the WU... guess which year the MCO was founded? Hmm... 1964.

I don't know if we've ever actually put out the date of the foundation of the DPA... but like many regulatory agencies established in the US... they are reactions to things already long out of control. The problem happens, people panic, someone points out disaster, we establish an agency to look into the problem.

True, but despite the fear factor, and while I do know fear destroys rationality, if the WU civil rights act was established in the 60s as well, it will have been at a time when the majority of writers were publishing cautionary tales about giving any one agency to much power without being suspicious, I mean granted the Lost Generation was after WWI but the writers that went through WWII often had similar views, especially after WWII people should have had been alarmed at the MCO's antics, after all the first thing the Nazi's did was make all the Jews wear an identifying patch on their cloths, then they moved them to ghettos separating them from the general populous, making it easier for people to buy into the propaganda or just not see the heinous acts that followed, looking at the history, the anti-mutant behavior of the MCO started in the 70s and 80s, more than enough time for people to start making the connection.

mhalpern wrote:

Kristin Darken wrote:

however the DPA should have been on the MCO's asses about their nature as it includes several civil rights

WTF time line misunderstanding on an epic level!

Civil rights. Ya. You realize that (in OUR world) that the Civil Rights Act was only signed as recently as 1964? 50 years ago. Almost 30% of the American population was born before the Civil Rights Act was signed. And even at the time, in 1964, it almost didn't happen. The bill was challenged using a fillibuster, and remains the longest fillibuster in Senate to this day (though, if they are seriously going to try to block Obama's appointment of a Supreme Court judge, they may have to top it).

In the WU... guess which year the MCO was founded? Hmm... 1964.

I don't know if we've ever actually put out the date of the foundation of the DPA... but like many regulatory agencies established in the US... they are reactions to things already long out of control. The problem happens, people panic, someone points out disaster, we establish an agency to look into the problem.

True, but despite the fear factor, and while I do know fear destroys rationality, if the WU civil rights act was established in the 60s as well, it will have been at a time when the majority of writers were publishing cautionary tales about giving any one agency to much power without being suspicious, I mean granted the Lost Generation was after WWI but the writers that went through WWII often had similar views, especially after WWII people should have had been alarmed at the MCO's antics, after all the first thing the Nazi's did was make all the Jews wear an identifying patch on their cloths, then they moved them to ghettos separating them from the general populous, making it easier for people to buy into the propaganda or just not see the heinous acts that followed, looking at the history, the anti-mutant behavior of the MCO started in the 70s and 80s, more than enough time for people to start making the connection.

Here's the thing, it was built up very slowly and only really ramped up after 1991.
Before then, it was a research group in the early stages, got co-opted by some superspy organizations, who kept it safe and researching while the former spies wnet and did on the ground research and helping out law enforcement agencies who couldn't deal with a mutant effectively. So they got good headlines for helping dealing with dangerous criminals, while still keeping the air of responsibility because they were doing real research that was mostly ethical. Sure a few field agents might have pushed the lines to test a theory, a weapon, or to get some information but in the heat of a battle or when dealing with a guy who just slaughtered thirty people with his barehands, who's going to complain?
It was only after the Fools Fight, which occurred pretty soon after the takeover of Wallachia and Sao Monica by super powered mutants, that the MCO really began to shift to field work and emphasized the growing mutant menace. Before it was 'supervillains bad, supervillains are mutants', after it was 'mutants are supervillains, supervillains will kill you, so mutants will kill you to'.
After that had time to settle in they made the MID in 1996.

So it was a slow buildup, and by the time the MID's became an issue most people wouldn't automatically link it to WW2, it would be more like a concealed weapons permit or a drivers license.

Besides what Domo said, there's also the fact that nobody is required to get an MID if they really don't want one. Just if they want to leave the country or fly commercial. Speaking of which, everybody knows flying is safer than driving, but why is that? It's because of the valiant efforts of the TSA and MCO, of course! Mutants don't need an MID to drive, and look how many people die in traffic accidents every year.

I don't pay much attention to politics, to be honest, too much arguing over the same things worded slightly differently about whose version is or would be better... but I see your point.

History repeats itself in different ways, with different fears and different devices on how to achieve the desired results.

At one time it was a scarlet letter, another a star. For some its the denial of being issued a valid identification. For them its the MID.

What do they all have in common. Fear.

Ib12us wrote: History repeats itself in different ways, with different fears and different devices on how to achieve the desired results.

At one time it was a scarlet letter, another a star. For some its the denial of being issued a valid identification. For them its the MID.

What do they all have in common. Fear.

To quote Dune: Fear is the mind killer.

The problem isn't the MIDs, it's the propaganda in conjunction with the MIDs that's the scary thing,

Ib12us wrote: History repeats itself in different ways, with different fears and different devices on how to achieve the desired results.

At one time it was a scarlet letter, another a star. For some its the denial of being issued a valid identification. For them its the MID.

What do they all have in common. Fear.

Wait, do you mean fear on the part of the oppressors, in that they fear the Marked? Or the oppressed, where they're made to fear the oppressors?

'Cause the Scarlet Letter seems to induce fear from the Marked...

But an MID could be seen as a reaction from fear of the Carded?

The feared are marked

How can I explain. The MID as with the Scarlet Letter as with the Yellow Badge or Jewish Badge didn't just spell fear for those that had or wear it, it also brought fear to those that helped them, knew them (unless they followed the crowd) as well as demeaned them.

If you associated with anyone then you became par for the course to be persecuted for being a sympathizer.

The MID while unnecessary has become a tool of shame, (from what I've read so far) in that even superhero's can be persecuted if they failed to produce one even tho it's not necessary.

Let me ask you about the American's Social Security Number and card. First off it started off as being used by the government as a means to identify those that were eligible for Government services such as welfare and benefits. It was never meant to be used as a means of identification or denial of services but the public service found it as a better form of finding out about you then any other means that were in place.

Over time people 'freely' gave out their SSN without any thought. That was until they were denied some form of service such as medical, educational and so forth. It was later brought to court and the individual won as it was pointed out and then also stated that no person can be denied such service for wanting to conceal said number for fear of it being misused.

Industries and services balked at the measure and soon they had and still have in most cases have you reveal the last 4-6 numbers. Most people give that out still without a second thought as with others contesting it.

You may not think much of that card or those numbers but later on those numbers determine certain benefits you can have later in life.

Now we have people that sell those numbers and in the process that person who uses it 'ruins' your history that you were establishing, without a thought. Congress has mandated that those in charge of those numbers shall not provide any information to any other agency. Thus when you try to clear up the mess that was made your hampered by the action of a larger group of people.

Now I want to make it clear that when this was done that was before the advent of computers and the gesture was made in a noble way as to protect the citizen.

Now we have the MID's. They are a form of ID only for those that have mutant powers. And although they are not considered necessary try not using it for when you are a know mutant. It's like a person that is compelled to show the letter A in that they are mark and what would befall them if they were to remove it even it they moved (back then) to another settlement.

This is how society has progressed. We come up with new ways to mark those that we fear as it brings fear onto those that have those MID's. Not many I'm sure would be proud of having it for to have one changes their lives as much as those that know them.

Mutants that can try to keep their identities a secret for a reason and I don't generally mean in the Clark Kent reasons. Its to allow them to buy, sell and receive services that if found out that they normally could be denied.

I'm only speaking for myself here and how I'm reading the stories. I have no background when it comes to what's going on with the writers. This is my interpretation.

As for the Yellow badges, a part of my family was a part of the regime and not by choice, else I and my brothers, would not be here. My grandparents were conscripted into service else be shot. They were not a part of the extermination side. He was a tool used to go after the enemy. I don't have full details as he died in my early youth and none cared to talk about it. So that is a part of my history that is lost.

That badge segregates those who are made to have it from those that don't; the haves and the have nots. So for some its control, for others its' fear. Its the fear that it can symbolize and can be used against another and its purpose no matter how innocent it is, for that's what it started off as, is to have you stand out from the others. An innocent item that by itself means nothing but when put into use for other reasons overcomes its purpose.

It all depends on which side of the MID you're on.

Ibi

While not strictly about MID's I have a very similar question. In what other situations would a mutant be required to 'out' themselves.

The specific examples I'm thinking about are:

1) If you're a telepath or receptive empath and get called to serve jury duty are you expected or required to admit this?

2) Could your health insurance provider refuse your claim if you failed to inform them that you were a mutant?

3) I work at a trucking company where drivers must have an up to date medical file on record in order to work. Would similar jobs requiring medical clearance also require any mutant status declared to your employer?

And the answer to that is "Well, since H1! and anti-mutant feeling is not evenly distributed across the country, and lost of laws are local or even state, I'm pretty sure a whole spectrum of possible answers is possible depending on the local views of those setting the laws in the various jurisdictions."

Um "needs of the story" would dictate the answer to your questions.

What Phoenix said.

Furthermore... in the case of juries, even if there isn't a specific rule about paranormals having to identify themselves, there's the jury interview/approval stage. There's plenty of questions that an attorney might ask of a prospective juror, even with no hint of suspicion of their being a mutant, that would trip a perjury if they didn't come clean about being a telepath, for instance.

In the other cases... for health insurance, well, it's probably equivalent to not disclosing a preexisting condition. OTOH, there might be grounds for discrimination lawsuits if the insurance carrier outright refuses to carry your policy, or demand outrageous prices.

Similarly, in the case of your job... filing a false medical file might be grounds for termination. OTOH, refusing you a job (or firing you) because of a condition that does not impact your ability to work might be grounds for a civil rights suit.

How successful a mutant might be on suing for discrimination is a whole different problem. They are pretty much in the situation of a black man suing for discrimination in Alabama in the first half of the XX Century. They may be right, but the chances of winning the lawsuit are pretty low.

For Jury Duty I have always been sent a form that included reasons why I should be excluded from Jury Duty. Sending that back with a note that you are a mutant, would almost assuredly get you excluded, although they may want proof.

But why would being a mutant exclude you? Even if you are a telepath as long as you don't 'read' the people involved in the trial it wouldn't be an issue. It would be like excluding a engineer from a case that involved engineering because he or she as a chance to understand what the case is about rather than what the lawyers say it's about. It's even shakier if a mutant has no abilities that could effect the case, like Regen or Exemplar.

By applying that logic someone who can read micro-expressions would be excluded from jury duty since they tell if someone is being deceitful.

Also if you bar mutants from serving on juries, doesn't that open up EVERY case in which a mutant was convicted by baseline humans to appeal since reverse isn't applied, the whole jury of your peers thing. How can a mutant expect to be judged fairly if the law doesn't treat them fairly? Just like in the olden days when 12 white folks would convict a minority on the shakiest of evidence just because he 'looked funny'.

Of course from a H1/KoP/Goodkind point of view if it's a win/win, if mutants aren't allowed to serve because of their condition then what other rights can be denied to them? Is allowing mutants to vote right under that logic, since a mutant could read a candidate's mind and know exactly what the reality of said candidate's campaign? What if said mind reader tells a blogger all about the candidate's real point of view and agenda?

Even worse if such a case about rights comes up, the argument could be made since mutants are genetically different, in some cases not even having anything like human DNA that by them having various legal rights would be like giving apes and monkeys the rights that humans get, since primate DNA is so close to human DNA. Which opens up the legal fight over what is human.

Very likely the collective legal/political system is quietly praying that the issues doesn't come up until after they are no longer in office. I can see both sides not pushing the issues because the fallout could be enormous.

If mutants are ruled not human can they be tried by the human justice system? Be arrested for a crime against a human?

On the other hand if ruled human and deserving of said rights and protections, then by logic the whole anti-mutant thing becomes a case of discrimination and hate crimes. A mutant exemplar could sue if not allowed to play pro baseball.

Yeah likely both sides of this argument are looking at the issues as a legal version of Mutually Assured Destruction.

*Where is that Micro Scene about jury of my peers? ...*

~Archangel~ wrote: But why would being a mutant exclude you? Even if you are a telepath as long as you don't 'read' the people involved in the trial it wouldn't be an issue. It would be like excluding a engineer from a case that involved engineering because he or she as a chance to understand what the case is about rather than what the lawyers say it's about.

And that is exactly why the lawyer would want you off the jury.

I can't speak for other legal systems, the American sense of legal jurisprudence the facts of the matter are not the goal of a trial, removing reasonable doubt is. And while it seems like the same thing it's actually not.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario where a group of 9/11 truthers are suing the federal government claiming an inside job. As the lawyer for this group is putting forward is the crux of his case that the fire could not be hot enough to melt steel, which is a common thing you hear about this group. The last thing you would want on the jury is a structural engineer who can tell you about the cumulative effects of temperature over the tempering of steel and poke holes in his argument in the jury room and show the absolute BS.

The lawyer only wants reasonable doubt. If he can convince 12 simpletons who don't know any better than a raging fire started by jet fuel as an accelerant have no possibility of melting steel without some kind of super blast furnace, even though you can make a furnace to smell steel your backyard using common materials, then he gets a multimillion dollar settlement and a new yacht in the Caribbean.

But if there's an engineer in the jury, he kisses that yacht goodbye. That's why the exclusion.

Valentine wrote: For Jury Duty I have always been sent a form that included reasons why I should be excluded from Jury Duty. Sending that back with a note that you are a mutant, would almost assuredly get you excluded, although they may want proof.

Yeah, it's possible... if you WANT to be excluded (most people do want to get out of jury duty, but some don't), and if you don't mind people knowing that you are a mutant.

If you are, say, Kamuro (who can easily pass for baseline, and whose powers are not strong enough to suggest any sort of special career), and you are living your life quietly as an orthodontist... do you want to run the risk of some H1 bigot in the courthouse finding out you are a mutant? Probably not; you would probably to find a different excuse, and if that fails you would accept the annoyance of jury duty rather than playing the "mutant card" and risk waking up with burning lower-case-t's in your front yard.

Sir Lee wrote:

Valentine wrote: For Jury Duty I have always been sent a form that included reasons why I should be excluded from Jury Duty. Sending that back with a note that you are a mutant, would almost assuredly get you excluded, although they may want proof.

Yeah, it's possible... if you WANT to be excluded (most people do want to get out of jury duty, but some don't), and if you don't mind people knowing that you are a mutant.

If you are, say, Kamuro (who can easily pass for baseline, and whose powers are not strong enough to suggest any sort of special career), and you are living your life quietly as an orthodontist... do you want to run the risk of some H1 bigot in the courthouse finding out you are a mutant? Probably not; you would probably to find a different excuse, and if that fails you would accept the annoyance of jury duty rather than playing the "mutant card" and risk waking up with burning lower-case-t's in your front yard.

Remember that the WU is very mutaphobic. Phase wasn't even wanted to testify against Sparkler. The first thing any lawyer is going to do is find out if there are any mutants on the jury, and then use that as a basis to either get them excluded, or later as an appeal.

This is an interesting discussion and I'm not looking to end it but to clarify the motive behind my original question I'm compiling a mental list of everyday situations in the WU where denying that you are a mutant would be illegal.

If when you were 15 your eyes changed from a normal brown to a normal green and that is the only difference you've found for your entire adult life, in what situations are you legally compelled to admit to being a mutant?

Hebblejebble wrote: This is an interesting discussion and I'm not looking to end it but to clarify the motive behind my original question I'm compiling a mental list of everyday situations in the WU where denying that you are a mutant would be illegal.

If when you were 15 your eyes changed from a normal brown to a normal green and that is the only difference you've found for your entire adult life, in what situations are you legally compelled to admit to being a mutant?

During the jury interview process you are oath to tell the truth, so denying you are a mutant would be perjury.

Since in the real world, eyes can change color, just a color change to normal eye color would not necessarily make you a mutant.

Valentine wrote:

Hebblejebble wrote: This is an interesting discussion and I'm not looking to end it but to clarify the motive behind my original question I'm compiling a mental list of everyday situations in the WU where denying that you are a mutant would be illegal.

If when you were 15 your eyes changed from a normal brown to a normal green and that is the only difference you've found for your entire adult life, in what situations are you legally compelled to admit to being a mutant?

During the jury interview process you are oath to tell the truth, so denying you are a mutant would be perjury.

Since in the real world, eyes can change color, just a color change to normal eye color would not necessarily make you a mutant.

Specifically, the department of paranormal affairs defines a quote mutant unquote as any being who possesses a measurable ability above a standard baseline. That is the threshold for possessing a MID and in certain situations like this one such discrete disclosure would be required.

~Archangel~ wrote: But why would being a mutant exclude you? Even if you are a telepath as long as you don't 'read' the people involved in the trial it wouldn't be an issue. It would be like excluding a engineer from a case that involved engineering because he or she as a chance to understand what the case is about rather than what the lawyers say it's about. It's even shakier if a mutant has no abilities that could effect the case, like Regen or Exemplar.

By applying that logic someone who can read micro-expressions would be excluded from jury duty since they tell if someone is being deceitful.

Also if you bar mutants from serving on juries, doesn't that open up EVERY case in which a mutant was convicted by baseline humans to appeal since reverse isn't applied, the whole jury of your peers thing. How can a mutant expect to be judged fairly if the law doesn't treat them fairly? Just like in the olden days when 12 white folks would convict a minority on the shakiest of evidence just because he 'looked funny'.

Of course from a H1/KoP/Goodkind point of view if it's a win/win, if mutants aren't allowed to serve because of their condition then what other rights can be denied to them? Is allowing mutants to vote right under that logic, since a mutant could read a candidate's mind and know exactly what the reality of said candidate's campaign? What if said mind reader tells a blogger all about the candidate's real point of view and agenda?

Even worse if such a case about rights comes up, the argument could be made since mutants are genetically different, in some cases not even having anything like human DNA that by them having various legal rights would be like giving apes and monkeys the rights that humans get, since primate DNA is so close to human DNA. Which opens up the legal fight over what is human.

Very likely the collective legal/political system is quietly praying that the issues doesn't come up until after they are no longer in office. I can see both sides not pushing the issues because the fallout could be enormous.

If mutants are ruled not human can they be tried by the human justice system? Be arrested for a crime against a human?

On the other hand if ruled human and deserving of said rights and protections, then by logic the whole anti-mutant thing becomes a case of discrimination and hate crimes. A mutant exemplar could sue if not allowed to play pro baseball.

Yeah likely both sides of this argument are looking at the issues as a legal version of Mutually Assured Destruction.

This also brings about the case of actually being feared from many sides. As I just focus on those that can read minds, emotions or tell how one is hiding something, this is not just being viewed by those outside of the jury box but inside as well.

Would you feel comfortable in working with someone that could tell why you were selected for jury duty? Or even why you wanted to be part of the process. What about your ability to lie under a given circumstance. Jury's have been tampered with before in the past by those doing simple acts that nulled a decision.

Then there is the factor of jury members in having their own thoughts read as they explained a decision of one way or another. What about having someone who could manipulate a persons choice?

Just because someone 'says' they won't use their ability doesn't stop the other person from questioning if they really won't.

And what of having a jury of nothing but mind-readers. Who would want to prosecute a case knowing that their client had already been deemed guilty or innocent, hence why even have a trial? You could just get an empath to say if their lying or not. Which of course would throw the judicial/ political/ and other areas into chaos.

This is why, in my opinion, many mutants are feared. It's not just the abilities that is feared, its the being different that they are being seen as that scares them.

It would never happen in a US court, because he's Australian, but suddenly I want to see Razorback sitting on a jury.

If one of the attorneys asks one of the potential jurors "Are you a mutant?" Then sure, he would probably be legally compelled to answer truthfully or risk perjury charges (if caught lying) or contempt (if refusing to answer).

Although I doubt that many lawyers would ask that as a matter of course; mutants are pretty rare, after all, and after the 500th "no" in a row, it would get a bit tiresome. And bound to make some of the more mutophobic jurors indisposed against you, for feeling personally insulted that anybody would think they might be a mutant. (Consider, as a parallel, a lawyer in the Deep South asking every potential juror if they don't have by chance some African in their family tree... the David Dukes of the world would feel very insulted by even being asked.)

They might ask if:
(a) they had some reason to suspect the juror to be a mutant, or
(b) if the case involves mutants in some way, which makes the question relevant.

Arcanist Lupus wrote: It would never happen in a US court, because he's Australian, but suddenly I want to see Razorback sitting on a jury.

Even leaving aside the mutant bigotry issue AND the intimidation issue, he might be dismissed simply because he cannot speak unassisted.

Sir Lee wrote:

Arcanist Lupus wrote: It would never happen in a US court, because he's Australian, but suddenly I want to see Razorback sitting on a jury.

Even leaving aside the mutant bigotry issue AND the intimidation issue, he might be dismissed simply because he cannot speak unassisted.

That shouldn't be that big of an issue. His nationality wouldn't either, if he became a US citizen.

Valentine wrote:

Sir Lee wrote:

Arcanist Lupus wrote: It would never happen in a US court, because he's Australian, but suddenly I want to see Razorback sitting on a jury.

Even leaving aside the mutant bigotry issue AND the intimidation issue, he might be dismissed simply because he cannot speak unassisted.

That shouldn't be that big of an issue. His nationality wouldn't either, if he became a US citizen.

Why would he?

From the stories, it's pretty clear there is no problems with him and his family. He's just at Whateley because of their unique and appropriate curriculum.

Besides, the likelihood is, if he ever got called up to an Australian Jury, he'd be made to sit through it, just for the laughs (yeah, Australian's are like that).

Phoenix Spiritus wrote:

Valentine wrote:

Sir Lee wrote:

Arcanist Lupus wrote: It would never happen in a US court, because he's Australian, but suddenly I want to see Razorback sitting on a jury.

Even leaving aside the mutant bigotry issue AND the intimidation issue, he might be dismissed simply because he cannot speak unassisted.

That shouldn't be that big of an issue. His nationality wouldn't either, if he became a US citizen.

Why would he?

From the stories, it's pretty clear there is no problems with him and his family. He's just at Whateley because of their unique and appropriate curriculum.

Besides, the likelihood is, if he ever got called up to an Australian Jury, he'd be made to sit through it, just for the laughs (yeah, Australian's are like that).

Job opportunities, marriage opportunities, whatever.

Speaking of Australians, this is one of the funniest quotes from any story.

Fracas asks Jobe about staying with the Seeds at Jobe's Palace.

Jobe asks Fracas wrote: “Now, how do you feel about spiders, snakes and jellyfish?”

From what I understand about Australians, other than they have velcro on their shoes, is that if Razorback were on trial for a crime, they would probably get a bunch of crocodiles and alligators to sit on the jury.

Steve Irwin and Crocidile Dundee are not typical Australians, in fact Steve Irwin was considered an idiot by most Australians for jumping on Australian wildlife, which basically consists of "Dangerous" and "not dangerous yet" as proved by him getting killed by a "relatively harmless" stingray.

The true Australian attitude to our wildlife is "leave it alone and give it plenty or room to go its own way. It no more wants to be near you then you want it near you".

So no, Australian's wouldn't call in crocodiles to sit on the jury, and if we found one in the court room we'd call in an expert and happily watch him take care of it from the safety of the local pub.

Phoenix Spiritus wrote: So no, Australian's wouldn't call in crocodiles to sit on the jury, and if we found one in the court room we'd call in an expert and happily watch him take care of it from the safety of the local pub.

Meanwhile, in Florida...

OK, that explains why Steve Irwin was so popular in the US, that always confused me.

The title reminds me of my old quasi-fic "Burnout Man"

Which incidentally I can access again upgraded to w10