[DS9] Lynch's Spoiler Review: "Tribunal"
Timothy W. Lynch
"Tribunal". Those not wishing to provoke serious and immediate consequences
of being spoiled are advised to remain clear.
In brief: well, it was a decent show, but it's definitely a step down from
the last half-dozen or so. It was mostly "there".
"Tribunal" felt less like a story needing to be told and more like a script
providing an excuse to show off the Cardassian justice system. In fact, were
I less aware of how far in advance episodes are produced, I'd think this was
put together after the positive response to things like "The Maquis", where
the justice system is given prominent mention.
Now, there's nothing wrong with a script designed to show off a particular
idea. There have been lots of examples in the past that have worked very
well. However, after half a dozen shows that tended to leave the viewer in
a mangled heap on the wall afterwards, a show that follows the tried-and-true
but simpler idea of "problem seen, lots of angst, problem solved, no harm
done" begins to pall a bit by comparison.
In addition, I had something of a problem with the way in which Cardassian
justice was shown. When the premise is so substantially different from
Federation (i.e. current U.S.) justice, I would expect the actual trial
itself to take astonishingly different forms. To the show's credit, I think
Bill Dial tried to do that when writing "Tribunal", but that's not how it
came off where I was sitting. I didn't see a court: I saw Bizarro Trial,
with every detail we might think of to describe our trial system turned on
its head. ("You can't testify against yourself? You can here. You know the
charges ahead of time? Not here. New evidence is always welcome? Never
here.") I couldn't quite buy into it.
However, I don't want to give off the impression that I disliked "Tribunal".
I didn't. It may not have been the best show DS9's made lately, but it
definitely held my interest. In particular, Colm Meaney got the chance to
give one of his better Trek performances; this was probably the best chance
he's had since "Whispers" to show off, and he did a nice job with it. In
particular, the speech about how he has *never* had his loyalty questioned
and never acted in a way that his daughter couldn't respect was one of the
most powerful moments in the show. I'm more and more impressed with his
work.
Fritz Weaver was also good as Kovat, though I'll admit to being thrown for a
loop at how different he was than I was expecting from Weaver's past work (of
which the most prominent coming to mind is the "Holocaust" miniseries from
over a decade ago, in which he was superb). Weaver is someone who I've
usually seen in "noble but tragic" roles, and Kovat was far from tragic. In
fact, maybe it was just my mood at the time, but Kovat seemed almost like
comic relief to me, with his "winning isn't everything" and "well, I *tried*"
responses when called upon to actually help O'Brien in some way. I liked it
well enough once I got used to it, but it came as quite a surprise.
Character-wise, the other person to be really well handled besides O'Brien
was Odo. His knowledge of Cardassian law (but only up to a point; I strongly
doubt he was *lying* when he pleaded ignorance about details upon reaching
the trial) proved effective to keep the plot moving, but more to the point
his reaction to O'Brien's imprisonment was extremely interesting. He,
surprisingly, seemed the *most* sympathetic to how Keiko was feeling, which
came as a big surprise. It seems Odo is starting to learn a fair amount more
mercy; despite all his claims about how much safer things were with the
Cardassians, he doesn't agree with the way they get things done. That's a
new development, but one I think works just fine.
The rest of the regulars were pretty much par for the course, though I
thought Bashir was a bit *too* flamboyant when rejecting Kira's thoughts
about O'Brien. As for nonregulars ... well, aside from Weaver, I have to say
I'm not all that impressed. Caroline Lagerfelt was erratic as Makbar:
occasionally she seemed impressive, but most of the time she seemed more
petty and annoying than anything else. Her "I thought we went through this
*yesterday*" and "this is already the longest trial in history" were
virtually stock phrases, and the delivery was pretty stock as well. She
wasn't awful, but was nothing worth noting either.
Unfortunately, the same could be said of Keiko. Keiko gets a lot of flak
from fans so far as I can see, and I think much of it is unfounded -- but
it's tough to defend the Keiko/O'Brien scenes when they're on the level of
the one we saw in the runabout early this show. Ouch. Could the idea of
"oblivious workaholic husband" be any *more* pounded in? I think there may
be one neuron-impaired viewer somewhere who missed it. :-) Add to that her
screaming when O'Brien was arrested, and you had a scene I almost had to turn
away from. That's not good.
It may even be a case of Keiko not working *with O'Brien*, as her scene with
Sisko et al. on the station worked well, and many of her classroom scenes
have been fine (particularly in "In the Hands of the Prophets" last year).
Somehow, though, the scenes of the O'Brien family often fall flat, and I'm
not sure where the responsibility lies for it.
Plot-wise, "Tribunal" was pretty standard, but was executed fairly well.
Boone was a cipher, but had a nice air of casual sliminess about him that
worked just fine, and the plan to frame O'Brien in particular seemed
realistic enough. I do have to wonder, though, why the Cardassians would
choose to target *anyone* from DS9 for this particular frame. Given all the
problems Sisko's managed to cause Dukat (among others) in the past, isn't the
station close to the last place you want to go looking for gullibility?
[Lisa also had problems with the convenience of a prisoner being O'Brien's
old friend, but I thought that was pretty sensible.]
The slight question of "what if O'Brien DID do something?" went nowhere, but
there were enough twists going on with exactly what *did* happen that I'm
willing to forgive it. In particular, the plot scene that really smacked my
attention around had to be Bashir being given information by the Maquis. The
voice sounded suitably menacing (and familiar, too; anyone know who it was?),
and simply the idea that the Maquis is well organized enough to nail the
medical lab on the station proved fairly chilling, at least for me. Nicely
done there.
I have the impression this review is starting to get substantially less
coherent than usual :-), and "Tribunal" really didn't leave me with much to
say anyway, so I think it's time for the usual short takes before I go.
Onwards:
-- O'Brien's "processing" sequence was brutal; nearly too much so for me, in
fact. Ouch.
-- Forget Cardassian justice as a mockery of our current justice system: I
saw a fair amount of indictment of the current state of the news media as
well. "We'll put on a good show," indeed. The lyrics to Don Henley's "Dirty
Laundry" were floating through my head for a good time after, as were
numerous quotes from the late, lamented "Max Headroom"...
-- Kovat's sudden abuse questions towards the end were suitably weird, but I
think Makbar's questions to O'Brien might have been better used towards the
very start of the trial, not its end. That might have established a good
deal more than the legal wrangling just how bad O'Brien's situation was.
That should just about do it. "Tribunal" isn't bad, but it is somewhat
disappointing after a long string of solid wins from DS9. Hopefully next
week's season finale will be a return to form.
So, wrapping up:
Plot: Fairly good; a fairly routine setup, but some nice twists here and
there.
Plot Handling: A good debut from Avery Brooks, if not a great one. He kept
things moving.
Characterization: Good O'Brien and Odo, okay Kovat and most of the regulars,
problems with Keiko and Makbar.
OVERALL: Call it a 6. Not bad, but not great.
NEXT WEEK:
The long-awaited arrival of the Dominion.
Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
BITNET: tlynch@citjulie
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Since when has news been *entertainment*?"
"Since it was invented?"
-- "Max Headroom"
--
Copyright 1994, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
Marguerite Petersen
Timothy W. Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu> wrote:
>WARNING: This article contains heavy spoiler information for DS9's
>"Tribunal". Those not wishing to provoke serious and immediate consequences
>of being spoiled are advised to remain clear.
>In brief: well, it was a decent show, but it's definitely a step down from
>the last half-dozen or so. It was mostly "there".
>"Tribunal" felt less like a story needing to be told and more like a script
>providing an excuse to show off the Cardassian justice system. In fact, were
>I less aware of how far in advance episodes are produced, I'd think this was
>put together after the positive response to things like "The Maquis", where
>the justice system is given prominent mention.
Agreed, although it *does* explain why even Dukat might be afraid of his
higher ups deciding that he was *wrong*. With a justice system that
decides your guilt and your sentence *before* the trial, who wouldn't
be afraid? Simply put, the Cardassian justice system is such that if
you are arrested, you are automatically guilty and subject to penalty.
The trial, is *only* for the *people* to see that the guilty are being
punished. Veeerrrrry chilling!
>Now, there's nothing wrong with a script designed to show off a particular
>idea. There have been lots of examples in the past that have worked very
>well. However, after half a dozen shows that tended to leave the viewer in
>a mangled heap on the wall afterwards, a show that follows the tried-and-true
>but simpler idea of "problem seen, lots of angst, problem solved, no harm
>done" begins to pall a bit by comparison.
I have to agree with you here, although I did have some nervous moments
wondering just how they were going to free O'Brien. After all, he was
already judged *guilty* as far as Cardassian justice was concerned and
his execution already scheduled.
>In addition, I had something of a problem with the way in which Cardassian
>justice was shown. When the premise is so substantially different from
>Federation (i.e. current U.S.) justice, I would expect the actual trial
>itself to take astonishingly different forms. To the show's credit, I think
>Bill Dial tried to do that when writing "Tribunal", but that's not how it
>came off where I was sitting. I didn't see a court: I saw Bizarro Trial,
>with every detail we might think of to describe our trial system turned on
>its head. ("You can't testify against yourself? You can here. You know the
>charges ahead of time? Not here. New evidence is always welcome? Never
>here.") I couldn't quite buy into it.
Well, I think the whole point was that what *we* call justice is simply
not an issue to the Cardassians and a trial is not what *we* would call
a trial (where an individual has the opportunity to prove his/her
innocence), but is instead an opportunity for the government *only* to
showcase your guilt.
>However, I don't want to give off the impression that I disliked "Tribunal".
>I didn't. It may not have been the best show DS9's made lately, but it
>definitely held my interest. In particular, Colm Meaney got the chance to
>give one of his better Trek performances; this was probably the best chance
>he's had since "Whispers" to show off, and he did a nice job with it. In
>particular, the speech about how he has *never* had his loyalty questioned
>and never acted in a way that his daughter couldn't respect was one of the
>most powerful moments in the show. I'm more and more impressed with his
>work.
I didn't even notice the O'Brien character when he was on TNG. As a matter
of fact that's why I didn't write a Sonnet for him. :-) However, on DS9,
he has become one of the mainstay characters and I am *very* impressed with
Colm Meaney in this role. And yes, this particular speech was very moving.
O'Brien has become a very solid character with very strong deep convictions
and integrity.
>Fritz Weaver was also good as Kovat, though I'll admit to being thrown for a
>loop at how different he was than I was expecting from Weaver's past work (of
>which the most prominent coming to mind is the "Holocaust" miniseries from
>over a decade ago, in which he was superb). Weaver is someone who I've
>usually seen in "noble but tragic" roles, and Kovat was far from tragic. In
>fact, maybe it was just my mood at the time, but Kovat seemed almost like
>comic relief to me, with his "winning isn't everything" and "well, I *tried*"
>responses when called upon to actually help O'Brien in some way. I liked it
>well enough once I got used to it, but it came as quite a surprise.
I *loved* his role here. It was obvious that the role of a defense
attorney in Cardassian society is completely laughable. It has become
more an *advisor* as to how to accept the system and take your lumps as
meekly as possible. I was chuckling throughout as I kept wondering if
that was a snide dig at many attorneys in *our* justice system.
>Character-wise, the other person to be really well handled besides O'Brien
>was Odo. His knowledge of Cardassian law (but only up to a point; I strongly
>doubt he was *lying* when he pleaded ignorance about details upon reaching
>the trial) proved effective to keep the plot moving, but more to the point
>his reaction to O'Brien's imprisonment was extremely interesting. He,
>surprisingly, seemed the *most* sympathetic to how Keiko was feeling, which
>came as a big surprise. It seems Odo is starting to learn a fair amount more
>mercy; despite all his claims about how much safer things were with the
>Cardassians, he doesn't agree with the way they get things done. That's a
>new development, but one I think works just fine.
I agree. I think that Odo likes *order*, but he despises injustice. The
Cardassians certainly impose order on their society, but there is *no*
justice.
>The rest of the regulars were pretty much par for the course, though I
>thought Bashir was a bit *too* flamboyant when rejecting Kira's thoughts
>about O'Brien. As for nonregulars ... well, aside from Weaver, I have to say
>I'm not all that impressed. Caroline Lagerfelt was erratic as Makbar:
>occasionally she seemed impressive, but most of the time she seemed more
>petty and annoying than anything else. Her "I thought we went through this
>*yesterday*" and "this is already the longest trial in history" were
>virtually stock phrases, and the delivery was pretty stock as well. She
>wasn't awful, but was nothing worth noting either.
I agree. It might perhaps be because she simply is not as imposing or
frightening a character as Gul Dukat can be. I would have preferred
someone who could convey the *chilling* aspect rather than someone who
just seemed to go through the routine of being a judge.
>Unfortunately, the same could be said of Keiko. Keiko gets a lot of flak
>from fans so far as I can see, and I think much of it is unfounded -- but
>it's tough to defend the Keiko/O'Brien scenes when they're on the level of
>the one we saw in the runabout early this show. Ouch. Could the idea of
>"oblivious workaholic husband" be any *more* pounded in? I think there may
>be one neuron-impaired viewer somewhere who missed it. :-) Add to that her
>screaming when O'Brien was arrested, and you had a scene I almost had to turn
>away from. That's not good.
The first part of the scene wasn't bad. Especially her comment about "can
these chairs recline? and then "you're the engineer. Do something about it."
That had me chuckling the whole time. However, I agree with you about the
screaming bit. I tried to imagine how I would react if my husband were
taken away by superior forces in similar circumstances. I think I might
struggle and have to be restrained but after it was obvious that he had
been removed, I would have been enraged to the point of speechlessness. I
certainly wouldn't have stood there calling out his name after he had been
transported away. But that is the writers at fault once more.
>It may even be a case of Keiko not working *with O'Brien*, as her scene with
>Sisko et al. on the station worked well, and many of her classroom scenes
>have been fine (particularly in "In the Hands of the Prophets" last year).
>Somehow, though, the scenes of the O'Brien family often fall flat, and I'm
>not sure where the responsibility lies for it.
I agree. I honestly believe that the O'Brien character loves his wife
and child and is devoted to them. I don't get the same impression from
Keiko in return. I don't know if that's the writers fault or what, but
it does bother me.
>Plot-wise, "Tribunal" was pretty standard, but was executed fairly well.
>Boone was a cipher, but had a nice air of casual sliminess about him that
>worked just fine, and the plan to frame O'Brien in particular seemed
>realistic enough. I do have to wonder, though, why the Cardassians would
>choose to target *anyone* from DS9 for this particular frame. Given all the
>problems Sisko's managed to cause Dukat (among others) in the past, isn't the
>station close to the last place you want to go looking for gullibility?
>[Lisa also had problems with the convenience of a prisoner being O'Brien's
>old friend, but I thought that was pretty sensible.]
Well, since the Starfleet presence in this area is *on* DS9, I don't find
this bothersome. It seemed a reasonable target to me.
>I have the impression this review is starting to get substantially less
>coherent than usual :-), and "Tribunal" really didn't leave me with much to
>say anyway, so I think it's time for the usual short takes before I go.
>Onwards:
>
>-- O'Brien's "processing" sequence was brutal; nearly too much so for me, in
>fact. Ouch.
Yes, I found this sequence very brutal, especially since I have actually
had a tooth pulled without painkiller of any kind. It was necessary as it
was an emergency situation (for me), but to have it be a part of a simple
*processing* of a prisoner was in itself a very frightening prospect.
>-- Forget Cardassian justice as a mockery of our current justice system: I
>saw a fair amount of indictment of the current state of the news media as
>well. "We'll put on a good show," indeed. The lyrics to Don Henley's "Dirty
>Laundry" were floating through my head for a good time after, as were
>numerous quotes from the late, lamented "Max Headroom"...
And I saw as well, the "he/she *must* be guilty. After all they have been
arrested," syndrome.
>That should just about do it. "Tribunal" isn't bad, but it is somewhat
>disappointing after a long string of solid wins from DS9. Hopefully next
>week's season finale will be a return to form.
I agree. This episode wasn't bad, it just wasn't what we have been led
to expect, but I can forgive them as we *do* need some background material
for another culture in order to understand where *they* are coming from.
What a *frightening* society to live in! Gives one much food for thought.
>OVERALL: Call it a 6. Not bad, but not great.
I can accept that. :-)
>Copyright 1994, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
Marg
--
"Insufficient facts always invites danger, Captain."-Spock in Space Seed
Member PSEB Captain's Yeoman (First Shift) JLP SoL
Marg Petersen pet...@csos.orst.edu
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <2tas74$h...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>Timothy W. Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>WARNING: This article contains heavy spoiler information for DS9's
>>"Tribunal". Those not wishing to provoke serious and immediate consequences
>>of being spoiled are advised to remain clear.
>>In addition, I had something of a problem with the way in which Cardassian
>>justice was shown. When the premise is so substantially different from
>>Federation (i.e. current U.S.) justice, I would expect the actual trial
>>itself to take astonishingly different forms. To the show's credit, I think
>>Bill Dial tried to do that when writing "Tribunal", but that's not how it
>>came off where I was sitting. I didn't see a court: I saw Bizarro Trial,
>>with every detail we might think of to describe our trial system turned on
>>its head. ("You can't testify against yourself? You can here. You know the
>>charges ahead of time? Not here. New evidence is always welcome? Never
>>here.") I couldn't quite buy into it.
>Well, I think the whole point was that what *we* call justice is simply
>not an issue to the Cardassians and a trial is not what *we* would call
>a trial (where an individual has the opportunity to prove his/her
>innocence), but is instead an opportunity for the government *only* to
>showcase your guilt.
Accepted, but not relevant. Given that what we consider justice is not even
remotely close to their definitions, and given that their trial is nothing
but a show-piece, and given the totally different aims of their justice system
and ours, why were the forms so close together as they were? Why even bother
with a defense attorney, for instance? We seem to be agreeing on what they
were trying to show, but I didn't buy it.
Tim Lynch
Tim Klassen
I was entralled with the first half hour, but was then immensely disppointed
when the second half seemed to descend into cheap satire. The only place I
would disagree with you is in your rating. I would say closer to a 6.5 or 7
when comparing it with your ST:TNG ratings for this season. (but then you
know about my biases on that ;-)
TimK
P.S. I didn't get around to saying it after your "all good things" review
but many thanks for all your thoughtful reviews over the last few years, I
enjoyed them immensely! It was always fun to read them a few hours after I
watched the episodes on saturday night. For me, it was the end of two
enjoyable eras two weeks ago; watching a new ST:TNG, and reading your review
shortly afterwards. THANKS!
Erik Seligman
spoilers....
In article <2tdse3$r...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@juliet.caltech.edu writes:
>pet...@CSOS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
>
>Accepted, but not relevant. Given that what we consider justice is not even
>remotely close to their definitions, and given that their trial is nothing
>but a show-piece, and given the totally different aims of their justice system
>and ours, why were the forms so close together as they were? Why even bother
>with a defense attorney, for instance? We seem to be agreeing on what they
>were trying to show, but I didn't buy it.
>
Well, actually, in "Chain of Command", it was mentioned that in rather recent
times a (democratic ?) non-military government was overthrown by the military.
Thus it would make sense that they would retain the form of a fair trial in
order to calm the public, even if there is no longer such a thing. (I'm sure
that if the military overthrew the U.S. government, our courts would still be
made to look a lot like they do now.)
I doubt that the Cardassians lack the concept of justice; the totalitarian
nature of their government is probably what makes their "trials" so different.
---Erik
Erik Seligman
er...@cs.cmu.edu
Timothy W. Lynch
>spoilers....
>In article <2tdse3$r...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@juliet.caltech.edu writes:
>>Accepted, but not relevant. Given that what we consider justice is not even
>>remotely close to their definitions, and given that their trial is nothing
>>but a show-piece, and given the totally different aims of their justice
>>system and ours, why were the forms so close together as they were?
>Well, actually, in "Chain of Command", it was mentioned that in rather recent
>times a (democratic ?) non-military government was overthrown by the military.
>Thus it would make sense that they would retain the form of a fair trial in
>order to calm the public, even if there is no longer such a thing.
Now that's a sellable point. I'm still not sure I swallow the presentation
that was actually made, but this helps quite a bit. Thanks for the idea.
Tim Lynch
just another theatre geek
>"Tribunal".
WARNING: This post contains some rather trivial comments.
>In addition, I had something of a problem with the way in which Cardassian
>justice was shown. When the premise is so substantially different from
>Federation (i.e. current U.S.) justice, I would expect the actual trial
>itself to take astonishingly different forms.
Actually, I thought the nice point about this was that the trial
was NOT that different from American justice; it takes only a few "minor"
adjustments to turn the Cardassian system (which, as another poster
speculated, may have been much fairer in the past) into the horror show
it was. And just how on its head WAS our justice system being turned? not
so much as we'd like to think...
>Unfortunately, the same could be said of Keiko. Keiko gets a lot of flak
>from fans so far as I can see, and I think much of it is unfounded -- but
>it's tough to defend the Keiko/O'Brien scenes when they're on the level of
>the one we saw in the runabout early this show. Ouch. Could the idea of
>"oblivious workaholic husband" be any *more* pounded in? I think there may
>be one neuron-impaired viewer somewhere who missed it. :-)
Unfortunately, they probably post to the net....
>It may even be a case of Keiko not working *with O'Brien*, as her scene with
>Sisko et al. on the station worked well, and many of her classroom scenes
>have been fine (particularly in "In the Hands of the Prophets" last year).
Also, her scene in the court where she stares down the Cardassian
judge...talk about how looks could kill....pity the script didn't give
Rosalind more to do, as it was obvious that she put a lot more into the
part than what was really there...(I was at least expecting SOME sort of
follow up to that scene on Keiko's part...)
>Somehow, though, the scenes of the O'Brien family often fall flat, and I'm
>not sure where the responsibility lies for it.
Perhaps she's not good at "mush" stuff? She's certainly was
better in THOUSAND PIECES OF GOLD and JOY LUCK CLUB...
>realistic enough. I do have to wonder, though, why the Cardassians would
>choose to target *anyone* from DS9 for this particular frame. Given all the
>problems Sisko's managed to cause Dukat (among others) in the past, isn't the
>station close to the last place you want to go looking for gullibility?
Not gullibility...the station and its personnel would be PERFECT
on a propaganda basis...if they weren't so damn sloppy in execution...
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Elros F.
Accepted, but not relevant. Given that what we consider justice is not
even
remotely close to their definitions, and given that their trial is nothing
but a show-piece, and given the totally different aims of their justice
system
bother
with a defense attorney, for instance? We seem to be agreeing on what they
were trying to show, but I didn't buy it.
Tim Lynch
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's your assumption that he was a defense attorney, also an assumption
that O'Brien made. Both trying to fit a Cardassian judicial element into a
mold more familiar. I don't believe the Cardassians ever referred to him
as a 'defense attorney', did they? He certainly didn't serve the same role
as a defense attorney does in our system.
He may have referred to himself as a defense attorney when he introduced
himself to O'Brien...my memory is fuzzy...but if so, he was trying to draw
the closest analogy he could. He probably didn't have a real understanding
of what a defense attorney was expected to do, either.
Sorry if that's a bit disjointed...basically I didn't really see the forms
as being as close as you indicate.
Tom Bagwell
The Morrigan
gwan...@u.washington.edu (just another theatre geek) writes:
>In article <2tas74$h...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>Timothy W. Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>WARNING: This article contains heavy spoiler information for DS9's
>>"Tribunal".
>
> WARNING: This post contains some rather trivial comments.
>
>
>>In addition, I had something of a problem with the way in which Cardassian
>>justice was shown. When the premise is so substantially different from
>>Federation (i.e. current U.S.) justice, I would expect the actual trial
>>itself to take astonishingly different forms.
>
> Actually, I thought the nice point about this was that the trial
>was NOT that different from American justice; it takes only a few "minor"
>adjustments to turn the Cardassian system (which, as another poster
>speculated, may have been much fairer in the past) into the horror show
>it was. And just how on its head WAS our justice system being turned? not
>so much as we'd like to think...
>
and newsmagazines a week, and I've read more and more demands
from people who *want* our system to be more like the Cardassian
system. A National Review writer last week advocated doing away with
the right to silence ("You can be forced to testify against yourself,
mr. O'brien. Silence will be seen as an admission of guilt.")
Everywhere you turn, there are people calling for quicker trials,
stiffer sentences, the right to searches without warrants.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that new evidence of
innocence is not enough reason to reopen a case-- sounds
*a LOT* like "Tribunal" to me.
What I saw in the Cardassian court was an image of what the
American justice system could easily become--if we give in to the
quick fixes being promoted in all the crime bills in
Congress right now. The People want swift, sure justice?
Lets give it to them. The people want to know that the guilty
are punished? Lets do it. Talk to anyone about any of big trial
going on--try to find someone who beleives in "innocent until
proven guilty," and that it should apply to *everyone* on trial,
no matter what their crime.
Cardassian justice may happen yet here.
Todd Horowitz
Kovat was never specifically designated as "defense attorney."
However, when O'Brien asks what a "Public Conservator" is, the Archon
clarifies by saying "Your lawyer". The possessive does suggest that he's
supposed to look out for O'Brien's interests.
-todd
Clinton A Pierce
>In addition, I had something of a problem with the way in which Cardassian
>justice was shown. When the premise is so substantially different from
>Federation (i.e. current U.S.) justice, I would expect the actual trial
>itself to take astonishingly different forms. To the show's credit, I think
>Bill Dial tried to do that when writing "Tribunal", but that's not how it
>came off where I was sitting. I didn't see a court: I saw Bizarro Trial,
>with every detail we might think of to describe our trial system turned on
>its head. ("You can't testify against yourself? You can here. You know the
>charges ahead of time? Not here. New evidence is always welcome? Never
>here.") I couldn't quite buy into it.
Ahhh, how quickly we forget. The Soviet Empire collapses and no-one
seems to remember the lessons of history.
"Trials" like this were once commonplace, and you only have to go back
to the Stalin-era of Soviet history to find them. (Try Alexander
Solshenitsin's _The_Gulag_Archipelago_ for a reader). It was very much
like the Cardassian trial.
Firstly, being accused meant you were guilty. Period. Innocence was
irrelavant. Simply the fact that you COULD'VE been suspected meant that
you probably needed to be brought back into line with Communist Doctrine.
The trial (which I understand was guaranteed by Soviet Law), was simply
a place to show off your crimes. You (and your family) were required to
testify against yourself. Punishment was severe and absolute: Execution,
Exile, the Gulag, or imprisonment. Sometimes, the particulars of a crime
were never outlined, and you were conviced of "crimes against the state"
or "counter-revolutionary" behaviour.
--
|= Clinton A. Pierce ============| "If you rush a miracle, | \ /^\ /
|================================| you get rotten miracles.." | ,\ G /,
|= Company Renegade Programmer ==| --Miracle Max, The Princess Bride |/ \ / \
|==== cli...@world.std.com =====| |Freemason
Timothy W. Lynch
>No spoilers, and besides, this is RASC!
An attribution to the article you're responding to would be nice, though...
I write:
>>In addition, I had something of a problem with the way in which Cardassian
>>justice was shown. When the premise is so substantially different from
>>Federation (i.e. current U.S.) justice, I would expect the actual trial
>>itself to take astonishingly different forms.
[snip]
>Ahhh, how quickly we forget. The Soviet Empire collapses and no-one
>seems to remember the lessons of history.
>"Trials" like this were once commonplace,
Um ... I'm well aware of that. My whole point is that, despite the utter
difference in goals that Cardassian "justice" and ours have, the forms are
entirely too similar. The argument others have made that Cardassia *used* to
have different goals and kept the forms when the society changed is an
excellent one, but I wasn't claiming the trial was unrealistic in terms of
human experience.
Tim Lynch
Lee Ann Rucker
C60...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (The Morrigan) wrote:
| Talk to anyone about any of big trial
| going on--try to find someone who beleives in "innocent until
| proven guilty," and that it should apply to *everyone* on trial,
| no matter what their crime.
| Cardassian justice may happen yet here.
People don't even wait until the trial. Consider Michael Jackson or Tonya
Harding, for example. Tried, convicted, and sentenced to a life of
humiliation by the TV tabloids, and no trial ever took place.
CHRISTIAN D. WRIGHT
>From: lru...@parcplace.com (Lee Ann Rucker)
>Subject: Re: [DS9] Lynch's Spoiler Review: "Tribunal"
>Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 10:46:16 -0800
Or the right to avoid self-incrimination. How many times do Joe and Jane
Six-Pack draw the negative inference, "If he's not guilty, then why
doesn't he answer the question?" (Like Worf did in _Drumhead_.)
ttfn,
Christian
Sashi Alexandra German
>WARNING: This article contains heavy spoiler information for DS9's
>of being spoiled are advised to remain clear.
>"oblivious workaholic husband" be any *more* pounded in? I think there may
>screaming when O'Brien was arrested, and you had a scene I almost had to turn
>away from. That's not good.
>
>Sisko et al. on the station worked well, and many of her classroom scenes
>have been fine (particularly in "In the Hands of the Prophets" last year).
>not sure where the responsibility lies for it.
I've gone over this as well in my mind and I can't quite figure out why those
two just can't seem to gel on the screen (as I see others are under the same
impression I am). I also thought the ending scene where Keiko is *screaming*
as O'Brien is hauled off -- too stupid. It made me think of how typical a
reaction, like how all women written in the show (Yes, I may be again getting
into the feminist/Star Trek issue...)
Keiko has bothered me (or rather, how she was written) has bothered me from
the begining. She meets O'Brien, they get married, and the first thing
that happens is: She's pregnant! Same thing with Nurse Ogawa. Seems Trek women
decide to have kids within 3 minutes of marriage :)
So Keiki screaming in the runabout was no real surprise to me - just real
annoying. God forbid she act strong and calmly wait to return to DS9
before erupting in front of others (showing anger, not a sob story)
LL+P,
Sashi German
Philadelphia, PA Star Trek Club (Starfleet)
sa...@feith.com
:crp:
Todd Horowitz
judicial officiers. The prefix "tri" is a coincidence.
Amos Yung
Spoilers......
In article <2tldfi$t...@feith1.feith.com>,
Sashi Alexandra German <sa...@feith.com> wrote:
>
>So Keiki screaming in the runabout was no real surprise to me - just real
>annoying. God forbid she act strong and calmly wait to return to DS9
>before erupting in front of others (showing anger, not a sob story)
Am I the only one who think that Keiko was also in danger herself? After
Obrien was gone, there was just her and the other Cardassian on board...
Of course there wouldn't be any rape scene in ST, but had that been a
real situation, I think a little panic is entirely called for.
>
>LL+P,
>Sashi German
>Philadelphia, PA Star Trek Club (Starfleet)
>sa...@feith.com
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amos Yung | "Hey... Thats the President of the United States that
yu...@io.org | you are talking about... PINHEAD!" --- Al Gore
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stegbauer
Like totally. I can't believe that the Cards could get away with just
taking a runabout, as they apparently did, with no Fed supervision.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Stegbauer - MikeS - stegbau...@tandem.com - formerly mikesteg
Tandem On-Line Support Center, Austin, TX - TNSC UNIX Support Analyst
1992 Laser RS AWD, Red - 1993 750 Nighthawk, Blue - trekkie(TOS,TNG,DS9,V)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Brinich
the _illusion_ of a genuine trial than the Cardassians in "Tribunal", but
maybe that's just an effect of the latter being crammed into 48 minutes of
television.
But, then, you don't need to go to the old Soviet Union to find such
attitudes:
"You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime.
That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime,
then he is not a suspect."
-- Attorney General Edwin Meese
--
Steve Brinich | If the government wants us to respect the law, |
<ste...@access.digex.net> | it should set a better example. |
PGPrint (finger for key) 89 B9 92 BB E6 7F 7B 2F 64 FD F2 EA 14 37 4C 65
Steve Brinich
I suspect that the Cardassian idea of looking out for the prisoner's
interests in preventing the prisoner from doing something that causes the
Archon to add contempt of court to the other charges.
Marguerite Petersen
>>pet...@CSOS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
>>>In article <2tas74$h...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>>>Timothy W. Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>In addition, I had something of a problem with the way in which Cardassian
>>>justice was shown. When the premise is so substantially different from
>>>Federation (i.e. current U.S.) justice, I would expect the actual trial
>>>itself to take astonishingly different forms. To the show's credit, I think
>>>Bill Dial tried to do that when writing "Tribunal", but that's not how it
>>>came off where I was sitting. I didn't see a court: I saw Bizarro Trial,
>>>with every detail we might think of to describe our trial system turned on
>>>its head. ("You can't testify against yourself? You can here. You know the
>>>charges ahead of time? Not here. New evidence is always welcome? Never
>>>here.") I couldn't quite buy into it.
>>Well, I think the whole point was that what *we* call justice is simply
>>not an issue to the Cardassians and a trial is not what *we* would call
>>a trial (where an individual has the opportunity to prove his/her
>>innocence), but is instead an opportunity for the government *only* to
>>showcase your guilt.
Tim answered:
>Accepted, but not relevant. Given that what we consider justice is not even
>remotely close to their definitions, and given that their trial is nothing
>but a show-piece, and given the totally different aims of their justice system
>and ours, why were the forms so close together as they were? Why even bother
>with a defense attorney, for instance? We seem to be agreeing on what they
>were trying to show, but I didn't buy it.
Tim Lynch
Yes, I see your point. However, I don't think the "Conservator" (I believe
that is what they called him) was actually a *defense* attorney. The
definition of *conservator* could be taken to mean "one who keeps from
change or decay" or preserves/protects." (From the definition of *conserve*).
And with the *conservator*'s comments at the end about "it always being
a pleasure to *serve* the court", I think we can gather that his job is
not to serve the *perpetrator*, but to serve the court and the judicial
system and to protect *it*. At least, that's my take on it. :-)