Outlawry as a Weapon against Comic Book Supervillains
February 10, 2015 11:26 AM   Subscribe

Outlawry, Supervillians, and Modern Law Before the modern period, the ability of the courts to enforce their authority was quite limited, shockingly so by modern standards. ...So what was the legal system to do? Well, one common tool was “outlawry”, declaring a person to be beyond the protection of the law. The meaning of the sentence changed over time, and it ultimately disappeared with urbanization and doctrines like habeas corpus, but a growth in supervillainy might bring it back into fashion.
posted by Michele in California (24 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite
 
This blog is run by MeFi's own valkyryn and jedicus!
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:35 AM on February 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


FTA:

An outlaw was a person whom it was illegal to give any food or shelter, and whom it was legal to kill on sight as one might a wild animal.

This is essentially what Giorgio Agamben referred to as "homo sacer" in his fascinating historical analysis of power and states of exception: a human who had their personhood and citizenship legally revoked, but whose life was forfeit to regular subjects or citizens precisely because they had been excepted from the law by some legal authority; both inside and outside the law simultaneously.

This post is really interesting, thanks Michele.
posted by clockzero at 11:45 AM on February 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


a related concept, hostis humani generis[previously], with the 'piracy' aspect, I think, more applicable to supervillains.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:52 AM on February 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


You spelled Outlawyr wrong. ;)
posted by Outlawyr at 11:56 AM on February 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


Originally on MeFi Projects and previously on MetaFilter.

run by MeFi's own valkyryn and jedicus!

"Run by" and "MeFi's own valkyryn" are both debatable. valkyryn hasn't written anything for about 18 months, and he disabled his MeFi account a while ago. I have no idea if he has created a successor account.

I haven't written anything for about 6 months, though there have been some guest posts since then. The site is basically on indefinite hiatus due to the demands of my new job. There's still a giant backlog of reader questions and post ideas, but finding the time and energy to research and write posts has been difficult.
posted by jedicus at 11:59 AM on February 10, 2015 [5 favorites]


Churchill wanted to declare high-level Nazis international outlaws "by solemn decree of the United Nations" – and had Stalin not wanted the spectacle of the Nuremberg trials, he would likely have got his way. In the case of a supervillain menace, a supra-national response might be appropriate, no?
posted by topynate at 12:24 PM on February 10, 2015


"Diplomatic immunitySocial contract!"

"It's just been revoked."
posted by weston at 12:25 PM on February 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


Hrm. Powers deals with just this sort of problem, although not this solution. I suspect the bureaucracy would resist admitting their is anything outside their jurisdiction.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:29 PM on February 10, 2015


How funny, on the way into work today I was working out a plot for a s.f. story based on the reinvention of outlawry.
posted by penduluum at 12:43 PM on February 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


I think part of the point of the piece, though, is that once a society (like the modern nation-state) gets powerful enough, little (as far as individual actions go) *is* outside both its jurisdiction and effective reach. The bureaucracy doesn't have to make that admission anymore; the only protection for individuals is really in how the bureaucracy is built.

This is a recent phenomena, though, even in places where society is much older than it is here in the US. Hence the reasonably clever symmetry -- individuals that don't abide by the agreements of society can be declared outside its agreements. That potentially puts them at the mercy of agents that don't directly work for society, which means there's a broader reach.

I suspect you still see some form of this kind of thing in smaller/weaker social institutions -- where they don't have much in the way of tools for dealing with transgressions other than cutting ties.

And where we see this kind of behavior in nation states (let's say the recent rights suspensions associated with terrorism) it's probably an indication of the fear that we're weak and vulnerable (though I disagree greatly about whether or not abandoning respect for individual rights makes as stronger).
posted by weston at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2015


...declaring someone to be an outlaw would make it illegal to transact basically any business with them. Some supervillains may be magnificently rich, evil geniuses, but they still need to get their raw materials from somewhere...

Do supervillains have vendors? Don't they just steal the stuff they need? I can't imagine the Joker going to the Garment District to bulk-purchase purple satin, or the Green Goblin riding his hoverboard into Costco to buy napkins and coffee filters for the break room.
posted by PlusDistance at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


PlusDistance,

but if they cannot have an iPhone6 and the Apple Geniuses refuse to port their old stuff....
They'll abandon their wicked ways and be joining the Salvation Army any time now ;-)
posted by MessageInABottle at 1:00 PM on February 10, 2015


Do supervillains have vendors? Don't they just steal the stuff they need? I can't imagine the Joker going to the Garment District to bulk-purchase purple satin, or the Green Goblin riding his hoverboard into Costco to buy napkins and coffee filters for the break room.

The Monarch does a little bit of both.
posted by Strange Interlude at 1:23 PM on February 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


The problem with the idea is when the supervillain says "OK". Because a powerful enough supervillain isn't going to be limited by being rendered into an outlaw. Because just because the government says they can be killed legally doesn't mean that someone can do the job. And prohibiting people from supplying them isn't going to make doing so any less lucrative.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:44 PM on February 10, 2015


I think Neil Gaiman did a comic about the guy who makes costumes for super heroes/villains. The idea came up in Pixar's movie The Incredibles, too. I suppose that income might count as the proceeds of crime - any lawyers want to chime in?
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:16 PM on February 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


Heinlein, if I remember correctly, did a story about how people could choose to not accept some legal punishment like brainwashing, but could instead be sent outside the border, to live outside "society" as an outlaw, in outlaw country. I can almost see the cover of the collection it was in, but I can't remember the name of the story. The protagonist who chose the fate wasn't a supervillain, iirc, he punched someone in the mouth or something equally "macho".
posted by dejah420 at 2:26 PM on February 10, 2015


Coventry.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:36 PM on February 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


"Run by" and "MeFi's own valkyryn" are both debatable.

You're on. Let's have that debate!
posted by srboisvert at 2:40 PM on February 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


} I don't know if Gaiman also wrote such a character, but Marvel 616 has tailor Leo Zelinsky, who was created by J. Michael Straczynski and is totally great. He serves superheroes and supervillains on alternate days.

Ah! Wikipedia tells me that DC has Paul Gambi.
posted by nicebookrack at 2:46 PM on February 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


Marvel also has the Tinkerer, the late Justin Hammer, and (to a far lesser extent) Sunset Bain/Madame Menace; all of them front or fronted money and tech to villains in exchange for a share of profits and, more profitably, the ability to contract them out for free for their own agendas.

Norman Osborn, of course, is extremely rich and has his own corporation. He makes his stuff in-house.
posted by kewb at 4:16 PM on February 10, 2015


One of my favorite moments from Worm is when Taylor learns that she is charged with treason. At first she's like, "What, treason?" but then it kind of dawns on her that overthrowing the government of a city to rule it through violence and terror as a vigilante supervillian is in fact kind of treasonous.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:39 AM on February 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


topynate: Churchill wanted to declare high-level Nazis international outlaws "by solemn decree of the United Nations" – and had Stalin not wanted the spectacle of the Nuremberg trials, he would likely have got his way. In the case of a supervillain menace, a supra-national response might be appropriate, no?
Wow. Never thought I'd ever say this, but I'm glad Josef got his way over Churchill on this one.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:52 AM on February 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


I suppose this is where cyberwar can go.
posted by effugas at 9:45 PM on February 11, 2015


I think the concept of outlawry works only when the power of state/system is not insanely above the power of an individual.

If the state/system finds itself unable to prosecute, prevent or punish someone about their crimes ... then by declaring them as outlaw, it gives the prosecution and punishment power to everyone, in a hope that someone will be able to carry out these duties.

But today, with state being so powerful, if a state finds itself unable to prosecute a super villain, fat chance that a person can act instead of state, unless the person is a superhero.
posted by TheLittlePrince at 9:27 AM on February 12, 2015


« Older My Gay Uncles   |   How user perception matters - in zippers. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments