My wife and I are rewatching The Next Generation and just finished Measure of a Man, the episode in season 2 in which Data’s personhood is legally debated and his life hangs in the balance.
I genuinely found this episode infuriating in its stupidity. It’s the first episode we skipped even a little bit. It was like nails on a chalkboard.
There is oodles of legal precedent that Data is a person. He was allowed to apply to Starfleet, graduated, became an officer and rose to the rank of Lt. Commander with all the responsibilities and privileges thereof.
Comparing him to a computer and the judge advocate general just shrugging and going to trial over it is completely idiotic. There are literal years and years of precedent that he’s an officer.
The problem is compounded because Picard can’t make the obvious legal argument and is therefore stuck philosophizing in a court room, which is all well and good, but it kind of comes down to whether or not Data has a soul? That’s not a legal argument.
The whole thing is so unbelievably ludicrous it just made me angrier and angrier. It wasn’t the high minded, humanistic future I’ve come to know and love, it was a kangaroo court where reason and precedent took a backseat to feeling and belief.
I genuinely hated it.
To my surprise, in looking it up, I discovered it’s considered one of the high water marks for the entire show. It feels like I’m taking crazy pills.
Hot take. But put it in the context of the year it was aired, not today. Star Trek (and sci fi in general) was suffering from being perceived as “blue babes and laser guns”.
This episode was thoughtful if taken as standalone. And TNG really was about taking the episodes more or less independently. The season long story arcs and such didn’t exist. People weren’t binge watching. So the world building was less important than the specific hypothetical moral quandary of the week. Like, they are almost like Asimov short stories with a shared cast.
It wasn’t until a few years later that serialized TV even really became a thing – Twin Peaks probably was the first here, but Babylon 5 would have a good claim (and DS9, Buffy, and others were coming together then too). So the style of storytelling on TNG S2 is different.
Divorce the story from Star Trek and the setting and evaluate it as a sci fi ethical quandary. And in that framework, it is a remarkable episode.
Also, Brent Spiner played it well :)
I think that’s a terrific argument and it is always wise to contextualize it in history.
We have absolutely been binging which certainly gives it a different feel, but I would argue even as a standalone episode it was poorly written if superbly performed.
There are ideas that could have been played with in a way that respects the setting. Perhaps another computer attempting to join Starfleet, but it looks like a box rather than a person and asks Data to argue its personhood.
I don’t know. I’m not a writer and I’m just spitting an idea off the top of my head, but I think there’s a place for internal consistency within a narrative regardless of when it was written.
There is an episode later where Data defends the rights of a less-human-looking artificial life (the one with exocomps), though no courtroom scenes.
I think most star trek episodes can be torn apart pretty easily - I actually enjoy pointing out errors while I watch. But it’s good drama and themes with fun characters in an optimistic future, which is still a rarity decades later.
And TNG really was about taking the episodes more or less independently.
This era was also the high water mark for syndicated TV which really drove the episodic format. Viewers couldn’t be guaranteed the show would air on the same channel or even the same timeslot. So long form serial TV were really rare.
Removed by mod
Just because you got away with breaking the law for decades, doesn’t mean you weren’t breaking the law and the law can’t be applied today.
That notion is rather well addressed in Strange New Worlds s2e2 Ad Astra Per Aspera
Just because you got away with breaking the law for decades, doesn’t mean you weren’t breaking the law and the law can’t be applied today.
i mean it could tho. That’s why every lawyer answers “it depends”
Eh, soap operas had been doing serialised TV for decades before the 80s and 90s. And if you look to outside of the US, in the UK serialised TV was extremely normal, and had been for decades - ever since TV started, really. And even before that it was common in radio plays.
What bothered me most about this ep is that Riker is forced to act as some kind of prosecutor. And he’s like no, I won’t do it. And she’s like you better do it, and to the best of your ability yada yada or else I’m gonna something something. Like how is she gonna know if he does this to the best of his ability. Why wouldn’t he just completely blow it? Or at least in some plausible attempt at an effort. What was she gonna do then, have another trial for Riker for being a bad fake lawyer? Is the concept of conflict of interest not a thing in future robot court?
“You didn’t even try to turn him off!”
“I am literally incapable of doing that.”
The court thing mandates that high ranking officers are to assume the different positions needed for trial. His duty was to be the prosecutor at that moment. Not doing that could’ve been grounds for a court martial. Imagine him doing that for a murder case for someone else, totally ignoring the rules. There is no difference between a murder case and Data’s case. It would also lead to a mistrial. Sooo he would skirt his duty risking his career and nothing would change in the end - Data would probably have a new trial anyway.
Edit: there is the glarinf issue - a conflict of interest.
This is such a weird way to look at the world. “It must be this way because there are rules that say it must be that way and if we don’t follow the rules than the rules say we must fuck the career of anyone not following them.” Completely ignoring that these are rules that were made up by people with the intent of creating a capable and fair system and if the rules are bad, they can and should be changed.
Plus if you can’t find anyone to argue a position, maybe it’s a sign that that position doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on. It also doesn’t say anything good about Riker who was willing to risk his friend’s future and freedom to argue a position he strongly disagreed with because his career was at stake.
It’s standard in any command structure. Be it military or civillian shipping or something. You maybe can voice an opinion, but you are expected to do what is asked anyway.
It’s not that the position doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Defense lawyers will defend guilty people too and they will get them the best deal possible, and even let them walk if that’s what they can do. Grab a room of people who aren’t defense attorneys, and nobody would do it.
Also IIRC it was said in the episodes that it needs to be a high ranking officer. Hence Riker and Picard. There was a huge conflict of interest, but duty goes first.
The whole point of this episode is to challenge the viewer to think about the arguments. That’s all. Is it stupid as far as realism? Yeah it kinda is. But is it a subject matter many of the viewers at the time of it airing were thinking about? No.
I imagine the idea the writer had was “let’s challenge what the viewer thinks and/or feels without them knowing”. There’s a lot of that in ST throughout the years and I, for one have always been here for it.
It’s not the best episode, but it’s certainly not the worst.
I think voyager did it a little better with The Doctor, at least there was a reason why he was in the crew and was accepted as a person, but legally he was not
Every Star Trek episode involving a trial shows that the way Starfleet conducts its justice system is incredibly stupid.
The Menagerie, Measure of a Man (and like 3 other TNG episodes), Ad Astra Per Aspera, that DS9 one where the Klingons want to extradite Worf… all stupid.
The only one you can’t really blame for being stupid in this regard is Voyager, because they always have the “we aren’t in the Alpha Quadrant” excuse to fall back on.
You are not taking crazy pills, its premise does suffer when watched with a “critical eye” (i.e. thinking about it even a little).
The reason it’s remembered so fondly (imho) is two fold. It is one of the first “thought provoking” episodes. And the first couple of seasons were… not the best to put it mildly.
edit: admittedly, I do enjoy it, but I really have to turn my brain off to do so.
Honestly, the validation means the world to me. The performances were all top notch and I get the idea they’re going for, but how they went there was so painful and contrived.
lol, no kidding. Even watching it as a kid my first thought was, “the fate of Data’s rights can be determined in an impromptu court session with bridge crew acting as lawyers!? Shouldn’t they have… real courts for this?”. At the time I didn’t consider the limitations of the show of course, and I do think the willingness to tackle high concepts was what made the show so special. But damn did the limitations show in this one.
Removed by mod
Yeah this is just an excuse to talk about the mind-body problem. I like it.
Hmm for the sake of discussion, it could be such that that legal tribunal was calling into question all of that history. Just because a “crime” (in this case a misclassification) occured and was propagated for many years doesn’t mean it is correct tomorrow.
The point of the episode was the kangaroo court. It was that data had served as a valid, meaningful, human-like member of the staff for years, and all that was at risk. It does the very star trek thing of highlighting real world issues, in that people all over the world suffer from kangaroo court style judicial-injustice, and Picard’s achievement is that much more impressive given the hill to climb. (Corruption)
Even in a seemingly idealistic futurist-future, injustice can arise, and minorities can be swept up in the mess. The federation is not perfect, and this episode is a crystal clear example of it’s potential faults. (Executives with opinions trump up proceedings to bring about their own goals, essentially corrupt bureaucracy wrapped in judicial procedure)
With many of the recent supreme court rulings that have ignored or outright destroyed precedent, I could easily see a situation like you described. Somewhere offscreen a ruling had been made and this is the fallout.
Removed by mod
You forgot that it was starlet that created the need for this legal argument in the first place.
If the judge was truly moral; this trial would never have happened. If starfleet was moral, the docheberger that wanted to dismantle data would never have been a member.
Also the other best defense would have been to ask docuheberger to prove he’s not just a machine, and crusher explain in intricate detail how they can reassemble Ryker’s brain. And reattach Ryker’s limb after Warf rips it off.
(Okay, so maybe I don’t like Ryker.)
Removed by mod
The fact they had a trial to determine data’s personhood and that it was agonizingly close, that they were actually considering denying it.
If they were truly moral, the question would have never come up; or Maddox and the general would have been slapped down with a scathing “don’t be evil”.
Also, at that point data was hardly new- he’s been in starfleet for 20+ years in which Data earned his place as a decorated Lt. Commander.
In any case, this isn’t even a question for a starfleet court - this would fall under civil purview, and even hearing the trial is a miscarriage. (Also the IFP courts probably have some sort of test that doesn’t require destructive testing. Details.)
Removed by mod
Yeah sitting down and discussing all viewpoints before coming to consensus is clearly beneath Starfleet. They should just automatically know the right thing to do (which is obvs what I think is right) and clearly an interplanetary civilisation wouldn’t have any sort of conflict of interest/opinion.
Except that’s not what’s happening here. This is a criminal trial under military/starfleet law to determine if Data has the right to refuse.
This isn’t some arbitration hearing this is a criminal trial. Remember, they came and ordered him, Picard tried to stop it and failed so Data resigned his commission.
Maddox’s argument is that a toaster doesn’t get to do that. (Conveniently ignoring that toasters aren’t commissioned officers to begin with.) it’s prima facie an attempt to coerce data into doing research that will almost certainly kill him; for dubious scientific benefit.
Obviously the guy suing should understand data is clearly a person despite being a new ‘unique’ form of life in the universe that they have never interacted with before. Like come on are you telling me everyone in the federation hasn’t watched tng and become emotionally attached to the characters like I have.
Fascesiousness aside, yes. That’s exactly what should have happened.
Remember that thing called the Prime Directive? several core bits would simply not work without some definitive test as to who or what has personhood and who or what doesn’t.
Maddox’s position has the same level of standing as the recent Florida case against newspapers, where the judge responded “It’s the 4th Amendment, idiot.”
Even further there’s 20+ years of Data passing as a person so well that no one before The Jackass ever questions it. Almost like, because he meets the criteria in the same way that Jackass or Picard or Troy or even the blue barber guy does.
It’s only when Jackass wants to destructively clone Data that it’s even brought up as a question.
So YES, ABSOLUTELY, this trial should never have been allowed to ever happen.
Removed by mod
Honestly I agree, the legal parts were cringe. I even saw a legal analysis of it on YouTube and they thought it was legally great.
But it’s pretty simple in my mind: if he didn’t have agency, he wouldn’t have been able to join Starfleet. The very basis of Starfleet accepting him means that he is capable of making his own decisions. And the very act of accepting him means he is not the property of Starfleet.
Either way Data is out. Sentient because you accepted him. Not sentient means his acceptance contract is void and obviously not property of Starfleet.
Starfleet rescued him off the planet and reactivated him. He was next to Lore who was completely disassebled. To people thinking Data isn’t a person, it was a salvage operation, not a rescue. Same as getting back a derelict doesn’t make it a person and makes it the property of Starfleet.
I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re trying to say.
Salvage rights are very complex on their own, you don’t automatically own other stuff simply because you come to their rescue (as in rescuing a ship) or flip a switch. It’s quite literally someone else’s property. So Starfleet didn’t own him.
Second, he’s an officer. You have to apply to officer school. Just like the children on the ship aren’t automatically enrolled in Starfleet, they and he have to apply. It’s a serious application. It’s not like this android was just kicking around on a ship and fell into being an officer. (Same goes for enlisted.) *For anyone that doesn’t want to read my next longer comment: Data signed a contract to enlist. To sign a contract requires agency, which starfleet accepted.
Abandonned property can be taken and used. It was thought that whoever was the “owner” of Data died in the crystaline entity incident.
As for enlistment - Data could learn what he needed to probably in a day. He was a huge asset and denying him entry would be a detriment to Starfleet, even if he was a “thing”. I don’t see enlisting as something that would only be offered to humans / not things, we see a ship “enlist” in Discovery for instance.
First, was it abandoned or were the residents fleeing for their lives under duress? Yeah the latter. This is very far from being long abandoned property. Even if the owner was killed, it’s not a sudden finders keepers. There are wills, or even without a will there are still legal inheritors that the courts figure out. Again, this is not an event from long ago, it literally just happened. If you want to claim legal ownership rights over something that wasn’t yours to begin with, it’s a serious task and the burden is on you. You don’t automatically assume legal ownership, basically the court would have to find in your favor that you can claim salvage. Until and unless that happens, you don’t have legal ownership. That means any difficulty/ambiguity/complexity in the matter leans away from the courts giving you legal ownership. Also, generally as the value of the object goes up, the difficulty of the salvage ownership claim goes up. The value and complexity of a working android is unfathomable and the difficulty of your salvage claim just shot into the stratosphere.
Second enlistment. This is not about learning. Enlisting is a contract. You need to have agency to sign that contract. This is why people under 18 and feeble minded people can not enter into a contract - they do not have agency.
That’s what Picard should have argued: 1) The very act of Starfleet accepting Data’s signature shows they thought Data had agency. Precedent was set. That means both sentience and the ability to decide to resign. That alone basically wins the case. But failing that we can look at the other side: 2) If the judge says that he has no agency to resign from Starfleet, that means that Data never had agency to enlist in Starfleet in the first place. The entire contract is null and void. Data has no legal relationship with Starfleet, they can not give him orders to report to Maddox, and Data is free to go. Which leaves you with the salvage claim, and as above good luck with that you’re going to need it.
That’s basically the same as what I said before but with more elaboration. That’s as elaborate an explanation that I care to make so I think that’s my last reply.
What about him joining Star Fleet proves without any doubt that he is a person?
It’s not about proving it beyond a doubt, the OP’s frustrarion is about how the whole courtroom drama was inaccurate.
The assumtion is this: Legally, Starfleet only allows sapent adults to join its ranks. So a toaster cannot be a starfleet officer, and neither can a dog.
The fact that he is an officer means that in legal terms, Starfleet has already decided that he is a person, and any court that asks this question has a quick and easy answer.
neither can a dog
Admiral Porthos: Am I a joke to you?
The dumbest part is when the JAG appoints Riker as the…plantiff/prosecutor? And threatens to summarily vote in the plantiff’s favor if he refuses to serve in that capacity. “If you don’t do anything, you win.”
The existing legal precedent is absolutely ignored in lieu of courtroom spectacle. An excuse to have Picard wax poetic, which he does to great effect.
🥵
All Johnny 5 had to do was laugh at a religious joke told by Steve Gottenburg. Guess the 80s were more advanced socially in that regard
They sure balanced out that social advancement with Fisher Stevens face painted to be an Indian engineer.
Dude, he wasn’t playing an Indian! He clearly says that his ancestors are from Pittsburgh
(is /s necessary here? Eh, I’ll put it in anyway)
/s
Nun soup?
Your argument ignores one important aspect.
They were looking for a reason to de-person him, to take him apart, and to build loads more like him to be used as slave labor in mines and other dangerous places.
In hindsight, there’s a book that sort of covers Data early career, or at least what he was doing when Picard met him. The main focus of the book is Picard’s time before the Enterprise. https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/The_Buried_Age
Noone is sure what to make of Data at that point. He is doing some computer database management stuff at some remote location and is content to just do that. Picard shows him how to have aspirations for more.
Starfleet never really thought or cared about Data’s needs or wants, let alone sentience, until Maddox wanted to vivisect him
Didn’t Legal Eagle on yt do a video about this ep?
