Just for the 'heck' of it can we give Ethan a trial?

Who could you ever get to represent him? :)

Maby of the other castaways is a lawyer???.........
hey cupons, what is your icon?

I liked it better with Charlie as Judge and Jury.

lol me too... he desirved to die... just getting some info out of him would be nice

lol me too... he desirved to die... just getting some info out of him would be nice


You're right! Maybe he could have explained who heck Sceve was? ;)

A trial for Ethan? The count list against him would be huge. The trial would last for months, with lawyers duking it out, not for the greater good, but for the money and prestige that would go with it.

Nah. Charlie's way was better. Quick and easy and didn't cost the system a dime. ;D

I try to imagine...

"So, Ethan Rom, if that is your real name - and you are obviously not talking and telling us - you are accused of having attacked several people on the island - Doctor Jack Shepard, Jin Whateverhisnameis and Charlie Pace and reportedly threatened to "kill one of them" - a charge you have neither confirmed nor denied. You are also a suspect of the kidnapping of Claire Littleton, however as Ms. Littleton doesn't remember the kidnapping, we can't charge you with that. You are also suspect of kidnapping and attempting to kill Mr Charlie Pace, but as he doesn't remember it and no additional evidence can affirm your guilt, we can't charge you with that either. You are furthermore suspect of killing Steve, however with the jungle monster, Steve's sordid love triangle with Scott and Larry and no additional evidence being found to affirm your guilt, we once again can't charge you.

Even more problematically, we don't even know whether you really made these death threats, as the conveniently happened when nobody else could possibly overhear them. Especially the death threat made in the presence of Jack Shepard appears fishy. So in conclusion... on the charge of hitting Jin with a stone and chasing Claire down the jungle for* five second, we consider you guilty. Everything else - not guilty. The court of Craphole Island sentences you to washing the dishes for the next three months."


Seriously, guys, if Ethan got a fair trial, it would have been extremely difficult to prove beyond doubt that he and nobody else was responsible for Steve's death, Charlie's hanging and Claire's kidnapping.* The victims cannot speak, there are Other people, who could have done these acts instead of him, there is the rumble in the jungle and a crazy Frenchwoman and Jack's testimony of Ethan's death threat in is undermined by the fact that Kate didn't witness it, although she should have. Charlie's testimony is more reliable, but considering that he openly blames Ethan for Claire's disappearance, not *that* reliable. If Ethan denied all charges, then without any further evidence like fingerprints, DNA samples etc (they are stranded on an island in the Pacific Ocean, so let's dream on), it would be pretty hard to convict him and call it a fair trial.

I am not saying that Ethan is innocent, but can you think of any way that the islanders could use to confirm whether Ethan (and absolutely nobody else) is truly guilty? To convict him they would need to prove his guilt beyond doubt. And they can't.

I am not saying that Ethan is innocent, but can you think of any way that the islanders could use to confirm whether Ethan (and absolutely nobody else) is truly guilty? To convict him they would need to prove his guilt beyond doubt. And they can't.


Maybe he drew some emo pictures when he was 15. Saw someone on Cold Case Files the other day convicted of murder and the strength of the case was built on the interpretation of pictures the guy drew around the time of the murder, which was when he was 15. I was not convinced.

You're right though. They really don't have that solid of a case. Don't think many state's attorneys would prosecute without a little more evidence than what we've got. Forensics or something like that.

I am not saying that Ethan is innocent, but can you think of any way that the islanders could use to confirm whether Ethan (and absolutely nobody else) is truly guilty? To convict him they would need to prove his guilt beyond doubt. And they can't.


Not to get all hypertechnical, but this is mis-stating the law.* There is no requirement that the prosecution prove that a defendant acted alone or that nobody else was involved.* Nor do they have to bring charges against all defendants or even explain the exact mode that the crime was committed.

Ethan's statements to Charlie would be sufficient to convict him of (1) kidnapping Claire, (2) conspiracy to Kidnap Claire, (3) attempted kidnapping of Claire, (4) Assault of Charlie, and (5) conspiracy to commit murder.

Further, the threat to kill a person (general or specific), coupled with the actual killing of a person under the threatened circumstances, would be sufficient to support a murder conviction.

I'm a little less sure of the actual kidnapping charge, simply because we don't have actual evidence that Ethan participated in the act.* However, the punishment for the "inchoate" crimes of attempt and conspiracy would be equal to the punishment for the kidnapping itself.* However, I think that a conviction could be supported by Ethan's presence at the scene, coupled with his threat to Jack that he would "kill one of them" and with his demand that Charlie give Claire back.

If Ethan were tried, assuming the jury believed Charlie, he'd be toast.* The proper test is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt.* The phrase often used is whether the evidence presented would give the jury "an abiding conviction" that the defendant in fact committed the crime.* I truly think we could meet that standard here.

-- Methuselah, Esq.

Maybe he drew some emo pictures when he was 15. Saw someone on Cold Case Files the other day convicted of murder and the strength of the case was built on the interpretation of pictures the guy drew around the time of the murder, which was when he was 15. I was not convinced.


:laugh: Yes, at one point, Ethan was a pseudo-tortured artist. His life was a black hole of deep depression. I can just imagine what his poems must have been like.

Why, oh, why is the world such a painful place
Even my tears burn as they roll down my face

And so on...

But a good defense lawyer could easily call Charlie's credibility into question. A recovering heroin addict still going through the psychological stages of withdrawl who at one point in time did steal something from a girlfriend. Not to mention he was also hung and the lawyers could question Charlie's mental condition after experiencing such a traumatic event, both emotionally and physically. If the defense can make the jury doubt Charlie at all, you've got a big hole in your case.

That's why I'm saying they'll need more evidence than what they've got.

I agree.
I don't even know if this case would go to court with the little amount of evidence and the metal state of the witnesses.

The jury wouldn't be ably to make a decision even if it did go to Court. even if all of us at the fuselage were to be the jury i dont think a decision could be made, and we actually saw all of the threats. if i were on the jury i wouldnt know what to do

we saw the threats but its debatable as to wether or not they were dreams(although i believe they actually happened) and we never really did see Ethan kill anyone. i would want to kill him but without evidence or forensics most would have a guilty conscience(if this was real and we were actually killing someone that is)

Maby of the other castaways is a lawyer???.........
hey cupons, what is your icon?


its coconut trees I thought they would be nice for a desert island show that didn't have any. In fact I thought maybe it was like 'no brushes' but have come to the conclusion that it was poor prop placement (or bad desert island casting) :lol2:

If I were on the jury I would have to find Ethan not guilty. I just think they done made a HUUUGE mistake killing him. I don't think Ethan was the bad guy at all. Charlie killed probably the only guy who could have told them where and what the 'others' are, and what they wanted with Claire. I believe that Ethan was trying to protect Claire but going about it in a Locke-ish kind of way where as long as the end result is achieved, anything he had to do along the way was justifiable.

As long as we're holding trials, can we have one for Charlie?

There were no witnesses to Sceve's murder. There were no witnesses to Charlie and Claire's kidnapping or Charlie's hanging, and even the victims themselves can't remember any of it. The only witness to Ethan's threat to "kill everyone, Charlie last" would be the defendant himself. There are however, 6 witnesses that saw Charlie gun down an unarmed man.

If I were on the jury in both of these trials, I'd have to let Ethan go, and lock Charlie up for life.

Can't say they'd lock Charlie up for life, Qboots. The highest I could see him getting is 2nd degree unless someone can prove premeditation. Most likely, he could plea bargin to manslaughter and that can get a person as little as 18 months.

How's this for premeditation: After Ethan knocked Jin out and threatened Charlie, Charlie ran back to the beach and told Locke and Jack. They discussed what should be done. Charlie said, "What do we do? We go out and we bloody kill him!"

Missed that part. Heh. Yeah, if Jack and Locke could be maintained as credible, then yeah, that could prove premeditation and could get Charlie 1st degree. But that's still no guarantee he'd get life. Depends on the state and the jury and whatnot. He could just get 20 to life with parole in 15 or less.

I don't mean this to be hostile, but the responses in this thread are evidence of why our jury system is messed up. We have absolutely clear evidence that Ethan committed several crimes (such as there even IS a crime on an island with no system of laws).

But people are wringing their hands and twisting their brains in an attempt to make this more complex than it should be. I'll freely admit that a former heroin addict isn't the best witness in the world. However, we actually KNOW what Charlies saw. WE don't need to test Charlie's credibility. We saw it happen. True, some of the events on the show were hallucinations, but we can't get into that, or we will find ourselves having to question whether Claire is even a real person who could be kidnapped. So, provided we can set aside the solipsism, the evidence is clear.

Even if the evidence WERE only presented by way of Charlie's testimony, we would have the corroborating testimony of the rest of the castaways.

In short, the only reason this would be a hard case for the prosecution is the fact that criminal juries find themselves populated by mush-brains.

[Soap box off]

-- Methuselah

Ethan , you are hereby sentenced to wear the title of the first creepy mean guy on LOST. Let it be known, that even though he was unjustly not given a trial before his death, he would have gotten the death penatly in the state of Texas and since thats where Sawyers from, I think, then it counts.
LOL
Lalalala...

I don't mean this to be hostile, but the responses in this thread are evidence of why our jury system is messed up. *We have absolutely clear evidence that Ethan committed several crimes (such as there even IS a crime on an island with no system of laws). *But the Island is probably part of some country so the laws of that country would apply or at least international law. However if it is an unclaimed island then the others (Ethan's folks) would have a say on what the law is. Perhaps Ethan was indulging in their accepted and legal way to obtain a bride when he took Claire. :-\ *He was also defending the home land against invaders and criminals. *:'( Ethan may be a hero! * I think that they need to get their ducks in a row in case Ethan's folks ever ask what happened. The others may not be hostile to our group unless they think that our group makes it a point to shoot down the locals.

Actually I thought this discussion 1. assumed laws similar to our own (we posters do cover several countries with differing laws) and 2. assumed the Lost People did not have our knowledge of events but were instead limited to what they saw & heard. Personally I was happy to see Charlie blast Ethan because we (audience) know Ethan is guilty, but how do the Lost People know?

In short, the only reason this would be a hard case for the prosecution is the fact that criminal juries find themselves populated by mush-brains. Well gee doesn't that make it a jury of the criminal's peers?

For sake of speculation:

Forensic capabilities:
-- Danielle might have a microscope stowed away somewhere.
-- The rifle scope could be converted into a microscope.
-- At worst, should enough people have glasses, *something* could be botched together.

-- A microscope could be immensely helpful for piecing together soil, fibre and blood samples.
-- Jack might be capable of performing *some* chemical analysis.
-- Danielle might likewise have something to contribute to that.

Physical evidence:
-- The marks on Ethan's face might be from Claire's fingers.
-- The sling might be found on Ethan.
-- Something on Steve's body might be linkable to Ethan, or vice versa.

Witness statements:
-- Charlie can testify that Ethan kidnapped Claire.

-- Jack can testify that Ethan threatened to kill Charlie.
-- Everyone can testify that *someone* hung Charlie.
-- Kate can testify that Jack couldn't have done it.

-- Jin can testify that he was slingshot.
-- Charlie can testify that it was Ethan, and that Ethan threatened to kill another person.
-- Everyone can testify that another person was killed.

So in fact... a trial based on evidence might *very theoretically* be possible.
It might be possible to collect enough evidence to either confirm or deny,
from the viewpoint of the crash survivors, what we (from a third perspective) simply know.

Did Ethan take Claire's necklace? I don't remember seeing it on her.

-- Jack can testify that Ethan threatened to kill Charlie.

ooh ooh, wouldn't that be classified as hearsay and therefore inadmissible?

Loving this thread! ;D

I think Charlie could plead temporary insanity...or if the jury has at the least half comprised of females he could turn on his sweet innocent tortured soul act, shed a few tears and get let off. *Yes...some of us women and even some men are saps for the 'lost boy' routine.* 'Give me another chance..I'll do better. I want to do better..its just...(widens eyes in a look of utmost sincerity) I couldnt' help myself. After what he did to Claire..I just snapped.(tears start to well up in his eyes) etc etc etc.... and then the jurors start crying and wailing.."Oh..that poor boy!"* :D

*(kidding..kidding. I actually LIKE Charlie but I can also make fun of him )

While we are at it..can we put Jack in front of an AMA board of review? (I'm NOT Jack bashing here..just trying to play fair)

But the Island is probably part of some country so the laws of that country would apply or at least international law.
Speaking from a third perspective now (of a viewer):

-- Even if no law applied, certain principles would still apply.
-- Such principles should include the unacceptability of harming someone
who has not harmed another.

-- Claire and Charlie did not initiate harm towards Ethan.
(Initially, that is. I am assuming the trial would be made possible
by Charlie refraining from shooting him later.)

-- Most probably, neither did Steve or Jack.
-- Hence, responsibility for conflict would lie on Ethan. Even if "defending his homeland",
he should *not* have initiated violence.

-- Jack can testify that Ethan threatened to kill Charlie.
ooh ooh, wouldn't that be classified as hearsay and therefore inadmissible?


Actually, it would not be hearsay under American, British or Australian law.* A statement is only hearsay if it is offered for the "truth of the matter asserted."*

For example, if Charlie heard Ethan say, "I am the King of England," then Charlie could testify about the statement if the prosecution were trying to prove that Ethan said it, but not if they were trying to prove he actually was the King of England.* Further, a statement is not hearsay if it has independent legal significance.* For example, if a person tells a salesman, "I'll take it," then the salesman's testimony about the statement is not hearsay because "I'll take it" has the legal significance of forming a contract for the purchase/sale of an item.

Here, the threat itself is legally significant.* It is evidence of conspiracy and attempted murder and kidnapping* Further, the statement would very likely fall within one of the exceptions to hearsay.* At a minimum, it is an admission against interest and goes to state of mind.

It really comes down to this:* Ethan could be convicted of a number of crimes based on the admissible evidence we know.* It would simply be a matter of a jury IQ test.

-- Methuselah

Maybe I'm just one of those mush-brains (all IQ tests I've taken have come back between 139 and 142, and my SAT scores were in the 98th and 99th percentile), but I really don't get how Ethan could possibly be convicted on all these charges. Kidnapping- Claire can't testify, as she doesn't even remember him, or what happened to her. Charlie also seems to have a big hole in his memory there. The threat was addressed solely to Charlie, and no one else heard- Charlie's testimony would be damaged by his relationship with Claire, his hatred for Ethan, his own threats against Ethan's life, and the fact that he shot Ethan, and most likely killed him. I can see the assault charge against Jin sticking. No one witnessed the murder of Scott/Steve, and there's reasonable doubt there.

And that being said, do we even know this would fall under American, British or Australian law?

I have a thread that makes a case for ETHANS innocence.
http://www.thefuselage.com/threaded/index.php?topic=6442.msg105097#msg105097
hopefully someone will make some replies on that thread and keep it alive.

That would be my defense. The court would have to be held on the ISLAND and take into account the mysterious happenings on the ISLAND.

And that being said, do we even know this would fall under American, British or Australian law? Don't forget French law. Danielle said she was only 3 days out of Tahiti.

I think there is enough evidence to convict Ethan of several crimes. But then, while on the island, Jack, Sawyer, Jin, Sayid, Michael, Locke and Charlie as well as Danielle have also all participated in actions that would be crimes in almost any country. Boone uh maybe the theft of water would warrant conviction for a mild offense?

Maybe I'm just one of those mush-brains (all IQ tests I've taken have come back between 139 and 142, and my SAT scores were in the 98th and 99th percentile), but I really don't get how Ethan could possibly be convicted on all these charges. Kidnapping- Claire can't testify, as she doesn't even remember him, or what happened to her. Charlie also seems to have a big hole in his memory there. The threat was addressed solely to Charlie, and no one else heard- Charlie's testimony would be damaged by his relationship with Claire, his hatred for Ethan, his own threats against Ethan's life, and the fact that he shot Ethan, and most likely killed him. I can see the assault charge against Jin sticking. No one witnessed the murder of Scott/Steve, and there's reasonable doubt there.


OK, I want to tread lightly here, because I don't have any interest in letting my involvement in this degenerate into a flame war. *First of all, your test scores don't prove anything about the present discussion. *Plus, last time I checked, SAT score percentiles were expressed in ranges, not fixed numbers. *Still, assuming you are being honest and accurate, your IQ is not persuasive, and someone of your IQ should know that.

My argument relies on my law degree and my knowledge of American and British common law. *However, I am fairly well versed in French civil law, too.

It's silly to argue that Claire would have to testify to support a kidnapping conviction. *By that reasoning, nobody could ever be convicted of kidnapping an infant. *The truth is that the kidnapping charge would stand based on Ethan's presence at the scene when Charlie and Claire disappeared, his statement to Jack that, if Jack didn't stop following him, he "would kill one of them," and his demand to Charlie that they "give Claire back." *Charlie's potential bias does not undermine his credibility enough to establish reasonable doubt unless you are trying to go out of your way to find it. *Also, the source of Charlie's bias is the things that Ethan did to Charlie. *In essence, you are saying we can't trust Charlie's word that Ethan did X, because Charlie is mad because Ethan did X. *That is circular reasoning at its plainest.

The strongest argument in favor of Ethan's guilt is that we all have known that Ethan had Claire from watching the episode. *The only information we got from the episode came from Jack's perspective, not Charlie's.

I've never said that Ethan could be convicted of the murder of "Sceve." *However, I do think there is a good case for conspiracy to murder and attempted murder. *While we're at it, there's a pretty good case for felony murder of Sceve, though.

If anyone has a LEGAL argument against my position, then I'd be interested in hearing it. *But, I haven't heard one yet.

-- Methuselah

All I was trying to point out is that you don't have to be a 'mush brain' to disagree with your view of the law. And if you order the full report on your scoring with your SATs, they do tell you what percentile you fall into. I think they do on the normal score report as well. There's no proof that Ethan did, in fact, kidnap Claire and Charlie. Not even the viewers saw that. There's no way to extract Ethan's skin from under Claire's fingernails, and prove that she scratched him, without DNA testing. There's basically no case. Claire doesn't remember that Ethan was there before the kidnapping, and Charlie's credibility would certainly be challenged, especially as he'd be on trial for the (possibly attempted) murder of Ethan at the same time.


The strongest argument in favor of Ethan's guilt is that we all have known that Ethan had Claire from watching the episode. The only information we got from the episode came from Jack's perspective, not Charlie's.

Where do we learn that Ethan had Claire, even if not from Jack's perspective? When I watch the episode, I don't see this. I see Ethan approach and run after Claire, Jack run after Ethan, Jack beat up Ethan, basically no communication, and Charlie shoot Ethan.

The way RBA ended, we really don't know Ethan took Claire and/or Charlie. There's many plausible theories concerning this. As it is, Charlie still doesn't even know what happened, as his story has changed. (First, there was a 'they' who wanted Claire; next, he's telling Claire that Ethan's the bad guy. And it didn't seem like a case of the 'royal we' to me).

As for the fight scene in ATBCHDI, that whole scene is up for debate, as to whether or not Jack actually saw Ethan. It's been pointed out the abrasions on Jack's face during and after the fight are different, and the footprints on his shirt suddenly disappear. Plus, Kate should've seen the whole thing. If anything, she'd have to testify that yeah, she was right there, and no, she didn't see so much as a sign of Ethan.

There's no proof that Ethan did, in fact, kidnap Claire and Charlie. Uh wait Ethan told Jack that if he kept following them he would kill one of them. If that doesn't mean he had Charlie & Claire, then who did he have? Charlies condition when found matched Ethan's threat. Plus Ethan told Charlie he wanted Claire back. Charlie's word on this is supported by Jack's above experience with Ethan and by the way the threat, that Charlie reported Ethan as making, was carried out. I think it is a little hard to deny that Ethan kidnapped Claire and killed Cleve or whoever that was.

The mush brain remark came across as lumping those holding the view that "there may not be enough evidence to convict Ethan" with the mush-brained jurors. :P I agree with you don't have to be a 'mush brain' to disagree with your view of the law. The normal run of posters are not experts on law. If they or a mush-brained jury fail to convict on the evidence that you find so persuasive, then you may want to examine the prosecutor's persuasive ability.

edited to correct spelling - boy does it weaken a post to mispell simple words :-[

OK, if we are going to take evidence of Ethan's guilt and write it off as hallucination, then there is no point in going any further. *We have to assume that the events on the show actually happened unless something in the story tells us otherwise.

Ethan's statement that he "would kill one of them" together with Charlie's actual hanging is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind that Ethan actually had Charlie and Claire. *Ethan's statement that he wanted Claire back seals the deal.

When Ethan demanded that Charlie bring Claire to him, that was an independent crime in its own right. *It is solicitation of kidnapping, and would be considered conspiracy in most jurisdictions. *There is no question that Ethan said this. *

Ethan's statement that one person would die each day, together with the actual death of Sceve, would be sufficient to establish felony murder. *This would be true even if Sceve died accidentally. *Ethan's threat created a circumstance that resulted in a death. *The threat constituted an inherently dangerous felony. *In most jurisdictions, this too would be enough to convict for Sceve's murder. *(This is the same result if a guy robs a convenience store, and the store owner chases him out the door, only to get fatally struck by a car, completely by accident. *That's felony murder.)

So, unless you can't believe Charlie's report of Ethan's threat, there is enough evidence from the threat alone to establish convictions for solicitation and felony murder. *If you DON'T believe Charlie's report, it's only because you are trying too hard not to.

As to whether a person is, or is not, a mush brain if they disagree with my view of the law, that wasn't my point. The "mush brain" comment related to people going out of their way to avoid critical thought. Specifically, it dealt with people trying to dream up reasons NOT to believe the testimony of a witness, especially considering that we all witnessed the events on the show, anyway. Agreeing or disagreeing with my view of the law does not reflect on a person's intelligence. Although, it may reflect on their judgment. I am a real-life lawyer with a real-life understanding of the law. Feel free to disagree with me on the law, but please base it on something you know, not something you think you remember from having a Tivo season pass of JAG and a DVD collection of Ally McBeal reruns.

-- Methuselah

You have to remember that everything is not as it seems in this series. * The most glaring being Boone's hallucination of Shannon being killed. *If you take everything at face value, yes Ethan is guilty if by nothing else circumstantial evidence. *We've* seen real trials result in conviction with much less. *But in this case on this ISLAND, *we need to have a willing suspense of disbelief. *Therefore, with questions looming as to whether there are more than 1 Ethan, OTHERS who could have *done it themselves or used sometype of mind manipulation. *Me thinks the jury's still out.

Professor Law I bow to your knowledge. I wasn't aware we were actually trying this case on COURT TV, and there are at least 12 nonlawyers, in most cases, that determine guilt or innocence, not just a Judge and 2 lawyers. Therefore the jury has as much right to pore over the evidence and come to their own conclusions, whether you agree with them or not. When thinking critically, one can also come to conclusions that all is not as it appears to be when it in itself, defies logic.

Sorry, Methuselah, didn't mean to get your blood pressure up. I was just looking at this whole scenerio as if it were to happen as an actual incident and what the defense strategy might be, what they might attack on the prosecution's case.

It could be worse. I could be justifying Ethan's actions using a lovely innovative defense like he ate too much pineapple and it set him off.

I'm certainly not trying to write it all off as a hallucination. The only scene I'm wondering about is the Jack one in ATBCHDI. The suddenly clean shirt, the different wounds, Kate's reaction- those weren't just continuity issues. It's entirely possible that scene didn't happen, and Kate's testimony that she didn't see/hear anything, given that it was a very obvious fight, wouldn't help.

The problem, of course, is that it's a television show, and therefore, all about perception. Plus, we're not even sure if this island has an established jurisdiction. There are no laws or code in place.

As for felony murder, I'll certainly admit you know more about law than I do, but doesn't the defense just have to establish reasonable doubt? Ethan's got that in bundles with the Scott/Steve crime. The fact that no one seemed to notice the victim was missing, that every bone in his body was broken, that nobody saw anything suspicious- well, it suggests something Ethan didn't necessarily do. He would've needed time to break the major bones in Scott/Steve's body, and someone surely would've noticed (especially the other half of Scott/Steve, as they were always shown together) the victim's absence for an extended period of time. And with another 'murderer' on the island- the 'monster,' who has already torn apart one person, and seems much more capable of crushing bones quickly, there's all the reasonable doubt the jury would need.

I think that we are approaching this "trial" differently.

I see some people arguing about information that we know from watching the show. (And all our doubts and wild theories, which may prove to ultimately be correct.)

Then I see some people arguing this case as it would be argued as if the events of Lost were real, and the Lost-aways had a trial amongst themselves, using only the knowledge that they have from their own experiences. I, personally, like this approach best.

Kate did seem to think that perhaps Jack just fell and hit his head, but all she could really say was that she didn't see Ethan beat up Jack. She and Jack did cut Charlie down. Claire was taken, and she returned. Jin was hit. Charlie was threatened by Ethan. Scott/Steve is dead. Etc.

And I have heard it said that CSI has ruined modern juries. Folks, we did not have DNA evidence until very recently (or even finger print evidence), but have still managed as societies to convict people of crimes, usually based on eye-witness testimony. (Yes, we all know that can sometimes be horribly wrong, but you work with what you have.)

edited to correct spelling

You have to remember that everything is not as it seems in this series. * The most glaring being Boone's hallucination of Shannon being killed. *If you take everything at face value, Taking things at face value, if we saw someone on the show depositing organic materials complete with DNA into an electromechanical replicating device, would that be proof that he was attempting to create a clone? *:P

Indiansummer, I see where you are coming from but I don't see reasonable doubt coming from your list.
Plus, we're not even sure if this island has an established jurisdiction. There are no laws or code in place. Are you saying no law exists for the castaways once they are outside of the territory of a known country? *Somehow I doubt that even if I am not an attorney. But in any case I have even more doubt that the island is in a place claimed by no nation and thus without laws.

I like the approach of treating this based on what the characters can see and hear or experience, not what we the audience have access to.

You can call me Summer. I don't mean that the island necessarily isn't claimed by someone, but that if there was an actual trial... well, what would you file under, as no one seems to know where they are, yet alone what jurisdiction they fall under. A big part of the show is defining these things- when it's okay to use torture, that kind of thing.

If you look at it from what the characters know, Jack's testimony is flawed. A good cross-examination would prove that he has had hallucinations in the past, no more than a week or two before the supposed altercation took place (Jack asked Kate if she saw his dad in the ocean, or something like that). That, with Kate's "I didn't see or hear anything, even though I was just above Jack" would certainly make the jury wonder.

That both Charlie and Claire are unable to remember the events, and there were no other witnesses, that further weakens the case. You could say that the scratches on Ethan's face are defensive wounds, most likely from Claire, but without her being able to say so, it's just as likely he got them while fighting some 'other' in the jungle.

The assault on Jin, any jury would convict him for without a second thought, I think. There's the weapon, Jin's testimony, Charlie's witness statement, and the injury.

Scott/Steve... well, even the viewers are doubting whether or not Ethan actually was responsible for that. He may be strong, but I don't think he's that strong.

I know I must sound like I'm some devotee of David Hume, but "Ethan not being on the roster" and "Ethan approaching Charlie and Claire in a clearing" does not equal "Ethan kidnapping Charlie and Claire, hanging Charlie, and holding Claire hostage."

I

If we are taking it according to what the characters can see *or hear . *Then it would be a slam dunk.

Ethan has made 2 threats. *After the first Charlie was hung. *After the second Scott was found brutally

murdered. *According to witnesses, he was in the area.

Motive: *Wants Claire-has expressed it no need to understand why.

Opportunity: *Charlie found right after threat *Ethan was in vicinity. *Scott found after threat to Charlie
* * * * * * * * * * * *he was in the vicinity.

MEANS: *Has exhibited super strength not beyond reason that he could hang Charlie and *brutalize
* * * * * * * * Scott * with his bare hands. *Has exhibited violence behavior in the past (JACK).

Except Jack took him out pretty easily in that fight at the end. I'm thinking Scott/Steve would struggle, and I can't picture Ethan, who Jack was able to neutralize fairly quickly, being able to break the major bones in Scott/Steve's body with his bare hands, especially with nobody noticing.

Plus, who's to say he was in the vicinity? No one saw Ethan anywhere near the crime scene.

Even if the island is unclaimed by any nation, doesn't mean that a trial couldn't take place.
The Lost-aways are now creating a civilization on the island (whether they like it or not). They come to the island with a sense of right and wrong and moral justice. Most of them even share a tradition of English commom law. They are trying to maintain some order, and to protect themselves.
And sometimes a trial happens just so a society and it's citizens will feel protected, safe, orderly. So far I haven't heard anyone on the island say a word in defense of Ethan (other than Locke saying that he hadn't "sensed" anything off about him). Jack, et al may be angry with Charlie for killing Ethan, but that seems to mean they think he's guilty and want to question him further.

No, I understand a trial could occur- I'm just thinking that in realistic terms, it wouldn't stand. The laws didn't technically exist beforehand, if it's unchartered, and if there is some system in place, nobody's aware of it.

I'm not saying Ethan's innocent. I'm just saying that realistically, with a fair and impartial jury (in other words, not Charlie, Jack, Sayid, etc.) I don't think Ethan would be found guilty on all counts.

Fun thread! *:)

Two threats. 1st threat to Jack "Jump-to-Conclusions" Shepherd, whose testimony would be weakened since he has previously hallucinated, AND reversed a sworn statement at his father's medical review. *He also is known to jump to the WRONG conclusion and to react with violence, as he did with Sawyer. 2nd threat to Charlie "Junk-Monkey" Pace, and what jury would ignore the fact that Charlie is a heroin addict who is obsessed with Claire, and went so far as to read her diary while she was missing. He also killed Ethan before he could be interrogated. (Anyone remember Jack Ruby?) Jin never saw what hit him, let alone who.

Motive: IF Ethan threatened Jack, he never mentioned Claire by name and IF Ethan knocked out Jin and demanded Claire's return from Charlie, and IF he actually kidnapped Claire, there were no RELIABLE witnesses.See 'Threats' above.

Opportunity: Jack SAYS he saw Ethan before they found Charlie. Charlie SAYS Ethan threatened to kill castaways before they found Scott. See 'Threats' above.

Means: We believe Ethan has the strength to whup Jack without Jack laying a finger on him, then haul Charlie 20 feet up a tree and HANG him while Claire stands by and waits for her kidnapper (?!?), keeps her prisoner for two weeks then somehow gives her amnesia BEFORE she escapes, picks Charlie up and shakes him like a ragdoll, then sneaks into camp and murders Scott in a VERY violent manner without ANYONE hearing or seeing anything, and yet on his second attempt to grab Claire, Jack easily beats the cr@p out of Ethan all by his little ole self ?-?-?-? *::)

I don't think the evidence against Ethan is overwhelming. The only fact we know for sure is that the name, Ethan Rom, is not on the manifest. *I think many viewers are allowing what we have been shown, which is in reality VERY LITTLE, to influence our opinion against Ethan. No other character on this show has been what they first appeared to be... why Ethan?

I will admit that Ethan COULD be guilty, but I'm leaning against it at the moment, and if I were on a jury I couldn't vote to convict on the basis of what we have seen. And Methuselah, I certainly don't have a legal background or experience, but I certainly HOPE someone could not be convicted on evidence from such questionable witnesses in the real world. *;D

As someone earlier pointed out, 2 dynamics are going on in this thread.
Those who want to use everything we have gleaned from the show.
Our doubts about the reality of the first Jack/Ethan fight, the fact that only 2 people(possibly a 3rd Claire) have had any contact with the deranged Ethan. Both, you can argue may have hallucinated, or been the subjected to mental projections. The probability that even a super strength Ethan would have a difficult time actually doing what he is accused of.

And the second group, just using the facts that the characters in the program have access to. In order to have this trial at all, arguing over jurisdiction, whose laws would be used, must be mute points. At this time their are marooned on the Island and it is up to the 45 people of the Island to decide. But let's just say Trial by Jury as we know it.
The characters know:
They set up guards to protect them from Ethan, everyone was moved to the beach and all know Scott was brutally murdered, Claire was abducted, Jack was beaten, Jin was assaulted and Charlie was hung.

Personally, I prefer to do it as the viewers because I want to hash out what is really going on in the story line. As I said an Island trial with only Island knowledge is slam dunk over.

The interesting part would be to prove Ethan innocent, because then we have to figure out IF NOT ETHAN WHO?

OK, if we are going to take evidence of Ethan's guilt and write it off as hallucination, then there is no point in going any further. We have to assume that the events on the show actually happened unless something in the story tells us otherwise.

Ethan's statement that he "would kill one of them" together with Charlie's actual hanging is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind that Ethan actually had Charlie and Claire. Ethan's statement that he wanted Claire back seals the deal.

When Ethan demanded that Charlie bring Claire to him, that was an independent crime in its own right. It is solicitation of kidnapping, and would be considered conspiracy in most jurisdictions. There is no question that Ethan said this.

Ethan's statement that one person would die each day, together with the actual death of Sceve, would be sufficient to establish felony murder. This would be true even if Sceve died accidentally. Ethan's threat created a circumstance that resulted in a death. The threat constituted an inherently dangerous felony. In most jurisdictions, this too would be enough to convict for Sceve's murder. (This is the same result if a guy robs a convenience store, and the store owner chases him out the door, only to get fatally struck by a car, completely by accident. That's felony murder.)

So, unless you can't believe Charlie's report of Ethan's threat, there is enough evidence from the threat alone to establish convictions for solicitation and felony murder. If you DON'T believe Charlie's report, it's only because you are trying too hard not to.


I don't know whether Ethan is indeed guilty of all the things he was accused of. But a prosecutor would have to lay out a more convincing case than you have done before I would vote to convict.

As others have pointed out, Jack's encounter with Ethan in the jungle is suspect. Jack was exhausted, racing around the jungle in circles for quite a while before the real hunt actually started (he was obsessing about his father). He slipped and fell after hearing a scream that Kate, who was with him at the time, didn't hear. He hit his head and appeared to be unconscious. He looks up (is he hallucinating?) and there's Ethan. Ethan is wearing what appears to have been a different shirt than he had on at the time he encountered Claire and Charlie.

If Ethan is really there, fighting Jack and threatening to kill "one of them," where were Charlie and Claire? If Jack really heard Claire scream, where is she? If Ethan's busy with Jack, why didn't Claire and Charlie run away? Kate didn't see Ethan. When Jack claims Ethan was right there, Kate says, "you hit your head...you've got to stop..."

I'm inclined to hold Ethan responsible for Charlie's hanging, even though I don't know how he managed it by himself. Unfortunately, Charlie's a lousy witness since he remembers nothing. "I didn't see anything, hear anything..." he claims. The only thing he remembers is that "they" wanted Claire. Not "he," not "Ethan wanted Claire." "They."

Meanwhile Claire, who's been missing for a week and has presumably been in the company of Ethan during that time, doesn't remember anything either. If I were sitting on Ethan's jury, I would find this circumstance unfortunate for the prosecution.

The threat against Charlie is pretty indisputable, as is the attack on Jin, so Ethan definitely goes down for those two actions. I'm not sure I buy your argument re the death of Scott, though. You say the death of Scott would be felony murder because of the threat, even if Scott died accidentally? Could you elaborate on that? Essentially 46 people were threatened, and one of them died. Suppose Scott were killed by someone else who had it in for him and used the opportunity afforded by the threat to commit murder. Would Ethan still be held culpable of murder because he created a situation that someone else took advantage of?

Personally I suspect the monster killed Sceve, particularly given the peculiar manner of his death. And I would like to know more about the Others, whether they colluded with Ethan in Claire's kidnapping, and whether they had anything to do with Scott's death.

Templeton

The whole point is that both time that Ethan allegedly made threats, there were no independant witnesses. The first time a threat was allegedly made it was to a man who was suffering sleep deprivation, who we know had already had hallucinations previously, been running around a jungle for hours before slipping and falling quite badly resulting in unconsciousness for a few seconds possibly longer. There were no witnesses to the threat or even the fact that Ethan was there. As someone else pointed out, if indeed Ethan was there and did issue the threat, who was holding Claire at the time and hanging Charlie? This introduces reasonable doubt. I don't think that the alleged threat to Jack would fly because of those reasons.

The threat allegedly made to Charlie, once again, there were no independant witnesses to the threat. Jin was rendered unconscious at the time and neither saw Ethan or heard the alleged threat issued. We have only the word of a recovering drug addict, who has been shown to be a habitual liar and a thief, that the threat was even made. Again I don't think this would be considered admissible evidence.

I think that a GOOD defence attorrney would be able to use the words Charlie said about "they only wanted Claire" in his clients favour, using it as evidence to try to show that the real baddies are 'others unknown' and that his client was only trying to protect Claire from said 'others unknown' It cannot be proven at all that Ethan was working with anybody else, yet Charlie definitely said 'they' in front of other witnesses.

Wouldn't Charlie's testifying be a conflict of interest anyway? I mean, if prosecution calls a witness who is currently trying to get off for a violent felony committed against Ethan?

Um, yeah, really reliable witness there. He shot an unarmed, neutralized man, who held no threat to anyone at that moment. And unlike Ethan, he did so with five witnesses.

I personally think (especially since the crimes required physical contact, and some involved outright mud-wrestling) that simply a good microscope... would go a long way towards getting physical evidence.

With a microscope, one could compare:
-- Soil and plant residue (on clothing, footwear and even in wounds)
-- Marks of struggle and weapon use (on clothes and people)

Example 1:

If fibres extracted from Charlie's neck are likewise found on Ethan's hands (or embedded in his shirt), suspicion of Ethan being involved in hanging Charlie would be strongly supported.

Example 2:

If the surface of the tree on which Charlie was hung (or other nearby plants) has caught fibres from Ethan's clothing, suspicion of Ethan being involved in Charlie's hanging would be strongly supported.

Example 3:

If both Jack's and Ethan's clothing contain soil matching the site of their alleged fight (or the soil and nearby plants contain fragments of their clothing) one could reasonably suspect they *did* fight over there.

P.S.

In addition, despite rain... some footprints in dryer places might still be available for analysis. Using those, one *could* determine if Ethan accompanied Claire and Charlie (assuming he didn't change shoes, or a reference of his shoeprints can be located).

I personally think (especially since the crimes required physical contact, and some involved outright mud-wrestling) that simply a good microscope... would go a long way towards getting physical evidence.

With a microscope, one could compare:
-- Soil and plant residue (on clothing, footwear and even in wounds)
-- Marks of struggle and weapon use (on clothes and people)

Example 1:

If fibres extracted from Charlie's neck are likewise found on Ethan's hands (or embedded in his shirt), suspicion of Ethan being involved in hanging Charlie would be strongly supported.

Example 2:

If the surface of the tree on which Charlie was hung (or other nearby plants) has caught fibres from Ethan's clothing, suspicion of Ethan being involved in Charlie's hanging would be strongly supported.

Example 3:

If both Jack's and Ethan's clothing contain soil matching the site of their alleged fight (or the soil and nearby plants contain fragments of their clothing) one could reasonably suspect they *did* fight over there.


This is of course true, but it could be argued that since they are both inhabitants of the same environment then it is not unusual for them both to have the same fibres on their clothing etc. Especially as I imagine Ethan would not try to deny his existance on the island, only the charges levelled against him. It would also be noted that in all occasions cited above, Kate would have the same fibres on her body therefore strengthening the defence that the fibres were there as a result of living in the same environment, rather than from participating in the crimes.

This is of course true, but it could be argued that since they are both inhabitants of the same environment then it is not unusual for them both to have the same fibres on their clothing etc.

True. So obviously, prosecution would have to demand a close investigation of everything near the tree where Charlie was hung -- now if *that* site contained traces individual to Ethan (or Ethan carried traces individual to *that* site)... prosecution would have high chances of linking Ethan to the events.

Kate would have the same fibres on her body therefore strengthening the defence that the fibres were there as a result of living in the same environment, rather than from participating in the crimes.

However, there is also an opposite implication. If only Ethan and Kate would present such traces (possibly also Charlie, since he was hung, and Claire, since she was alleged to have been there)... chances are that climbing the tree where Charlie was hung *produced* them. It could be tested by having, after a sweep for all other evidence is over... a third person climb the tree.

However, there is also an opposite implication. If only Ethan and Kate would present such traces (possibly also Charlie, since he was hung, and Claire, since she was alleged to have been there)... chances are that climbing the tree where Charlie was hung *produced* them. It could be tested by having, after a sweep for all other evidence is over... a third person climb the tree.

You are quite right with that. However I am not sure that the prosecution would be given the level of finances needed to be able to do all the required tests on all of the survivors, it would be very costly and very time consuming. It would also be open to interpretation that as the tests would be conducted retrospectively that any of the three or four of them with potentially the same fibres, could have wandered into that area at a different time to the time the alleged crimes took place and picked up the fibres then. For it to be conclusive evidence the tests would have needed to have been conducted and verified straight after the event took place with the area(s) in question cordoned off and preserved as crime scenes. As they weren't, the whole area would have been compromised as a crime scene and it could well be argued that any and all trace evidence picked up way after the event(which it would have been) would be inadmissible and therefore hold no proof of guilt with regards to Ethan. I still think they would have a very hard time proving any guilt with regards to any of the charges levelled at Ethan, beyond a reasonable doubt. As ALL the evidence is completely circumstantial.

I dont know who said that they thought it unlikely that Charlie would be able to present evidence at the trial of the man he had killed. Would it be possible if he took a plea bargain? If not then that could seriously hurt the prosecution case as you would be removing the main witness to the alleged crimes, although on the other hand, how sensible would it have been to put a witness in the dock who is a recovering drug addict and had his own shady and criminal past. he would have been torn to pieces and his testimony rendered not credible.

Under the laws of the Island, Ethen was innocent as nothing he did was illegal. Kidnapping Claire was part of his duties as a whatever.

Under the laws of the Island, Ethen was innocent as nothing he did was illegal.
Kidnapping Claire was part of his duties as a whatever.

The laws of the island (including the office of "whatever") are subject to basic ethics, and international / interplanetary / interstellar / universal law. ;D

Harming a person who has *not* initiated equivalent harm towards another... is not acceptable under any afore-mentioned framework.

Besides, the metal object Locke and Boone are excavating... might contain an <alien-of-your-choice> who confirms the aforementioned, by decisively telling "Zog!" :D

Besides, the metal object Locke and Boone are excavating... might contain an <alien-of-your-choice> who confirms the aforementioned, by decisively telling "Zog!"* *:D Oooh good idea! We already have Tess, so I vote they find Isabel. ;D

Lets see:
Ethan didn’t kill Cleve, it was a monster no one has seen. But we know it exists because we find bodies like Cleve’s. ::)

Ethan didn’t kidnap Claire because only Claire, Charley and Ethan were missing and Charlie was found hanging from a tree, while Claire was found weeks later wandering around severely traumatized, but Ethan was OK. So it must have been other people that we have not seen who took Charlie, Claire & Ethan and they just inflicted trauma on Charlie and Claire. :o

Charley had it in for Ethan and Charlie is a recovering addict so we can’t take his word against Ethan. The same Ethan who wandered into camp and concealed the fact that he was not part of the group right up until the time he, Claire and Charlie turned up missing. So we can take Ethan’s word but not Charlies in a trial? Can we at least believe that only Ethan and Claire were missing at the same time?* :'(

We can’t take Jack’s word against Ethan because Kate who was not present did not hear or see Ethan threaten to kill someone just before Kate & Jack found Charlie near death hanging in a tree. Well gee Jack told Kate about Ethan’s actions and then they found Charlie so wouldn’t a typical person believe that was confirmation of what Jack said? So what if under stress Jack hallucinates, we just found Charlie as physical confirmation of what Jack said. :angel:

Sorry but if I were depending on witnesses from the group to try Ethan, I would find them more convincing than any "doubt" raised by assuming unseen monsters and unseen groups of people roaming around harming Charlie, Clair and Cleve but not harming Ethan. Oh wait Ethan was spared by the mysterious others & monster because his name doesn't start with a 'C'!!!

But Fogey ..you are thinking LOGICALLY.

No one ever said the 'law' was logical. ;)

I'm not sure I buy your argument re the death of Scott, though.* You say the death of Scott would be felony murder because of the threat, even if Scott died accidentally?* Could you elaborate on that?* Essentially 46 people were threatened, and one of them died.* Suppose Scott were killed by someone else who had it in for him and used the opportunity afforded by the threat to commit murder.* Would Ethan still be held culpable of murder because he created a situation that someone else took advantage of?
Templeton--Good points; I would have posted the same but you beat me to it ;) . It's a very liberal interpretation of the law to use a felony murder argument based on Ethan's threat to Charlie.

But Fogey ..you are thinking LOGICALLY.

No one ever said the 'law' was logical.* ;) Sorry for one of those. ;D

It's a very liberal interpretation of the law to use a felony murder argument based on Ethan's threat to Charlie. OK so I don't know the various forms of murder & I doubt if Cleve cares about which form of murder it may have been. But if Ethan issued a threat and Cleve was where he was because of the threat, then he lost his life because of an illegal act by Ethan. The same as if Ethan had yelled boo behind him and Cleve had jumped out in front of a speeding truck. Ethan has responsibility and the argument should be about the degree of responsibility, even if Cecil the Monster killed Cleve.

If you were to look at this from a purely logical legal POV forgetting about the mysterious nature of the Island. The Majority of LOSTaways have no knowledge Of Ethan other than what they are told by the few in power.

There have been many cases in the US that have resulted in conviction with far less evidence. Just think of the Peterson Case. 90% of that case was pure speculation. Very little Physical evidence was found, there were no eyewitnesses, no proof as to cause of death. The result was still conviction. I am not trying to argue Peterson's guilt or innocence just the fact that perception and theory play a large part in getting convictions. The prosecution could use the same thing in their final argument that basically convicted Peterson, If not Ethan WHO. With basically no one having the knowledge of the OTHERS, who could they blame?

I don't think it's really comparable to the Peterson case. We didn't see Ethan married to Claire, or telling his mistress his wife was dead long before she was, or trying to flee the country/island incognito after withdrawing money.

You misunderstand. I'm not comparing in any way other than it being circumstantial. We do have Ethan making a threat and Charlie found hanging. Another threat and sceve found dead. Violent behavior exhibited by Beating Jack, assaulting Jin and Charlie. That is harder evidence than being married to someone, having a mistress and telling her your wife is dead prior to her death. As I stated before I am not saying Peterson was innocent just that I feel there is more evidence on Ethan than there was in that case.

DISCLAIMER: The above statements are not the true belief's of this poster, only the suppositions that occur if we discount all that has happened and only take into account what a JURY comprised of LOSTaways would conclude.
Let me also say that I for one think Ethan is innocent, from a viewer's perspective, having seen everything that happens on the ISLAND. I have stated this in my earlier posts along with giving my reasons why.

Summer I saw the comparison as limited to, "If not **** then who?". After all from the viewpoint of the Lost Castaway Jury Members, the death/kidnapping/threat etc occured and the only available suspect is Ethan.* In their perception there is no other person who could have done what they know has been done.

If not Ethan then who did these things? We have seen no other suspect. Even though we fear the dark and forbidding jungle may hide monsters and evil people, we have only seen Ethancome out of the jungle. Oh yes we also saw the tree branches shake a time or two and they found a pilot who was later killed by an unseen person or thing that just happens to dwell in the same jungle that Ethan came out of.

We can
1. Convict Ethan.
2. Assume some stray person that no one has ever seen did it.
While Ethan just just happened by making threats and pretending to be someone he is not.
3. Say a member of the group did it to set up Ethan? Because Ethan did what?

There is a "then who," actually, at least for the death. It seems more logical the 'monster,' whatever it was that killed the pilot, could break bones like that than Ethan.

One thing we need to remember is that the core 12 survivor's have been keeping many things from the other survivor's. In fact even some of the 12 aren't aware of everything. Not everyone knows of the polar bears, that the Monster killed the pilot, that they are not alone. The real core here is JACK, KATE, SAYID, LOCKE, SAWYER, BOONE, MICHAEL.

And even with them some people have been kept out of the loop on certain information.

None of those people would be on the jury though, or a lawyer or judge. I'm sure any good attorney would learn of the pilot's mysterious death.

As long as we're holding trials, can we have one for Charlie?

There were no witnesses to Sceve's murder. There were no witnesses to Charlie and Claire's kidnapping or Charlie's hanging, and even the victims themselves can't remember any of it. The only witness to Ethan's threat to "kill everyone, Charlie last" would be the defendant himself. There are however, 6 witnesses that saw Charlie gun down an unarmed man.

If I were on the jury in both of these trials, I'd have to let Ethan go, and lock Charlie up for life.


Actually somebody else pointed that out - that there is the possibility of the jury declaring a guilty man (with overwhelming evidence against him) not guilty, because they would consider it morally wrong to convinct him.

Considering how difficult it would have been to deal with Ethan who was alive and a threat to everyone, considering Charlie's emotional state, considering the threats made against Claire, considering that Ethan seriously attempted to kill Charlie, considering that Charlie must have been driven mad imagining what terrible things happened to Claire that she wants to forget them even more than a plane crash and how he must wonder where and how Ethan got his scratches from... odds that a jury would find it wrong to convict Charlie of murder are not too bad.

I certainly think Charlie needs to answer for his actions. I just thought the best way to approach it was to hold Ethan up first.

I remember what it was called - jury nullification. According wikipedia, it's part of the legal system in Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States.

At the end of most jury trials, the judge gives* the jury instructions regarding the law applicable* to the case.

Under our legal system, however, the law need not* control juries. They may reach any verdict they like,* notwithstanding what many would consider to be the* obvious conclusion to be drawn from the evidence applied* to the law. In legal circles, this concept sometimes* is referred to as "jury nullification". The term is* used to describe the ability of a jury to effectively* nullify the law in connection with the case they are hearing.


This little-known principle is well established in* our legal system. It predates the American Revolution.* If a jury believes a law is unjust, or that circumstances* justify disregarding it, the jury generally has the* power to reach a verdict that is apparently inconsistent* with the traditional application of facts to law.


Most legal scholars agree that this power is one of* the strengths of our judicial system. It is a corrective* feature that permits ordinary citizens to do justice* when unusual circumstances arise. American juries have* enormous power, and most of the time it is exercised* responsibly.


Juries may be reluctant to reach a first-degree murder* conviction where the accused disconnected a respirator* from a terminally ill loved one. The power of jury* nullification permits a "not guilty" verdict in situations* such as this.

IIf the diverse reaction of the audience with internet access is an indicator of how a jury would rule the case, then I can how they would decide that Charlie not guilty the law notwithstanding.

If you were in a jury, would you want to convict Charlie to 20 years or more for killing Ethan?

If you were in a jury, would you want to convict Charlie to 20 years or more for killing Ethan?

It would be clearly provable that Charlie did kill Ethan. Therefore yes, I would consider him guilty... but of what crime exactly, might depend.

Considering that Ethan was no longer a threat... Charlie's actions were not acceptable. Ethical principles demand that such actions be held against him. But to which extent... remains a provocative question. From some perspective, Ethan having harmed Chalie before... ought lessen the severity.

Even principles of civilized warfare (which might actually be applicable here, since the survivors don't exactly have an accessible system of civil justice)... demand that a subdued enemy be permitted chance to surrender. Not permitting a wounded enemy to surrender is widely considered a war crime.

I'm not sure I buy your argument re the death of Scott, though.* You say the death of Scott would be felony murder because of the threat, even if Scott died accidentally?* Could you elaborate on that?* Essentially 46 people were threatened, and one of them died.* Suppose Scott were killed by someone else who had it in for him and used the opportunity afforded by the threat to commit murder.* Would Ethan still be held culpable of murder because he created a situation that someone else took advantage of?


Your confusion on this point comes from a misunderstanding as to what felony murder actually is.* Don't take it personal.* It's used on TV shows, but rarely, if ever, explained.* Basically felony murder is the criminal liability for the death of a person during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony.

For example, suppose I kidnap someone and make a getaway.* As I'm running away, I run a red light causing a fatal accident.* Later, while still running, I honk my horn loudly, scaring someone who was standing on a ledge.* That guy falls to his death.* Later, while still running away, one of the police officers chasing me runs a red light and kills someone.* Then, another police officer shoot at me, but misses and hits a woman killing her.* Finally, a guy recognizes all the commotion has distracted the police and he tries to break into a house through the window.* He's a total klutz, though, and the falling shards of glass sever his carotid, killing him.

Under the felony murder rule, I would be guilty of the murder of everyone who died in the last fact pattern.* (Note that some states would not hold me liable for the last guy because he was culpable for his own death under the felony murder rule -- burglary is also an inherently dangerous felony.)

Here, Ethan made a threat related to the commission of kidnapping (which is an inherently dangerous felony under the FMR).* That threat caused the castaways to "circle the wagons" and set up camp on the beach.* The beach is dangerous.* Sceve died on the beach.* It would be enough to prove that Sceve was exposed to whatever force killed him as a result of Ethan's threat.* If you could prove that, it would support the felony murder conviction of Ethan for the death of Sceve.

-- Methuselah

P.S. Since we're all wondering what jurisdiction owns the island, I'd like to offer my favorite ridiculous law -- the Guano Island Act. The GIA would make the island a U.S. territory as soon as any American found bird poop on the island. (So long as it was previously unclaimed.)

It would be enough to prove that Sceve was exposed to whatever force killed him as a result of Ethan's threat.*

What if one Sceve used the opportunity, Ethan provided, to get rid off the other Sceve?

What if the Beach was his permanent residence regardless of Ethan's threat and the monster killed him? Would in this case Sceve's death still be Ethan's fault?

Your confusion on this point comes from a misunderstanding as to what felony murder actually is. Don't take it personal. It's used on TV shows, but rarely, if ever, explained. Basically felony murder is the criminal liability for the death of a person during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony.


Meth, you didn't answer my specific question, which was whether Ethan would still be held culpable if someone else murdered Scott. This was not an idle question, since it's pretty obvious that we haven't seen the last of the Ethan/Others subplot.

You claim that the threat forced the castaways to move to the beach, that the beach is dangerous, and that Ethan's threat therefore exposed Scott to whatever force killed him. It seems to me that this is highly questionable, since many of them have been living on the beach from the start.

But hey, don't worry about my taking your comments "personal." I'll assume that was a typo on your part, since I'm sure a brief-writing attorney is familiar with the difference between an adjective and an adverb. Mushy grammar pushes my buttons a bit, but I usually try to refrain from calling folks on it. :angel:

Templeton

Well, I'm not an attorney like Methuselah only the progeny of one so I thought I'd get Dad's opinion. Bliss' dad posesses an LL.M, extensive prosecutorial experience,and has served on the bench so he's certainly more qualified than I am to answer. In his opinion based on nearly thirty years of bar membership,a prosecutor would not charge Ethan with felony murder. Additionally,he was curious as to the type of law practiced by someone who would argue that felony murder was an obvious fact. He's certainly not confused about criminal or international law(which would nullify the felony murder charge) so perhaps I can wheedle him to come on here sometime and clear things up ;).

We're on to a new show, so I'll be brief...

Templeton: If another person were criminally responsible for Sceve's death, that would cut off Ethan's criminal liability under the felony murder rule. However, since the point of this thread is to discuss the evidence we ACTUALLY have, I don't see any point in injecting pure conjecture into the discussion to trump actual evidence. (BTW, my grammar skills are fine. This is a bulletin board.)

Bliss: All due respect to you and your father, but the issue isn't whether a prosecutor would charge Ethan, or even whether Ethan be convicted without question. The issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Ethan. I'm simply trying to point out that the prosecution could make out a supportable case. And, in doing so, I have never suggested that the application of the felony murder rule was an "obvious fact."

The prosecution has the burden of coming forward with evidence to support every element of the charged offense. They can do that here, and that is my point. Whether a jury finds that evidence persuasive is the subject of my original post that got people riled up. I'm not sure that they would.

Lastly, since you seem to place some importance on the jurisdictional issues, please bear in mind that the castaways (with the exception of Sun & Jin) are all from countries that have common law legal systems that recognize the felony murder rule.

-- Methuselah

With all due respect to you, Methuselah, you have used your legal credentials to be dismissive of viewpoints that differed from your own so I thought it would be illustrative to provide another legal opinion to "even the field" so to speak. I welcome your opinion but I take issue with the condescending(if that wasn't your intention, that's how I perceived them) comments that you made to other posters. A "real-life" lawyer can find your felony murder argument specious; I mentioned it since you have seemed to regard non-lawyers' opinions as irrelevant fluff derived from fictional legal television shows. I disagree that the prosecution could make a supportable case(hence, my stating that a prosecutor wouldn't charge Ethan with felony murder) but in the spirit of your courteous post, I will simply say that the law is open to interpretation and even without a felony murder charge, Ethan has committed numerous crimes. Felony murder shouldn't be the sticking point and personally, I'm glad that its use is being re-evaluated(at least in my jurisdiction).