Real Lawyer Reacts to Star Trek TNG Measure of a Man (Picard Defends Data’s Humanity) // LegalEagle

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Captions
- [James] Thanks to INDOCHINO for keeping Legal Eagle in the air, and helping me look fly. - Rights, I'm sick to death of hearing about rights! What about my right not to have my life work subverted by blind ignorance? - That's not an actual right. (upbeat music) Hey, Legal Eagles, it's time to think like a lawyer. Today, we are covering an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, it's called Measure of A Man. It's the episode where Data gets put on trial to determine whether he is a man or a machine, or both, I guess. It raises all kinds of great philosophical and legal questions: are you a person? Do you have rights under the US Constitution? And it tells us that even in the 24th century where you have warp drive and teleporters, you're still gonna need lawyers. - Da da da da da da da. - As always, be sure to hit that bell and comment in the form of an objection, which I'll either sustain or overrule. And of course, stick around until the end of the video where I give Star Trek: The Next Generation Measure of A Man a grade for legal realism. So, without further ado, let's dig in to Measure of A Man. - Explain this procedure. (clears throat) - Ever since I first saw Data at the entrance evaluation at the Starfleet Academy, I wanted to understand it. I became a student of the works of Dr. Noonien Soong, Data's creator, and I've tried to continue his work. I believe I am very close to the breakthrough that will enable me to duplicate Dr. Soong's work, and replicate this. But as a first step, I must disassemble and study it. Data is going to be my guide. - So, the crux of this episode is that Data is an android. He is an artificial form of life. A member of Starfleet Medical wants to conduct scientific experiments on Data in the hopes of being able to replicate the intelligence that forms Data's positronic brain. - You've constructed a positronic brain? - Yes. - Data doesn't want to do that. He thinks that the Starfleet officer doesn't have the ability to conduct these experiments safely, and Captain Picard isn't willing to give up a member of his crew to be subjected to these experiments. So the question is, does Data have the autonomy as a person or a thing that is endowed with personhood to be able to reject this request? Or is he a thing that is subject to the whims of Starfleet, like some computer or some machine? I think this episode is meant to harken back to some of the darker periods of US history because the US Military itself doesn't have a great track record when it comes to subjecting members of the Military and sometimes members of the public to illegal experimentation. You can look at the Tuskegee experiments in World War 2, you can look at the MKUltra experiments in the 60s and 70s. Unfortunately, some people weren't even asked to be subjected to these medical experiments, so at least Data has the opportunity to defend himself and the right to a trial. - Your response is emotional and irrational. - Irrational? - You are endowing Data with human characteristics because it looks human, but it is not. If it were a box on wheels, I would not be facing this opposition. - Overt sentimentality is not one of Captain Picard's failings- - Boom. - Trust me, I know. - Oh, snap! - I will tell you again, Data is a valued member of my crew, he is an outstanding bridge officer. - If I am permitted to make this experiment, the horizons for human achievements become boundless. - Frankly, I think that these questions probably would have been solved the moment that Data entered into Starfleet. You wouldn't let a box on wheels enter into Starfleet Academy and go through all of the different academic training that is required into Starfleet. So realistically speaking, I think some of these questions would've already been solved but it's interesting to tackle them now, at least. - Consider every ship in Starfleet with a Data on board, utilizing its extraordinary capabilities, acting as our hands and eyes in dangerous situations. - Look, you're preaching to the choir here, why don't you get to the point? - It's a classic ends justify the means argument there. - Data must not be permitted to resign. - Data is a Starfleet officer, he still has certain rights. - Rights, rights, I'm sick to death of hearing about rights! What about my right not to have my life work subverted by blind ignorance? - That's, that's not an actual right. - We have rule of law in this federation, you cannot simply seize people and experiment with them to prove your pet theories. - Thank you. - [Maddox] Now you are doing it. - Yeah, generally speaking, that would be right. - Data is an extraordinary piece of engineering, but it is a machine! If you permit it to resign, it will destroy years of work in robotics. Starfleet does not have to allow the resignation. - Commander, who do you think you're working for? Starfleet is not an organization that ignores its own regulations when they become inconvenient. Whether you like it or not, Data does have rights. - That is sort of the rule of law in a nutshell. The point is that the laws we have should be universal and applied to everyone. They should not be changed on a whim and given ad hoc exemptions based on philosophical justifications like the ends justifying the means. A lot of people talk about the first amendment right to freedom of speech but at the same time, they complain when they hear people use speech in ways that they don't like, but the point is that it's a universal right and that maybe there would be more beneficial outcomes. But the point is that individual rights cannot be subverted based on whim or based on circumstance, they're supposed to be universal. - Let me put it another way. Would you permit the computer of the enterprise to refuse a refit? - That's an interesting point but the enterprise computer is property. Is Data? - Of course. - (sighs) There may be a law to support this position. - Then find it. A ruling with such broad ranging implications must be supported. - Yeah, so that would be generally correct. A computer is moveable property, in other words, it's what we call chattel. In fact, in my analysis of the Sokovia Accords in the Marvel Universe, I had an offhand joked is Vision is really just a computer and therefore Vision was chattel to Tony Stark. - Data is a toaster. - I don't think it's that simple. - But the same arguments could apply here and the odds are there's not going to be specific legislation out there that says a computer of specific intelligence is considered a person with respect to all of the constitutional rights that are endowed to actual human people. But that is sort of the point of some of this case law is that when there is a new example out there, you have to actually go through a trial to determine what the rights are. - I have completed my research. Based on the Acts of Cumberland passed in the early 21st century, Data is the property of Starfleet. He cannot resign and he cannot refuse to cooperate with Commander Maddox. - I would very much like to see the language that is used in the Acts of Cumberland that she's referring to. I guess maybe I have to stand corrected on my prior statement about there being legislation that deals with whether a computer is sufficiently human to constitute a person under the Constitution. But that being said, this is actually reminiscent of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857. That was the landmark Supreme Court decision that held that the Constitution did not include citizenship for black Americans, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges that citizenship confers on American citizens would never apply to black Americans. The plaintiff in that case was a man named Dred Scott, who was a slave at the time and whose owners took him from Missouri, which was a slave state, into the Missouri Territory, most of which had been designated as free by the Missouri Compromise in 1820. When Scott's owners took him back to Missouri, he sued in court, claiming that because he had been taken into a free US territory, he had automatically been freed, been conferred with the rights of an American citizen and was no longer a slave. In a decision that remained a blight on the record of the US Supreme Court for years, they ruled that the Constitution simply did not apply to African Americans. So in essence, Data is going to go through a similar trial here. - What if I challenge this ruling? - Then I shall be required to hold a hearing. - Then I so challenge, convene your hearing. - Convene your hearing! - Captain, that would be exceedingly difficult. This is a new base, I have no staff. - But surely, Captain, you have regulations to take care of such an eventuality. - Or just make new law. - I can use serving officers as legal counsel. You, as the senior officer, would defend. - Very good. - And the unenviable task of prosecuting this case would fall on you, Commander, as the next most senior officer of the defendant's ship. - I can't, I won't. Data's my comrade, we have served together. I not only respect him, I consider him my friend. - When people of good conscience have an honest dispute, we must still sometimes resort to this kind of adversarial system. - You just want me to prove that Data is a mere machine. I can't do that because I don't believe it. I happen to know better, so I'm neither qualified nor willing. You're going to have to find someone else. - Then I will rule summarily based on my findings. - Yeah, so that doesn't work for a couple of reasons. Number one, a lawyer has to be a zealous advocate for his or her client. So if you strongly believe that you cannot put forth a good defense or a good prosecution, ethically, I think you are unable to fulfill the task and I think you need to step aside. Additionally, it would be completely improper for the judge to rule on an ad hoc basis that just because a lawyer refuses to prosecute the case to then rule against the defense, that would be a huge violation of the rights of the defendant which, I think you have to assume that Data gets the benefit of the doubt at least in the first instance that he is a person, a member of Starfleet and entitled to certain rights. - [Machine] Verified, Lieutenant Commander Data. - So I should point out that as a defendant, you always wanna put your best foot forward and wearing a yellow one piece bodysuit to court is not the best way to dress for court. (whispers) INDOCHINO. - Who built you, Commander? - Dr. Noonien Soong. - [Riker] And he was? - The foremost authority on cybernetics. - More basic than that, what was he? - Human? - Thank you. Commander, what is the capacity of your memory and how fast can you access information? - I have an ultimate storage capacity of 800 quadrillion bits, my total linear computational speed has been rated at 60 trillion operations per second. - Your Honor, I offer in evidence prosecution's exhibit A, a rod of par-steel, tensile strength, 40 kilobars. - All right, that's a pretty reasonable way to add something into evidence. I think he probably should have laid some more foundation since he's not an expert in types of steel or the tensile strength of steel, but at least he entered it into evidence before having the witness talk about it, which is actually something that a lot of legal dramas actually forget to do. So that part was reasonably accurate. Of course, the judge forgot to rule on the motion to add that piece of steel into evidence. In court, you actually have to say the thing that you're doing, you can't just nod because the stenographer can't actually take down nods so, the judge sort of said, yes, motion to enter the bar of steel into evidence is granted, so that it is actually reflected in the record. - Commander, would you bend that? - Objection! There are many life forms possessed with mega strength. These issues are not relevant to this hearing. - I'm afraid I can't agree, Captain. Proceed with your demonstration, Commander. - Yeah, that's not a great objection and it was a good ruling by the judge here. Essentially what Captain Picard was doing is saying that it's not going to prove the ultimate issue, but his objection is going to the weight of the particular evidence not the admissibility. You can enter things into evidence even if they have only a tenuous relation to the ultimate issue, in this case, whether Data is human or not. It helps prove or disprove the idea that he is human or property. So Captain Picard was wrong to object just because it's not as persuasive as Riker thinks it is, so that it should not be entered into evidence. That is a question for the trier of fact to decide and that's why the judge overruled his objection, because he goes to the weight not the admissibility of that particular piece of evidence. - Drawing on the log of the construction of the prototype android, Lore, also constructed by Noonien Soong, I request to be allowed to remove the Commander's hand for your inspection. - Objection. - You should probably state your grounds. - Doesn't matter. Objection withdrawn. - Okay, not sure what the objection would've been. - Proceed, Commander. I'm sorry. (dark music) The Commander is a physical representation of a dream, an idea conceived of by the mind of a man. - Here, Riker is just lapsing into argument which you're not allowed to do while you're in the middle of examining a witness. There are examples where you can conduct a physical examination of a witness, which is effectively what Riker has done. You might recall that in the OJ Simpson trial, there was a big deal made about OJ Simpson's ability or inability to wear a glove that was found at the scene of the crime. - If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. - And effectively, Riker has done something similar here in terms of removing Data's hand. You generally don't wanna do that because you don't know exactly how it's going to go but here, it's fairly safe because Riker knew that he could remove Data's hand without much fuss and that's exactly what he did. The problem is that he is lapsing straight into argument, effectively his closing argument, while in the middle of asking Data questions and doing a physical examination. That you are not allowed to do and Picard should be objecting here. - Its purpose, to serve to human needs and interests. - Arguments. - A collection of neural nets- - Ask a question! - Heuristic algorithms. Its responses dictated by an elaborate software written by a man, its hardware built by a man, and now, and now a man will shut it off. - So, the point is well taken that shutting off Data means he's not actual human life. Although you could argue that Riker just committed murder because he turned Data off. The bigger problem from a trial lawyer perspective is that he is engaging in argument while he should be questioning Data. - Pinocchio is broken. - You're broken. - Its strings have been cut. - More argument. - Commander Riker has dramatically demonstrated to this court that Lieutenant Commander Data is a machine. Do we deny that? No, because it is not relevant. We too are machines, just machines of a different type. Commander Riker has also reminded us that Lieutenant Commander Data was created by human, do we deny that? No. Again, it is not relevant. - So this is good, despite the fact that this is total argument that you would normally save for a closing argument or a motion before the court, I like what Captain Picard is doing here which is that he is admitting to the things that are sort of optically bad for his case, that Data is a machine, that Data was created by another person. One of the things that you wanna do, whether it is a bench trial or a jury trial, is limit the number of issues you actually have to dispute. So that is a great tactic by Captain Picard, and actually one of the rhetorical devices that I use in my motions on occasion is I will state what the opposing side has argued and I will say, that is as true as it is irrelevant. - I call to the stand Commander Bruce Maddox as a hostile witness. - So, you don't actually get to call certain witnesses to the stand as hostile witnesses. A hostile witness is a real thing, that is not just something you see on TV. What that means is that you have called that person as a witness to the stand. So essentially, you are asking them to be subject to a direct examination, and as you may have heard in TV, you're not allowed to ask leading questions of a witness that you have called to the stand. Leading questions are totally okay for cross examination, but they're not okay for direct examination. So you are asking the judge to recognize that although it's direct examination, the witness is quote hostile and therefore, you should be able to ask leading questions on direct examination. But you don't get to just call them to the stand and say that they're hostile. - Is your contention that Lieutenant Commander Data is not a sentient being and thereby not entitled to all the rights reserved for all life forms within this federation? - Data is not sentient, no. Your Honor, would you enlighten us? What is required for sentience? - Intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness. - Prove to the court that I am sentient. - This is absurd, we all know you're sentient. - So I am sentient, but Commander Data is not? - [Maddox] That's right. - Why? Why am I sentient? - Well, you are self-aware. - Ah, that's the second of your criteria. Let's deal with the first, intelligence. - So as a tangent here, this is a huge question not only in the law, which doesn't really answer the question, but in philosophy, in neurology. There are tons of different definitions of sentience, of intelligence, of consciousness, of the theory of the mind, and there's really no good way of being able to prove that someone or something is sentient. But with any definition that you're going to run across, you're going to have problems of over-inclusiveness and under-inclusiveness. So it's hard not to feel bad for Maddox here because it is one of the hardest questions in not only philosophy, but neurology as well. - Is Commander Data intelligent? - Yes. It has the ability to learn and understand and to cope with new situations. - Like this hearing. - [Maddox] Yes. - What about self-awareness? What does that mean? Why am I self-aware? - Because you're conscious of your existence and actions. You are aware of yourself and your own ego. - Commander Data, what are you doing now? - I'm taking part in a legal hearing to determine my rights and status. Am I a person or property? - And what's at stake? - My right to choose. Perhaps my very life. - So, rhetorically it's great to turn to Data and ask him a question that totally destroys the statement that the witness just made. But you are not allowed to ask questions of another person while you're in the middle of a direct examination of another witness, it doesn't work that way, regardless of how dramatic it seems. It's totally improper. Now sooner or later, this man or others like him will succeed in replicating Commander Data, for the decision you reach here today will determine how we will regard this creation of our genius. It will reveal the kind of a people we are, what he is destined to be, it will reach far beyond this courtroom and this one android. - Generally, you're not supposed to make these kind of arguments. This is sort of like Captain Picard's closing argument here. And you're meant to adjudicate the facts of the case before you. And generally speaking, the judge or the jury or the trier of fact is not meant to consider the far-reaching implications. You are simply supposed to apply the facts to the law of the case at hand, and that's sorta the doctrine of judicial minimalism, that you don't want people making broad pronouncements, you want them to adjudicate just the smallest thing they possibly can based on the case that is before them. - It could significantly redefine the boundaries of personal liberty and freedom. Expanding them for some, savagely curtailing them for others. Are you prepared to condemn him and all who come after him to servitude and slavery? Your Honor, Starfleet was founded to seek out new life. - And new civilizations! To boldly go where no lawyer has gone before! - Well there it sits! Waiting. You wanted a chance to make law, well here it is. Make it a good one. - All right, and Starfleet decides that Data is, in fact, a person and has rights under whatever the equivalent of the Starfleet Constitution is. - Does Data have a soul? I don't know that he has. But I've got to give him the freedom to explore that question himself. (upbeat music) - But how realistic was it? Well, now it's time to give Star Trek: The Next Generation, the Measure of a Man episode a grade for legal realism. (hammer drops) On the one hand, you have, obviously, a lot of dramatic license taken. They are trying to decide these heady issues from a member of the Judge Advocate General that's trying to make new law in a way that sort of a kangaroo court condensed for 40 minutes on TV. On the other hand, you have some reasonable things going on. You've got someone who is treated as a hostile witness. You have reasonable arguments being made, a couple good objections and some good rulings by the court. So I give this episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation a C+. They boldly went where they were supposed to go. - Good try, nine out of ten for effort. - Now, if Data was my client, the first thing that I would have him do is get a proper suit to wear to court. Frankly, a yellow one piece bodysuit is not proper court attire. If you are looking for proper court attire, I can't recommend INDOCHINO highly enough. All of my suits are now custom made by INDOCHINO. I buy them with my own money and I loved them so much that I reached out personally to them. And I'm thrilled that they're now a sponsor of this channel. The secret to a great suit is all about fit. I'm a reasonably athletic guy and I can never buy suits off the rack because they never fit right. - Is that vanity? - INDOCHINO will make you a fully custom suit tailored specifically to you for less than $400. The best part is they still use the best materials like Super 140 wool and cashmere. Frankly, I will never buy an off the rack suit again. And the same goes for their custom dress shirts, so you can avoid the dreaded muffin top, or the Brooks Brothers special, as I like to call it. You can either send your measurements in online, or you can go to a store and have a stylist take your measurements, which is what I did. My personal stylist, Andrew, took all of my measurements and a couple of weeks later, I got the best fitting suit of my entire life. It was perfect right out of the box. Legal Eagles can get any premium INDOCHINO suit for just $379 when you enter the code LegalEagle at checkout, or use the link in the description. Clicking on the link really helps out the channel. That's INDOCHINO.com, promo code LegalEagle for the best custom suit of your life. - Sounds intriguing. - Do you agree with my grade? Do you think Data is a person or a machine? Leave your objections in the comments and check out this playlist of all my other real lawyer reactions over here, or I will see you in court.
Info
Channel: LegalEagle
Views: 781,972
Rating: 4.8109117 out of 5
Keywords: Legaleagle, legal eagle, legal analysis, big law, lsat, personal injury lawyer, supreme court, law firm, law school, law and order, lawyers, lawyer reacts, ace attorney, lawyer, attorney, trial, court, fair use, reaction, law, legal, judge, suits, objection, breakdown, real lawyer, star trek, picard, data, riker, measure of a man, next generation, tng, maddox, cbs, patrick stewart, captain picard, jean luc picard
Id: XVjeYW6S8Mo
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 25min 5sec (1505 seconds)
Published: Sat May 25 2019
Reddit Comments

My wife is also a lawyer, and I showed her this episode. She was not pleased at the part where Riker has to argue against the freedom of his friend, which is of course ridiculous.

πŸ‘οΈŽ︎ 47 πŸ‘€οΈŽ︎ u/Oafah πŸ“…οΈŽ︎ May 25 2019 πŸ—«︎ replies

I've seen some of his bits. The Willie Wonka vs. OSHA was ridiculous! I never thought he'd pick up anything from Star Trek. Just bummed that I didn't find it first.

I don't know if this is my favorite "legal" episode, though. That might be The Drumhead or Court Martial.

πŸ‘οΈŽ︎ 15 πŸ‘€οΈŽ︎ u/stratusmonkey πŸ“…οΈŽ︎ May 25 2019 πŸ—«︎ replies

He reacts to Measure of a man? Awesome, I really like his reactions to legal stuff on TV.

πŸ‘οΈŽ︎ 28 πŸ‘€οΈŽ︎ u/kreton1 πŸ“…οΈŽ︎ May 25 2019 πŸ—«︎ replies

The drumhead would have been a better one for this, I think.

πŸ‘οΈŽ︎ 9 πŸ‘€οΈŽ︎ u/stupid_pun πŸ“…οΈŽ︎ May 25 2019 πŸ—«︎ replies

I liked the video quite a lot, but the way he sequed so smoothly into a promotion for suits at the end there was pretty tacky and hilariously indicative of YouTube in this era.

πŸ‘οΈŽ︎ 8 πŸ‘€οΈŽ︎ u/ArchetypicalDegen πŸ“…οΈŽ︎ May 25 2019 πŸ—«︎ replies

Just saw this today. Very interesting. I subscribe to Real Lawyer's channel, and I love his Sci-Fi movie law episodes.

πŸ‘οΈŽ︎ 4 πŸ‘€οΈŽ︎ u/MiddleAgedGeek πŸ“…οΈŽ︎ May 25 2019 πŸ—«︎ replies

I thought this was going to be some lame reaction video and it ended up being very informative and entertaining. Cool.

πŸ‘οΈŽ︎ 5 πŸ‘€οΈŽ︎ u/sev1nk πŸ“…οΈŽ︎ May 25 2019 πŸ—«︎ replies

Is there a TL:DR version?

πŸ‘οΈŽ︎ 5 πŸ‘€οΈŽ︎ u/LeicaM6guy πŸ“…οΈŽ︎ May 25 2019 πŸ—«︎ replies

This is a pretty neat series. I enjoyed it.

πŸ‘οΈŽ︎ 2 πŸ‘€οΈŽ︎ u/UnscSpartan23 πŸ“…οΈŽ︎ May 25 2019 πŸ—«︎ replies
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.