- [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.
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.
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.
He reacts to Measure of a man? Awesome, I really like his reactions to legal stuff on TV.
The drumhead would have been a better one for this, I think.
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.
Just saw this today. Very interesting. I subscribe to Real Lawyer's channel, and I love his Sci-Fi movie law episodes.
I thought this was going to be some lame reaction video and it ended up being very informative and entertaining. Cool.
Is there a TL:DR version?
This is a pretty neat series. I enjoyed it.