The end result just felt a little underdeveloped for me. Neelix even points out the apparent racial bias in Nygean justice, so I think there was a more nuanced debate to had about crime being as much who decides what crime is or how marginalized people interact with their society. The Maquis also committed crimes, and you can't argue they all had defective pineal glands. My other issue is it's not that I can't see why Seven would analyze her guilt through this lens, it's that I think there were other more fertile characters to have this debate, and we've gone to the Seven well so often. Paris is literally the beneficiary of the Federation's touchy-feely justice system, so I think it felt to quick for him to dismiss the possibility of redemption. My only two complaints is Paris' comments in the Mess Hall and the focus on Seven relating this to her time with the Borg.
The Doctor and Seven exchanges are pretty solid. Kevin: Beyond that, the character work is all there. Umm, OK? I can see how you wouldn't want to have two exonerations in the episode, as if no criminals should ever be guilty, but it kind of muddles the point to the extent which I just wonder whether it shouldn't be a separate episode. I think the ultimate end point was that, although this racial minority does get sentenced and prosecuted in unsupportable numbers, this particular guy was still a criminal douchebag. Now, as far as the racial justics story, I kind of don't know what point they were trying to arrive at. I think they did a good job of not giving him a fairy tale ending and having those around him act believably. I cared about Iko and wanted him to achieve some sort of peace. When this was written, some of the first research was being done into human MAOA and CDH13 genes, mutations of which exists in statistically significant percentages of the prison population. I think, in the Iko character, they did a pretty great job of plumbing the depths of genetic defects which might lead to criminality. What other show is going to investigate, via sci-fi means, the roots of criminality, the morality of punishment generally, racial inequality in sentencing, and the efficacy of the death penalty? The question is how effective these investigations are. Matthew: It should be stipulated at the outset that this is a quintessential Star Trek political allegory, and I'm always down for that. They seem to acknowledge that when the other prisoner attempts to manipulate Neelix, but it still falls flat. It elides the morality of the death penalty by demonstrating pointing out it can't work as a deterrent to people not fully in control of their actions, and that's a bit of a cop out to me. Even to the extent we grapple with the morality, it's more of a "Should we interfere?" rather than "Is capital punishment morally okay?" The revelation that Iko literally has a brain defect that largely precludes culpability is a little too neat.
We have the issue of the week and with the exception of Tom Paris, I don't think anyone really said anything that felt out of character, but beyond that, there's not a lot of actual wrestling with the issue. My only complaint is that I don't think it ever really gets out of the set up stage. The precise mechanism of that in practice remains a little muddied, but it's enough to say that Star Trek rejects the idea that some people are irredeemably bad, and that's always a nice thought. It's certainly a bit less heavy handed than TOS' Dagger of the Mind, but we still get a solid helping of Star Trek and Rodenberry's view that crime is the result of structural or psychological problems that can be solved.
Kevin: This is a pretty standard Star Trek episode, all things considered. Leola Root Stew claims yet another victim.
0 kommentar(er)
