5 comments on “The Phantom Zone: Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

  1. I think you’re right in part; worrying about bathrooms and food are ridiculous. It’s just an interesting movie prop, and the special effects involved were cool in the 70s. So, to discuss the substance, I’ll make the assumption that it’s a boring jail cell in space. If Ursa and Zod want a little privacy, tough noodles. Non gets to watch.

    The idea of an appeal is an interesting one. Because of the constraints of it being a movie, I always presumed that the legal process had been completed. Perhaps the “trial” was in fact the appeal (multiple judges, right?), and their pronouncements of “Guilty!” were another way of saying, “Affirmed.”

    Now making that assumption, the idea of an appeal is satisfied; however, a couple of things are still missing. Much like the death penalty, there’s no chance for an executive pardon, and more importantly, there’s no room for new evidence to result in a judge vacating the conviction. In other words, there are a couple of (relatively) rare opportunities that aren’t available to occupants of the Phantom Zone. This is true with the death penalty, but not with “life without the possibility of parole.” Those options are still available for criminals in jail for life.

    Conclusion: With respect to procedure, the Phantom Zone is the equivalent of the death penalty.

    Substantively, though, it’s the same as “life without the possibility of parole,” thought not quite as bad. Presumably, there’s much less a chance of getting shanked or raped by another inmate. Moreover, the confinement isn’t truly solitary, lessening the chances of insanity developing in exchange for security from shanks and male genitalia.

    Conclusion: With respect to substance, the Phantom Zone is the equivalent of “life without the possibility of parole.”

    Whether these are cruel punishment is up to the individual, though I have no problem with the death penalty substantively speaking. My concern is always with procedure (i.e., making sure you have the right guy for the right reason). Once we’re convinced about that, I say let ‘em ride the lightning. YMMV.

    Final point: Notice that I left out “unusual” punishment. That doesn’t seem to be the subject of your note, so you’re doing what everyone else does and lumping them together. They’re not the same thing, and if they were, you still shouldn’t say both of them anyway; it’d be redundant. Unusual punishment refers to the idea that these three get the Phantom Zone, but other criminals committing the same crime under the same circumstances don’t. If you meant to discuss it, I respectfully point out that you forgot. :-)

    • I apologize for taking so long to reply. Your comment naturally was so well formed that I lacked the mental agility to respond with alacrity.

      The one thing I’ll come back to is:
      “Final point: Notice that I left out “unusual” punishment. ”

      But it IS unusual punishment. While I don’t have the entire speech of Jor-El memorized, my memory is that he notes that where he is sending them is not the typical place for punishment, but is reserved for “special” cases (anyone, please feel free to correct me on that).

      Further, they’re *still screaming* when the Phantom Zone is blown apart by the bomb Superman throws into space at the beginning of Superman II. At a minimum, they’ve been screaming in terror and agony since the destruction of Krypton which is, at a minimum, since Kal-El was in infancy. He’s at *least* in his twenties by the time…they…finally…get…to our solar system…as well.

      So unless they took a shifts screaming, they’ve been screaming for *decades*. This is, I think, indicative of something unusual occurring, no? :D

      • “This is, I think, indicative of something unusual occurring, no?”

        [At the risk of taking this minutia far more seriously than it deserves] No it is not unusual, legally-speaking, or at least that’s my assumption. Unusual doesn’t mean rarely-applied; it means rarely-applied for the same crime. That is, even if the death penalty isn’t cruel, it’s still unjust if, for example, only Fred gets executed, while everyone else gets life without the possibility of parole. Put another way, not only must punishment fit the crime, but it must be tied to the crime itself. The consequence of violating this rule of ‘consistency of punishment’ is that the party in power might execute only members of the other party. (Government corruption was always on the brains of the Founders.)

        Let’s get away from the death penalty for a better example. Let’s say lots of people are busted for speeding. Those of us that aren’t Baptist get a $50 fine; however, all the Baptists get a $100 fine. Is $100 unjust _per se_? No. It would seem to fit the crime, so it’s substantively appropriate. What’s unfair is that only Baptists have to pay it. The rest of us get off easily. See the difference? “Unusual punishment” is “inconsistent punishment.” It’s a failure of procedure, not substance.

        So, has anyone else ever been guilty of what the Kryptonian Three* did, with the same level of culpability (i.e., guilty mind), under the substantially same circumstances (i.e., no excuses or justifications)? If so but they didn’t get the Phantom Zone, then that would be unusual. IIRC, the crime of the Krypton Three was novel, so the jury is still out as to whether the punishment is unusual. If you have information otherwise from the script (okay) or comic books (couldn’t care less), then it might be unusual punishment. I haven’t researched Kryptonian statutes or followed their case law, so you could easily be right, but if so, it’s for the wrong reasons. :-)

        * I just made that up.

kessel komments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s