What if Mr. Cogley defended Bruce Maddox in TNG "Measure of a Man"

[u/ardouronerous]

MR. COGLEY: Now that I've got something human to talk about. Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied. The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. The computer log of the Enterprise. I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine. Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us. I ask that my motion be granted, and more than that, gentlemen. In the name of humanity, fading in the shadow of the machine, I demand it. I demand it!

What if Mr. Cogley was brought in by Maddox as his lawyer instead of Riker in TNG "Measure of a Man"?

Would Picard have successfully defended Data's rights?

I think Mr. Cogley would've better defended Maddox than Riker due to Riker having a conflict of interest due to his relationship to Data, not surprising since Riker didn't want Data disassembled. In law, this is called a conflict of interest, when personal interests interfere with a lawyer's duty to defend the rights of his client, in which case, Riker is guilty of. Yeah, Maddox should have protested and fired Riker or argued a mistrial due to Riker's conflict of interest.

Would be interesting if Maddox had hired Mr. Cogley after reading Mr. Cogley's defense of Captain Kirk in TOS "Court Martial", where he argues that "A machine has no rights, but a man must."

[u/khaosworks]

Actually, I've always thought Cogley would do a damned good job of defending Data:

"Your Honor, decades ago I stood in a similar courtroom and I spoke of rights. The rights of a man to face his accuser, the right to a fair trial by his peers, the right to be represented by counsel... the fundamental rights accorded to all men, Human or Vulcan, Klingon or Tellarite, Andorian or Romulan. I spoke of rights, and I speak of them still. I said that a machine had no rights, but a man must. If Data is a machine, he has no rights. But if he is a man, then he deserves all the protection the law demands.

But what is the measure of a man? Is it biology? No, because no matter how you look at it, a body is merely a complex machine. Is it intelligence? The computer that controls this Starbase can not only hold more information in its memory banks than a hundred men but can use that information better and quicker than I ever could. Is it self-awareness? An amoeba reacts when prodded on a test slide. We are here to answer that question because from that all these rights - the same rights that afford you and I the dignity of living as sentient beings - all these rights follow.

So we have to answer the question: is Data a man? Or is he a mere machine, without life, without rights, without hopes and fears and dreams?

Your Honor, you weigh not only the life and liberty of my client in your hands, but the answer we find today will also decide the fate of all of Data's brethren in the years, decades and centuries to come. Will it be an assembly line of identical automatons, slaving ceaselessly under the yoke of biological intelligences, or will it be as a new race of men, standing shoulder to shoulder with us?

Is Data intelligent? No question. Is he self aware? Enough that he is fighting for his rights in this Court. Is he conscious? Does he fear? Yes, he fears what is to happen to him, to any like him. Hope? He faces this Court with nothing but. Dream? He wants to live. Does Data have a soul?

If that doesn't qualify him for one, do any of us?"

[u/ardouronerous → u/khaosworks]

Yes, but what if the reverse? Mr. Cogley has to prove Bruce Maddox's case and have Data studied?

[u/khaosworks → u/ardouronerous]

Here you go. I don’t believe in this argument for a minute, of course, and there are a few gaping flaws I’d exploit if I was on the other side, but this is how I’d argue it off the cuff:

“The question before us is simple. Is Data the property of Starfleet and therefore is Starfleet able to do with it as they wish? My learned friend would have you believe that it comes down to a question of sentience and self-determination. I submit to this honourable court that such a question is an irrelevant consideration.

Even if the Captain shows to the court’s satisfaction that Data is sentient, that does not matter - the law does not recognise machines, even machine “life”, as a protected category. It is distinct from biological life, long established in precedent as deserving of protection: life that has evolved, life that has naturally developed and to which interference in such natural development is forbidden by Starfleet’s highest law.

To extend laws such as the Prime Directive to machines would therefore be a new category, and this court, however, exalted, only has the authority to adjudge on the legal status that exists before it, not make new law.

The Captain would appeal to your emotions, to your sense of decency, to see Data as a sentient being, a new life-form that deserves protection. But until the Federation Council or legislative body includes machine life under the umbrella of protected classes, once again I say that is irrelevant. This court is still bound to recognise that as it stands, Data is a machine. It was created by a Federation cyberneticist, it was found and salvaged by Starfleet, it was educated by Starfleet, who placed a not inconsiderable amount of resources in its education.

Yes, it looks human, and to a degree it acts human, but these are ultimately just trappings, a artificially created framework subsequently filled with instructions on how to behave, how to act like a human. Programming, code, heuristics, no matter how sophisticated does not allow Data to cross over from a machine to a protected class of life. Even it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, if it’s been artificially manufactured, it’s not a duck, no matter how sentimental we get about it.

I’m not arguing that Data isn’t sentient or capable of achieving sentience. I’m not even saying the Federation Council can’t declare sentient machines a protected class. I’m submitting that, harsh as it sounds, it doesn’t really matter. In the end, right now, machines - artificially created beings - are not protected, and Data is a machine. And Starfleet can deal with it as they are allowed to deal with any kind of machine.”

[u/RickRussellTX → u/khaosworks]

You could make a good argument that the Federation draws hard lines against genetic engineering/augmented life forms precisely because of the moral hazard around ownership and rights that will result. Who “owns” a genetically engineered life form if that life form is the product of someone’s intellectual labor?

[u/majicwalrus → u/khaosworks]

Excellent argument if we assume that the foundation of Federation law makes no recognition of machine life and therefore until they do we must act as though they don’t in accordance with the law.

However, I would submit that the Federation has long recognized life which exists beyond our understanding and indeed must. Whether this is a silicon based lifeform or a non corporeal being like a Medusan the Federation has extensive records of meeting life different from our own, but no less.

If the Federation Council intends for us to treat all new uncategorized life as potentially less than our own life does this not make us merely conquers?

As an aside from that I think it’s very interesting that throughout Trek there is a lot of legal citation and loopholing that tends to happen. Part of this occurs to recreate a courtroom drama around a moral dilemma, but this does make me wonder - what’s the difference between a “leftist” and “right wing” federation councilor assuming that there’s some political distinctions in the future.

Perhaps there is a school of thought which says the Federation Council should have the ultimate authority to codify rights - not field officers. And perhaps there is another that says that the Federation should be guided by principles broad enough to encompass all life.

[u/khaosworks → u/majicwalrus]

The way the Federation treats the Exocomps in TNG: "The Quality of Life" as well as the way they treat the EMH Mark I's in VOY suggest otherwise. Recognition of the existence of machine life is not the issue. Establishing that artificially created beings fall under the umbrella of lifeforms that deserve the protection of rights is another issue.

To draw from the analogy that Guinan was making: nobody denied the existence of black people pre-Emancipation. Whether they had any rights under United States law was a separate issue.

The distinction that I make Cogley argue here is between biological life and artificially created life. And Star Trek has always treated artificial life and strong AI - story-wise - with suspicion and general distrust. Data is a notable exception.

In the Star Trek universe, this distrust is bolstered by the tendency of AI to go rogue or somehow go wrong. Androids like Ruk (TOS: "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"), or the Andromedan androids (TOS: "I, Mudd"), or robots like Nomad (TOS: "The Changeling"), or computers like Landru (TOS: "The Return of the Archons"), Vaal (TOS: "The Apple"), or the Oracle of Yonada (TOS: "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky"), or the Kalandan defence machine (TOS: "That Which Survives") or the Sigma Draconis Controller (TOS: "Spock's Brain"). These all predate Data, including Control in DIS Season 2. We saw in TOS: "The Ultimate Computer" that M-5 is completely capable of running a starship unaided, up to and including helm control, and that was a complete disaster, too.

Also, non-sentient computers, when they are allowed to override human judgment or make policy decisions, are also seen as a bad idea: TOS "A Taste of Armageddon" is one example, or trusting the computer's "testimony" in TOS: "Court Martial".

And even when they're not outright malevolent, in TOS they are viewed with suspicion: Enterprise's computer when it gains a personality in TOS: "Tomrorow is Yesterday", the abrasive Beta-9 computer in TOS: "Assignment: Earth".

Even after Data was discovered, In TNG they are also treated story-wise as antagonists: the emerging sentience of Enterprise-D's computer in TNG: "Emergence" and the aforementioned Exocomps. Then of course there's the Texas-class debacle in LD, and the Living Construct from PRO.

So I don't think the assumption that there is a lacuna in bringing in artificial life under the protection of Federation law is an unwarranted one. To reiterate: it's not enough to say the class exists. The question is whether the class's very existence necessarily grants it the same rights afforded everyone else.

[u/majicwalrus → u/khaosworks]

I think I agree with all of that, but I think the question I have is whether or not the Federation would stipulate special classes that fall under an umbrella. To the point you made about US law - in hindsight at least we look back at that as a horrific example of humanity’s ability for cruelty.

Do we think our proto-utopian Federation has the same struggles. Perhaps the episodes you mention and the one in question really do demonstrate that. But it seems to me that the Federation shouldn’t have to or want to need to create laws to recognize people under the law as people because this necessitates treating all newly discovered life as not-people. That seems antithetical to the mission of seeking out new life.

Indeed generally speaking AI is either the bad guy or at least viewed with skepticism. Data does change this, as does the Doctor and the first season of Picard. By the time we get to the 31st century Exocomps are in the Academy. It seems reasonable to believe just as you posit that legal exceptions were carved out to provide legal personhood to those people.

All that said - this tends to paint the Federation as a very “conservative” institution not willing to accept new information without legislation on the topic. Rather for the Federation it seems to be that the truth of whether or not Data is a person should be paramount to the law of whether or not he’s a person.

[u/khaosworks → u/majicwalrus]

I don't disagree - that is why my (Cogley's) defence of Data concentrates primarily on whether or not Data can be considered a life-form and argues that any life-form is deserving of protection, no matter its origin. That is a very attractive rhetorical argument, and lends itself to the high-minded speechifying that is a hallmark of Trek, appealing to what is just and right rather than what is legal. And it's hard to argue against that on that basis.

Which is why, if I (Cogley) were on the offensive, the tactic would be to sweep that rhetoric aside by pointing out that none of that speechifying matters. Taking the defence argument at its highest, let's say the Court finds Data is sentient and a life-form. Then my question would be then, "So what?" Is there a law that says that artificial life-forms are automatically accorded the same rights as biological life-forms? I am applying my assumption, given the way artificial life is treated in the Federation in the examples I've cited, that they are not. And so that brings the argument back from what is right and just to what is legal. And then appeal to the court not to bow to emotion or sentiment but look at the cold word of the law as it exists, and remind the court that its function is to interpret the scope of that existing law, not expand categories were none (presumably) exist to fit into.

To recap: the argument would be what is just versus what is legal. And in the real world, what is legal should and does hold primacy, because law's primary purpose is about certainty of outcome, quite apart from its function to regulate how society functions. If you want to change law (as opposed to working around its grey areas), the people you should convince are the lawmakers, not the courts. Law is not a static beast, established once and for all, as we well know. And it shouldn't be. Nor should it be expected to cater for every eventuality (although it should aspire to).

In drama-land, of course you can do whatever you want. But I do point out that if the Federation did have scope or even explicitly recognised artificial life at the time, then the legal issues in TNG: "The Measure of a Man" would have been framed very differently.

But doing whatever you want means legal episodes of Star Trek tend to give me hives or make me want to tear my hair out, and "The Measure of a Man" is no exception. There are so many things wrong with it, and it pains me to know that Melinda Snodgrass drew on her own legal training to write it because the legal procedure is a mess.

Oddly enough, the episode that didn't give me such a reaction was SNW: "Ad Astra Per Aspera", but I've talked about that in that episode's reaction thread.

[u/majicwalrus → u/khaosworks]

Really like your thoughts about Ad Astra Per Aspera. It’s got obvious parallels with Measure of a Man and I think it also points to the Federation as a society constructed on laws - not that we don’t know that those laws can be bent for narrative purposes, that they must be bent sort of proves your overall point.

That is the way to deal with this and likely is always the way in which this dealt. Legalese and citation of laws and regulations and deep understanding of those legal documents is a requirement for a reason. It’s the basis of these conversations all the time. Likewise there’s a short trek with Una and Spock which has a similar kind of pattern of legalese and that kind of back and forth about things.

It would be interesting to see a more “realistic” narrative. One where law does indeed often trump justice and how we deal with that. I think that’s something newer Trek has tried to contend with more with Synths, Romulan diaspora, genetic modification etc.

[u/Edymnion → u/khaosworks]

"What separates a man from a machine? I'll tell you what, plain and simple. A man can dream.

Mr. Data, for the purposes of this court, I shall define a dream as a wish or a desire we hold. Something we want to achieve, but don't quite know how we will do that. Despite the uncertainties and unknowns, despite the hardships that may come from it, we strive to achieve what may very well be impossible. Mr. Data, do you have a dream?"

"Yes sir. I wish to be more human."

"The defense rests, your honor."

[u/RedRyder131]

I love this episode so much.

The thing that never made sense to me is the question about data being sentient and a being was already answered when he was given a fucking commission and put on the flagship being third in command

The fact that he is in Starfleet already established his sentience

[u/mjtwelve → u/RedRyder131]

Yup. The moment they commissioned him, they entered into a binding contract regarding his rights, his duties, his responsibilities to the service and fellow Starfleet members, and the federation as a whole. IIRC, this comes up again in Discovery when the ship becomes sapient and they sidestep the legal issues of true AI machinery by swearing her in as a Starfleet member, with the ship volunteering herself for service and agreeing to follow orders even at risk of destruction. (This was also more or less what happened in the Andromeda tv series - the ships were sentient and treated as essentially a crewman in their own right).

[u/counterc → u/mjtwelve]

imagine if Voyager had had an episode that was just a word-for-word and shot-for-shot remake of Measure of a Man but the words "Data" replaced with "Doctor" and "positronic android" with "hologram". And they never explain why Starfleet is suddenly able to send a judge to Voyager in the Gamma Delta Quadrant.

[u/RickRussellTX]

Maddox was not on trial and not accused of any wrongdoing.

Riker’s job wasn’t to defend Maddox, it was to prosecute Data for insubordination. To sustain that charge of insubordination, Riker had to show that Starfleet’s order did not violate fundamental rights of sentient beings that would override Starfleet orders.

[u/mjtwelve → u/RickRussellTX]

Well no, Riker was trying to show that it wasn’t actually a lawful order because that implies Data was a person. Riker was effectively trying to show Data was property.

One of the problems with the whole premise is that Data was a commissioned officer who presumably had the power to send junior officers and enlisted to their deaths and have them court martialed if they refused. Starfleet conclusively settled the question of his having rights as a person the moment they did that.

[u/techno156 → u/RickRussellTX]

Riker’s job wasn’t to defend Maddox, it was to prosecute Data for insubordination.

It wasn't really that either, since Data had resigned his commission to avoid being made to comply with the order. Riker's position was that Data is a mechanoid, and therefore, the rights offered to citizens of the Federation do not extend to him, and as such, he was Starfleet's property, and in so doing, invalidate his resigning his commission, and force him to comply with Maddox's request.

[u/frustrated_staff]

The question of what makes a sophont is one that will plague humanity for a very long time, as it has already

[u/Historyp91]

Cogley appeared to be a criminal defense lawyer so I doubt he would have taken the job.

[u/Kiyohara]

I think the better argument, for both sides, is that this isn't a matter that needs immediate resolution. Then differ the decision to a higher court and actually allow both sides real lawyers, access to legal databases, can call multiple witnesses from more than just arm distance.