Do you think it is technically illegal?

[Hopefulsuicide]

There is a lot of question about the morality of Clark's actions in Abyss, but what about the legal aspects of it.

I'm not a legal expert but i was wondering whether it would technically class as breaking the law. I can think of a few things it could come under. Anyone here a Lawyer/Law student?

[kaam]

Is he going to be charged with something? I think Lana and Chloe will be the first to go, if that's the case... *just kidding....*

[SupesComicFan]

I don't think the law covers things like "alien intelligence wiping all of your memories and your other alien friend deciding to restore some memories but leave others hidden, with the help of the voice/computer of his father, who has been dead for over 20 years."

:rotfl:

[Jaderoyale]

There is a lot of question about the morality of Clark's actions in Abyss, but what about the legal aspects of it.

I'm not a legal expert but i was wondering whether it would technically class as breaking the law. I can think of a few things it could come under. Anyone here a Lawyer/Law student?

I'm not a law student, but i have done aspects of law in my studies, and i honestly understood his actions.
The way it was portrayed, Chloe was loosing EVERY aspect of her memory; she forgot Jimmy first, then she started to loose everything else, then finally Clark until she only recognized Davis (which i believe was ultimately Brainiacs plan)
The way i see it, Clark could have left Chloe yeah, but she had no idea who he was; only Davis. Her brain was covered, well her memories, were all replaced with Kryptonian code, and we don't know exactly what would have happened to her.
Clark ultimately wanted Jor-El to heal her, to get rid of the Brainiac infection and restore her memories. But then, he said he wanted all memories of his secret gone. I think he believed Chloe not knowing his secret would keep her safer, as he said to her, the best way to keep her safe was to let her go. And honestly, it was a hard choice for him. Chloe was his "go to"; and she's been that way since S5, the one he could count on to help him with his secret. But this season Clark has been realising how much danger people knowing his secret put them in - he said this in Identity to Oliver, about the possibility of letting Jimmy know he was the Good Samaritan. Not to mention the fact he doesn't want people to ultimately die protecting his secret, like his dad and Lionel did. I highly doubt he'd want that to happen to Chloe too.

Fair enough it can be seen as illegal to take away the memories without the consent. But ultimately Chloe was going insane, and Clark did what he thought was best.
There may be some who disagree with me on that, as i'm not a full on law student.

[Hopefulsuicide]

I don't think the law covers things like "alien intelligence wiping all of your memories and your other alien friend deciding to restore some memories but leave others hidden, with the help of the voice/computer of his father, who has been dead for over 20 years."

:rotfl:

:lol: no it doesn't... but don't you think it should:p

[SupesComicFan]

I think the argument here, would be if he were "stealing" anything or if he were in any position of authority over her. Clearly, he is in a position of authority, because he has the power to restore her memories and didn't restore all of them. But, he is not the one who stole them, so he didn't steal anything. He just selectively restored them. Is that illegal? No. Unethical, maybe, depending. Is one "entitled" to their memories? Is one "compelled" to restore all of them if they can?

[Bizarrolover]

I think the argument here, would be if he were "stealing" anything or if he were in any position of authority over her. Clearly, he is in a position of authority, because he has the power to restore her memories and didn't restore all of them. But, he is not the one who stole them, so he didn't steal anything. He just selectively restored them. Is that illegal? No. Unethical, maybe, depending. Is one "entitled" to their memories? Is one "compelled" to restore all of them if they can?


Good point. Clark didn't steal her memories, he restored them partially.

Anyway, It would be intersting to see Clark explaining his actions to a judge. :lol:

Clark: See, your honour, my friend's brain was infected by an alien supercomputer that began to erase her memories so I had to take her to my fortress of solitude so my father, well, not exactly my father, in fact he's just an artificial intelligence my father created to guide me after his death, would restore her memories except the ones about my alien heritage.

Judge: Your Fortress of what?

In the background, two guards carrying a straitjacket are aproaching Clark.

[SupesComicFan]

Since Clark is not a doctor, and has no oath to break, I think the Good Samaritan law would cover him. He helped her, when he didn't have to. That he chose to also help himself may not be relevant.

[Hopefulsuicide]

:lol:

see i think it would go a little more like this

Clark: See, your honour, my friends brain was infected by an alien super computer that began to erase her memories so i had to take her to my fortress of solitude so the artificial intelligence created by my father could restore her memories

Judge: go on

Clark: but you see, lots of people in my life keep getting hurt because they know too much about me, so i decided not to give her memories back about my powers

Judge: well i'm sorry son, but 'people keep getting hurt' is not a good defense in a court of law. it would not be excusable to kill someone just because Chloe would have been hurt if you hadn't would it?

Clark: well no, but...

Judge: and isn't it true that you were directly going against her wishes?

Clark: well yes, but she doesn't know what is good for her...

Judge: MR KENT! that is not your decision to make! ... It is the decision of this court that you compromised Miss Sullivan's human rights because of your worries of the future pain. While i think your intentions were not malicious, the actions were criminal.

take him away :p

[RedKRules]

^^ I loved it !!! :p

[Kevin24]

I think it would be deemed illegal. He did something without Chloe's consent. I know there aren't any laws about taking away someone's memory. The jury would rule in favor of Chloe because it is her mind and body and that belongs to her. Clark did save her life and cured her of her disease but taking away her memory of his secret is something entirely different because she was already out of the woods.

He could argue that it was for her own good but Chloe is the one who decides that. Anyway, if this went to trail I am confident Chloe would win the case.

[Bizarrolover]

Judge: MR KENT! that is not your decision to make! ... It is the decision of this court that you compromised Miss Sullivan's human rights because of your worries of the future pain. While i think your intentions were not malicious, the actions were criminal.

take him away :p

:rotfl:

Judge: next case .

Prosecutor: A young man was brainfried at Metropolis general two weeks ago. The security cam footage shows Miss Sullivan leaving the room two seconds before the code blue was announced. Aparently Miss Sullivan suffers some kind of partial amnesia because she doesn-t recall going to the hospital that day.

Judge: I bet it has to something to do with Mr. Kent. :rotfl:

[jon-el87]

I don't think the law covers things like "alien intelligence wiping all of your memories and your other alien friend deciding to restore some memories but leave others hidden, with the help of the voice/computer of his father, who has been dead for over 20 years."

Correct. However, there are still various methods Chloe could use to get back at him; Sue him for emotional suffering or get a restraining order against him (with Clark's fear of isolation and rejection, this would be the ultimate punishment for him).

[kaam]

:lol:

see i think it would go a little more like this

Clark: See, your honour, my friends brain was infected by an alien super computer that began to erase her memories so i had to take her to my fortress of solitude so the artificial intelligence created by my father could restore her memories

Judge: go on

Clark: but you see, lots of people in my life keep getting hurt because they know too much about me, so i decided not to give her memories back about my powers

Judge: well i'm sorry son, but 'people keep getting hurt' is not a good defense in a court of law. it would not be excusable to kill someone just because Chloe would have been hurt if you hadn't would it?

Clark: well no, but...

Judge: and isn't it true that you were directly going against her wishes?

Clark: well yes, but she doesn't know what is good for her...

Judge: MR KENT! that is not your decision to make! ... It is the decision of this court that you compromised Miss Sullivan's human rights because of your worries of the future pain. While i think your intentions were not malicious, the actions were criminal.

take him away :p

Looks like you have been watching Boston Legal :D



:rotfl:

Judge: next case .

Prosecutor: A young man was brainfried at Metropolis general two weeks ago. The security cam footage shows Miss Sullivan leaving the room two seconds before the code blue was announced. Aparently Miss Sullivan suffers some kind of partial amnesia because she doesn-t recall going to the hospital that day.

Judge: I bet it has to something to do with Mr. Kent. :rotfl:

ROFL :rotfl:

[umm]

I don't think the law covers things like "alien intelligence wiping all of your memories and your other alien friend deciding to restore some memories but leave others hidden, with the help of the voice/computer of his father, who has been dead for over 20 years.":rotfl:


:lol: No, it sure doesn't, but maybe it should!
But I think to aswer the posted quesion one needs to entertain the notion of Clark being a human being, who with some medical techonology has rearranged someones memories, in this instance Chloe's, without her permission.
Now it might be possible for doctors to do that in cases where a patient has experienced something very traumatic, can't deal or live with the memory of it, and wants to forget! But the procedure should only be done with the patient's expression, and certainly not in cases where a person has previously expresed a disdain and a negative opinion of the procedure!
So yes, Clark be charged for inflicting unnecessary, phsychological pain, cos should Chloe ever regain her memories, she will feel deeply betrayed, hurt, robbed of her free will, which equals rape, just in a different sense!

[borednow]

I think for sanities sake we might all want to ignore legality on Smallville.

[ginnyfan]

Wouldn't that be interesting if our government spent tax dollars dreaming up laws for supernatural non-existent crimes.
Senator 1: What if there were ray guns?
Senator 2: Hmm...
Senator 1: How would we... regulate that?
Senator 2: Let's start a committee.

Seriously... Clark's citizenship is illegal. We should make a list of all the illegal things that happen on Smallville starting with the pilot. What a LONG list that would be.

ETA: I wonder which character would end up with the most jail time. Probably Lex Luthor... or Lionel. But I think everyone would spend some time behind bars.

[dru-zod2501]

:lol:

see i think it would go a little more like this

Clark: See, your honour, my friends brain was infected by an alien super computer that began to erase her memories so i had to take her to my fortress of solitude so the artificial intelligence created by my father could restore her memories

Judge: go on

Clark: but you see, lots of people in my life keep getting hurt because they know too much about me, so i decided not to give her memories back about my powers

Judge: well i'm sorry son, but 'people keep getting hurt' is not a good defense in a court of law. it would not be excusable to kill someone just because Chloe would have been hurt if you hadn't would it?

Clark: well no, but...

Judge: and isn't it true that you were directly going against her wishes?

Clark: well yes, but she doesn't know what is good for her...

Judge: MR KENT! that is not your decision to make! ... It is the decision of this court that you compromised Miss Sullivan's human rights because of your worries of the future pain. While i think your intentions were not malicious, the actions were criminal.

take him away :p
I don't know about England, but here in NY that would likely fall under justifiable homicide/self-defense.

If I looked at this from a legal perspective, I can see how Clark would be held legally culpable. Morally too, sure, but we don't prosecute morality here.

Chloe was infected with a life-threatening illness. Clark chose to save her life in the best way he could to prevent this from ever happening again. But the problems are two-fold:

1) The most obvious legal issue to be found, it would be Clark making health decisions for Chloe in the absence of her next-of-kin. Hell, in this instance I think even Jimmy's opinion would've held more legal sway than Clark's

2) She clearly made a declaration of her wishes while she was still relatively lucid; it would be admissable that she said she did not want to lose any of her knowledge of the secret. Unless he wants to lie on the stand.

"NO I'm sure I didn't hear her say that"

"But don't you have super-hearing? and wasn't she standing right next to you when she said it?"

"What?"

"I said wasn't she--"

"WHAT??"

"Mister Kent do you think this--"

"WHAT???"

While I understand, and I empathize with Clark, a great prosecutor could spin these as maybe Class D non-violent felonies.

I'll end by saying Clark would most likely want his day in court, and you won't find a state in the Union that would convict. Just let his conscience do the work for you

[umm]

I think for sanities sake we might all want to ignore legality on Smallville.

That one I can agree one, cos if we start counting all the illegalities commited by all the characters in Smallville, alive, dead or otherwise absent during these seven and half seasons than we would trully go nuts!!!!:(:o:\

[SuperFan85]

If you wanna charge Clark with anything illegal, it should be for breaking and entering lol. All those times, he let himself into Lex's mansion without his consent. lol

[old guy]

I'll end by saying Clark would most likely want his day in court, and you won't find a state in the Union that would convict. Just let his conscience do the work for you

I'd agree. Particularly if Clark decided to drop an island on anyone trying to convict him.;)

[SnowBird]

Regardless of whether Clark was right or wrong...Where is the proof of any wrong doing? They were in the arctic and the only one that knows what happened is Clark and he isn't telling. Chloe is happily clueless looking forward to her wedding. I just have to chuckle a little about this thread. If some of you had your way, Clark would be spending life in a Kryptonite jail cell where he never becomes Superman. The world is taken over by aliens and all the humans loose their lives except Lex Luthor who is leading the take over....Next ridiculous topic...LOL

[HalJordan4184]

Since Clark is not a doctor, and has no oath to break, I think the Good Samaritan law would cover him. He helped her, when he didn't have to. That he chose to also help himself may not be relevant.

The good samaritan law, covers you if you do something like CPR in good faith. It wouldn't cover joe schmo on the street (or Clark) if they just up and decided to start giving drugs, or perfroming any procedure more complex than chest compressions. I can't go out, having watched an appendectomy on TV, and in good faith, try to perform one on my neighbor, who I think has appendicitis. I'd go to jail in an instant.

[BadaBingBadaBoomsday]

Regardless of whether Clark was right or wrong...Where is the proof of any wrong doing? They were in the arctic and the only one that knows what happened is Clark and he isn't telling.
Technically there are a couple of witnesses, Brainiac for one, and you wouldn't need to give him any excuse to bare witness!

[SnowBird]

Technically there are a couple of witnesses, Brainiac for one, and you wouldn't need to give him any excuse to bare witness!

At the time, Brainiac was some black ooze coming out of Chloe's ear. I don't think in that form you could consider it a witness. People are trying to fit aliens or alien technology into a human court system which is out of the question.

[Hopefulsuicide]

:rotfl:

Judge: next case .

Prosecutor: A young man was brainfried at Metropolis general two weeks ago. The security cam footage shows Miss Sullivan leaving the room two seconds before the code blue was announced. Aparently Miss Sullivan suffers some kind of partial amnesia because she doesn-t recall going to the hospital that day.

Judge: I bet it has to something to do with Mr. Kent. :rotfl:

:rotfl:


I don't know about England, but here in NY that would likely fall under justifiable homicide/self-defense.

If I looked at this from a legal perspective, I can see how Clark would be held legally culpable. Morally too, sure, but we don't prosecute morality here.



but it's not self defense, cause it's Clark doing it not chloe... it's chloe defense...

and yeah if he was doing it to save his friend he would probably get a lesser sentance, but still a sentance

[dru-zod2501]

:rotfl:



but it's not self defense, cause it's Clark doing it not chloe... it's chloe defense...

and yeah if he was doing it to save his friend he would probably get a lesser sentance, but still a sentance
I don't remember the full statute on self-defense (it may be worded to include JH) but justifiable homicide would cover cover him killing someone like Brainy, or Zod, or anyone if they were literally a few seconds away from tearing her head off her body, or anihilating her brain too.

[borednow]

^There is this thing called imminant danger, if you think a life is in imminant danger you are impowered to save it using deadly force.

If you witness some woman getting stabbed with a knife you are allowed to shoot the man stabbing her...

However this is all rediculous because it isn't illegal to use alien technology to only partially restore someone's memories... because there are no laws about rights to remember! And if there were I would write my congress person about how they are wasting their time and our tax dollars on stuff like that!

[HalJordan4184]

^There is this thing called imminant danger, if you think a life is in imminant danger you are impowered to save it using deadly force.

If you witness some woman getting stabbed with a knife you are allowed to shoot the man stabbing her...

However this is all rediculous because it isn't illegal to use alien technology to only partially restore someone's memories... because there are no laws about rights to remember! And if there were I would write my congress person about how they are wasting their time and our tax dollars on stuff like that!


This isn't entirely accurate. In Clark's case, he doesn't need to use deadly force. A police officer is required to, only because it's the only REASONABLE alternative he has left. Same with average Joe walking down the street.

Clark on the other hand, has what is akin to a nuclear arsenal in his pocket, versus a 9mm or asp. he can't simply unleashhis powers on people, and kill them, because they were in danger.

Black Belts in martial arts, former members of the military, police officers, and other similarly trained people, are actually held to a different standard, because of their specific training in these instances. A black belt, can not attack a man with a knife who is attacking someone else, disarm him, and then kill him, simply because it's an abuse of power, and excessive force. With Clark, this is a million fold multiplied.

In Clark's case, it would technically be illegal for him to kill just about anyone in "self defence", or as a justifiable homicide. There is no real fear for his life, nor is the only option open to him, immediate lethal force.

[dru-zod2501]

This isn't entirely accurate. In Clark's case, he doesn't need to use deadly force. A police officer is required to, only because it's the only REASONABLE alternative he has left. Same with average Joe walking down the street.

Clark on the other hand, has what is akin to a nuclear arsenal in his pocket, versus a 9mm or asp. he can't simply unleashhis powers on people, and kill them, because they were in danger.

Black Belts in martial arts, former members of the military, police officers, and other similarly trained people, are actually held to a different standard, because of their specific training in these instances. A black belt, can not attack a man with a knife who is attacking someone else, disarm him, and then kill him, simply because it's an abuse of power, and excessive force. With Clark, this is a million fold multiplied.

In Clark's case, it would technically be illegal for him to kill just about anyone in "self defence", or as a justifiable homicide. There is no real fear for his life, nor is the only option open to him, immediate lethal force.
You're right in the majority of circumstances, Clark using deadly force is unjustifiable, which is why I tried to qualify my answer by adding the particular kind of threats it would apply to (I didn't word it well enough).

Do you think a court of law would find him guilty of excessive force if Zod, Faora, & Brainy, either separately or in tandem, were to attack humans while at full power? Compared to them Kal doesn't have the same kind of military training; he would be relatively "average joe" against them.

how did we move into this subject again?

[HalJordan4184]

In the case of like powered individuals, in the eye of the law, he may very well be justified in killing them. His morals however, should prevent him from ever doing that.

However, for the purposes of this thread, we aren't really going that route.

In the Chloe case, what CLark did, was not fix the real problem, but rather make Chloe forget what the problem was, and now he is just hoping everything fixes itself.

[LovelyLoisLane]

:lol: no it doesn't... but don't you think it should:p

Only if people start getting arrested for breaking into goverment facilites, stealing medical/autopsy documents, hacking into secured websites, assault and battery, theft, murder and the plethora of other actual crimes covered by the law that happen with frequency on this show.

[smallvillerocks45]

Oh, I don't know... Had they gone through the hospital route, it seems unlikely that Chloe would have even recovered half of the memories she now has. Although Clark acted against Chloe's wishes, I don't know it necessarily qualifies as a criminal offense. The act was not committed maliciously, he wasn't trying to steal her identity or cover up a homicide... he just made a choice that may or may not be permanent. I think it is the latter, to be quite honest. I wouldn't send Clark to jail for trying to help his friend live a safer life.

[KEGZilla]

I guess if we are talking about all the law breaking in smallville...what about all the deaths that have occurred through the years that seem to be forgotton and or just ignored by smallville police.

[mysticalweather]

Talk about a gray-area topic!

Would the 'right to not have your memories erased' fall under basic human rights? LOL!

Just for fun, let's compare it to a medical situation.

What if, say, Chloe explicitly said she would not accept a blood transfusion, even to save her life, and Clark was well aware of this.

Chloe gets severely injured, is unconscious, and Clark goes against her wishes by approving a blood transfusion.

Issues raised: 1) Clark *knowingly disregards* Chloe's wishes regarding her body. 2) A transfusion in no way guarantees her survival. 3) Complications from the transfusion could, in fact, cause her to die.

Were Clark's actions illegal?

If she didn't have a legal document (such as a power of attorney) stating her wishes regarding the issue...then no, his actions would not technically be illegal. (And I'm conveniently ignoring the whole "next of kin" medical issue.) Clark made a decision to do what he could to save her life.

Was Clark's decision unethical?

You'd better believe it!

Knowing her wishes gives him the responsibility to fulfill them, even if he disagrees. As a trusted friend, Clark should honor her wishes.

As far as Clark's secret goes... Chloe told him that she treasured her memories of his secret and that she wouldn't give them up for anything. Chloe would have never agreed to partial memory erasure. And Clark was well aware of Chloe's feelings on the matter. Also, as much as he hopes otherwise...Chloe's not knowing Clark's secret does not fix the problem. And it could put her in more danger. Brainiac is still out there, and now Chloe isn't even aware of it. This, IMO, puts her in greater danger.

So, anyway, the long and short of this post is: Illegal? Not technically. But definitely unethical.

She could *so* file civil charges against him.

Next week on Judy Judy...

:rotfl:

[jon-el87]

Since season one, Clark has commited the fallowing crimes (note, I might miss a few).

1) Breaking and entering (he's done that so many times, I've lost count).

2) Stealing.

3) Attempted murder (like with the sandguy in Pariah and Both Lionel and Lex in Phantom, there's also a few other cases)

4) Kidnapping.

5) Invasion of privacy.

6) Various threats.

7) He helped Andrea Rojas track down the man, who killed her mother, whom she then killed.

8) Endangering the lives of others (like when he released Zod or the other Zoners, who killed several people).

[SnowBird]

I guess Clark should just stop helping people because it might turn out bad or he might have to cross some boundaries.

I wonder why Chloe got off so easy after killing that man this season. I think that is worse than Clark keeping his secret from her. I do know she should at least get life but I guess that one will be swept under a rug and Chloe comes out smelling like roses because she can do no wrong according to some people.

[alejandrita439]

I don't think the law covers things like "alien intelligence wiping all of your memories and your other alien friend deciding to restore some memories but leave others hidden, with the help of the voice/computer of his father, who has been dead for over 20 years."

:rotfl:

hahahaha i agree :lol:

[kropek]

Since season one, Clark has commited the fallowing crimes (note, I might miss a few).

1) Breaking and entering (he's done that so many times, I've lost count).

2) Stealing.

3) Attempted murder (like with the sandguy in Pariah and Both Lionel and Lex in Phantom, there's also a few other cases)

4) Kidnapping.

5) Invasion of privacy.

6) Various threats.

7) He helped Andrea Rojas track down the man, who killed her mother, whom she then killed.

8) Endangering the lives of others (like when he released Zod or the other Zoners, who killed several people).

so i guess this is another the Incredibles' case... being heroic makes them bad :\

[Hopefulsuicide]

I guess Clark should just stop helping people because it might turn out bad or he might have to cross some boundaries.

I wonder why Chloe got off so easy after killing that man this season. I think that is worse than Clark keeping his secret from her. I do know she should at least get life but I guess that one will be swept under a rug and Chloe comes out smelling like roses because she can do no wrong according to some people.

ollie gets off easy for attempting to shoot lex in the head either

the reason it matters is that he is SUPERMAN... and it's simply a different kettle of fish

----- Added 1 Minutes later -----


Talk about a gray-area topic!

Would the 'right to not have your memories erased' fall under basic human rights? LOL!

Just for fun, let's compare it to a medical situation.

What if, say, Chloe explicitly said she would not accept a blood transfusion, even to save her life, and Clark was well aware of this.

Chloe gets severely injured, is unconscious, and Clark goes against her wishes by approving a blood transfusion.

Issues raised: 1) Clark *knowingly disregards* Chloe's wishes regarding her body. 2) A transfusion in no way guarantees her survival. 3) Complications from the transfusion could, in fact, cause her to die.

Were Clark's actions illegal?

If she didn't have a legal document (such as a power of attorney) stating her wishes regarding the issue...then no, his actions would not technically be illegal. (And I'm conveniently ignoring the whole "next of kin" medical issue.) Clark made a decision to do what he could to save her life.

Was Clark's decision unethical?

You'd better believe it!

Knowing her wishes gives him the responsibility to fulfill them, even if he disagrees. As a trusted friend, Clark should honor her wishes.

As far as Clark's secret goes... Chloe told him that she treasured her memories of his secret and that she wouldn't give them up for anything. Chloe would have never agreed to partial memory erasure. And Clark was well aware of Chloe's feelings on the matter. Also, as much as he hopes otherwise...Chloe's not knowing Clark's secret does not fix the problem. And it could put her in more danger. Brainiac is still out there, and now Chloe isn't even aware of it. This, IMO, puts her in greater danger.

So, anyway, the long and short of this post is: Illegal? Not technically. But definitely unethical.

She could *so* file civil charges against him.

Next week on Judy Judy...

:rotfl:

awesome post

there are plenty of medical decisions that cause law suits... because a persons body/mind is the most precious possession they have, and they will fight for their right to make they're own decisions regarding them

[SacredK]

I don't think the law covers things like "alien intelligence wiping all of your memories and your other alien friend deciding to restore some memories but leave others hidden, with the help of the voice/computer of his father, who has been dead for over 20 years."

:rotfl:


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Hahaha. Take it easy. :rotfl: Woooie. That was funny.

[dunkman]

Since Clark is not a doctor, and has no oath to break, I think the Good Samaritan law would cover him. He helped her, when he didn't have to. That he chose to also help himself may not be relevant.

Yeah, I think the Good Samaritan law would be key here if it ever came up. In any case, with all the secrets Clark keeps, I don't think what's legal is really an issue. The only memories Chloe didn't get back were the ones nobody knew she had, so it's moot.

----- Added 4 Minutes later -----

If anything Clark does comes up in a legal proceeding, it would no doubt come up that he's an illegal alien, which would mean Martha couldn't be a senator anymore. Certain things just need to be left alone.

[HalJordan4184]

Yeah, I think the Good Samaritan law would be key here if it ever came up. In any case, with all the secrets Clark keeps, I don't think what's legal is really an issue. The only memories Chloe didn't get back were the ones nobody knew she had, so it's moot.

----- Added 4 Minutes later -----

If anything Clark does comes up in a legal proceeding, it would no doubt come up that he's an illegal alien, which would mean Martha couldn't be a senator anymore. Certain things just need to be left alone.

The good samaritan law, only covers those, who perform an act like CPR, in good faith. If you find a man on the street, lying there with no pulse, and not breathing, and you attempt to do some form of CPR, you are then covered. If that man dies, and even if you did CPR wrong, you are still covered, provided you aren't a trained health care provider.

It would not cover you, doing what amounts to brain surgery, in good faith that it will fix your friend. That's practicing medicine without a liscense.

[dunkman]

The good samaritan law, only covers those, who perform an act like CPR, in good faith. If you find a man on the street, lying there with no pulse, and not breathing, and you attempt to do some form of CPR, you are then covered. If that man dies, and even if you did CPR wrong, you are still covered, provided you aren't a trained health care provider.

It would not cover you, doing what amounts to brain surgery, in good faith that it will fix your friend. That's practicing medicine without a liscense.

Thanks for the explanation! Isn't it great that we can learn so much about the law on kryptonsite?

[ginnyfan]

The good samaritan law, only covers those, who perform an act like CPR, in good faith. If you find a man on the street, lying there with no pulse, and not breathing, and you attempt to do some form of CPR, you are then covered. If that man dies, and even if you did CPR wrong, you are still covered, provided you aren't a trained health care provider.

It would not cover you, doing what amounts to brain surgery, in good faith that it will fix your friend. That's practicing medicine without a liscense.

But if your un-licenced brain surgery saved their life... they could still sue? Jimmy and Davis could testify that Chloe was losing her memories BEFORE the brain surgery but then AFTER the brain surgery Chloe's memories were back. Oliver Queen could testify that knowing Clark's secret put Chloe in over her head and led to her memory loss in the first place. Then there's the whole extraterrestrial element. Would any licensed medical practitioner have been able to help Chloe or reverse her condition?

I don't agree with what Clark did, but I doubt Chloe would win if she sued him.

[HalJordan4184]

But if your un-licenced brain surgery saved their life... they could still sue? Jimmy and Davis could testify that Chloe was losing her memories BEFORE the brain surgery but then AFTER the brain surgery Chloe's memories were back. Oliver Queen could testify that knowing Clark's secret put Chloe in over her head and led to her memory loss in the first place. Then there's the whole extraterrestrial element. Would any licensed medical practitioner have been able to help Chloe or reverse her condition?

I don't agree with what Clark did, but I doubt Chloe would win if she sued him.

It would boil down to, it wasn't Clark's decision to make. He is not a medically trained person. He isn't her relative, or next of kin. He had no legal right to do what he did, at all. He wouldn't be covered anywhere. I'd sure as heck sure him, especially because he didn't just fix the problem, he went, and decided what parts of Chloe's life she got to remember, based on what he WANTED her to remember.

[ginnyfan]

*nods*

I doubt a jury would find Clark guilty. He did what he did to save Chloe's life, not with intent to harm.

[Hopefulsuicide]

plenty of people are given jail time for things they did without intent to harm