Padme Amidala: an accessory to murder

I'm just wondering what the point is of trying to hold Padme's actions up to a fictional legal standard that is never actually established anywhere in the films or EU. Especially when one thing that IS explicitly established in-film is that the Republic's legal authority doesn't extend to Tatooine.

We don't actually KNOW what the Republic laws are concerning murder, especially in its waning years. Any discussion is going to be so full of "Well, the law is PROBABLY like this" as to be pointless.

We can judge Padme according to U.S. or U.K. law, I suppose. But then we come to the question of, "Why should we care whether she obeys laws that don't exist in her universe?"

I just think all this talk of legality is a round-about and ineffective way to get at the larger point of the morality and ethics of the issue.

Padme's response to the mass murder is ethically and morally reprehensible, legal or not.

 

Yep.

Exactly. We're holding her to our legal standards, rather than whatever hers may be.

Absolutely. Being able to disprove something in court doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just look at OJ.

It's not that nobody cares, it's that nobody cares to argue this discussion to absurd levels.

The fact that Darth_Davi is raising doubts about Anakin's alleged actions and Padme's possible knowledge and use of a confession - despite the fact that we, the audience, know that the act and the admission are both true just demonstrates the futility of Davi's attempt to paint this situation as something other than what it really is. It's misrepresentation like that that allowed Palpatine to take over the Republic to begin with.

So why you think anything he posted of that nature is a win is quite funny...then again, you know what they say about winning an argument on the Internet.

 

Maybe a little clarification is in order before Bill Murray wakes up to that darned alarm clock again.

The title of the thread is "Padme Amidala: an accessory to murder" and the premise of the OP was that Padme could be legally, and should have been, charged as an accessory to murder; that she and Anakin should have both been prosecuted and maybe then the galaxy could have been saved.

Darth_Davi, myself, and others have made the arguments that legally, a charge of accessory to murder against Padme would not have held up in court, nor would a charge of first- or second-degree murder against Anakin have held up in court.

Then the arguments on the OP's side switch: it doesn't matter whether it was legal or not, we're arguing a moral and ethical issue. MeBeJedi even makes the point that it's absurd to try to use defense-lawyer tactics for a legal system that doesn't exist in Padme's universe. Which FWIW I think he's right, but I didn't write the original post. And I was trying to give the original poster the benefit of the doubt that she wanted a debate with points and counterpoints, although the more she posts and the more condescending her tone becomes (her reply to Darth_Davi being the latest example), the more I think she just wanted to tell the rest of us how to interpret certain scenes and tell us that we're all morons if we disagree.

So what exactly are we arguing here? That morally and ethically, Padme should have turned Anakin in? To whom, the Jedi Council? The Senate?

I think that would be a good discussion, especially if we look at the possible ramifications of Padme turning Anakin in--and I don't think it's as simple as "He would be expelled from the Jedi Order and everyone would live happily ever after"--Palpatine is still in charge, Anakin can still be turned, and if for some reason he can't use the Force anymore, Palpatine would find another apprentice--and there would be no Luke and Leia to save the galaxy from Palpatine's Empire.

But it's a different discussion from the premise in the OP.

 

The thing is, Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon, I actually agree with you. It is stupid to hold a fictional character up to our standards...but, the entire thread is based on that very idea, so I am playing along....by showing that even when you do hold them to our standards, it's a ridiculous thread. If Ahsoka_SkyGal and MeBeJedi want to use poorly understood legal definitions to condemn Padme, I am going to use better understood legal definitions to get her off the hook.

Anakin_Girl seems to get it...

But, if Ahsoka_SkyGal wants to insist on using definitions that I have already proven to be wrong, such as the difference between firsthand and secondhand knowledge, that's fine with me. Even after I proved that Padme had secondhand knowledge, not firsthand knowledge, she wants to claim Padme had firsthand knowledge...well, nothing I can do about that. She also wants to claim that not reporting a crime after the fact is the same as helping that crime be committed...as in, her future inaction allowed Anakin to actually cause the crime to happen...again, a completely illogical statement. The supposed crime had already been committed. How could Padme assist in the commission of a crime by not reporting it, when she can't report it until after the crime has been committed? Hmmm? Another ridiculous position debunked.

I didn't deny the actions happened, MeBeJedi...what I am doing is showing that the category you and Ahsoka_SkyGal want to classify it as is not so cut and dry as you would like it to be. You called it murder, when it wasn't, not by our standards. You called her an accessory, when she wasn't, according to our standards. I didn't say Anakin didn't slaughter the Tusken village. I dare you to find anything I said that suggests otherwise.

In fact, go back to the OP. Its all there. Who brought legal definitions up in the first place? Ahsoka_SkyGal did. In the very first post. Sorry, but if you are going to bring up the legal definitions of something, and then throw about terms such as murder and being an accessory to murder, did you really expect nobody was going to challenge your understanding of those very legal definitions? Ahsoka_SkyGal started the thread based on faulty understanding of specific legal terms. I merely corrected that faulty understanding by providing the correct legal definitions of those terms, and then explaining why they don't apply. If you are going claim the legal definition of X is Y, when the legal definition of X is actually Z, did you expect not get called out?

 

You're right that the idea of murder is not specifically discussed, but the fact is that was have some idea of what the Republic was like and we can judge it based on that as opposed to it being completely a shot in the dark. And yes, the Republic has no authority on Tatooine, but as I have said four times already, Republic citizens are still bound by Republic law even if they're off-world. The Jedi, being a representation of the Republic, have the weight of working on the behalf of the Jedi Council. I think we do know the laws on murder based on what we've seen, and the fact that the Republic is in it's waning years is irrelevant. Anakin's murders happened in "Attack of the Clones", specifically before the Clone Wars even started. Because the Republic was about to go down in flames in a couple years does not mean that there is no standard order. It's laws that the Republic had in place for a thousand years are very much still in effect during the time that the murders took place and I would like to hear reasons why they would be suspended at that time.

Legality has nothing to do with morality and ethics with some things. "Accessory to murder" is a legal term that was in this thread's original question, so throwing out the legality really isn't answering anyone's question. We are totally in agreement that, morally, Padme should have acted. That wasn't the question though.

 

It is by mine, which is a perfectly acceptable standard in a Star Wars forum.

I didn't say you claimed that. I said you were demonstrating how to prove otherwise using legal tomfoolery, which is besides the point. I dare you to find anything I said that suggests otherwise.

 

So if I'm understanding this correctly:

The OP labelled Padme an "accessory to murder" and used an alleged legal definition to defend that assertion.

Darth_Davi brings up the real legal definition and says that Padme is not, in fact, an accessory to murder using the actual definition of the term. Several others of us have brought up reasons why Padme would not likely be charged in court as an accessory. Slowburn, to his credit, argues that in fact she probably could.

But the counterargument is now, "It doesn't matter if she could actually be charged as an accessory to murder in a court of law. We believe that she is an accessory to murder, therefore, she is"? Even in a Star Wars universe that doesn't really fly. We need a concrete basis on which to make our points and counterpoints, otherwise we're just throwing about "Yes she is!" "No she's not!" "Yes she is!" ad nauseum, which reminds me a bit of my 5-year-old and my 3-year-old arguing. If we're going to argue legality, let's argue legality, but legal terms have actual definitions, you can't just make them up as you go along. Darth_Davi pulled the US definition, but we could probably pull the definition of "accessory to murder" from the legal libraries of any other Western country and find the same. I'm not as familiar with the laws in non-Western societies but I would venture a guess that the definitions of "first degree murder," "second degree murder," "manslaughter," and "accessory to murder" are pretty much the same as ours. Conviction processes are just likely to be different.

Are we arguing legality here or morality and ethics? As I said earlier, I have no problem debating either one, but I certainly would like to know exactly what premise I'm supposed to be debating.

Here are the points that I believe we all agree on:

1. Anakin slaughtered the entire Tusken village, the men who murdered his mother as well as the women and children, who were innocent bystanders.

2. Slaughtering the women and children was wrong.

3. He told Padme about it and from what we know from the films, she didn't tell anyone.

From there, are we debating that she was legally responsible to tell, or that she was morally and ethically responsible to tell? As I said, two different debates, the OP gave the impression that she wanted the first one.

 

I think some folks are getting a little too hung up on the OP, and are making too big a deal about it. Discussions can and do evolve. Not to mention it's all hypothetical and based on an imaginary story anyways. Let's back off and take a reality check.

 

Well I?ve done some digging also and from what I found, it seems like the OP got it right.

US law
?Whoever, after the commission of a felony, harbors, conceals, maintains or assists the principal felon or accessory before the fact, or gives such offender any other aid, knowing that he has committed a felony or has been accessory thereto before the fact, with intent that he shall avoid or escape detention, arrest, trial or punishment, shall be an accessory after the fact,?

?In the United States, a person who learns of the crime and gives some form of assistance before the crime is committed is known as an "accessory before the fact". A person who learns of the crime after it is committed and helps the criminal to conceal it, or aids the criminal in escaping, or simply fails to report the crime, is known as an "accessory after the fact". A person who does both is sometimes referred to as an "accessory before and after the fact", but this usage is less common.?

It sounds to me that failing to report the crime is enough. Did Padme KNOW that a crime had been commited? Well Anakin told her what he did. If she belived him then she would know that a crime had been commited. The alternative is that she thought that he was lying but really why would she think this?
However for her to be convicted of anything the crime must be discovered and if she does not mention it then it is unlikely that the authorities will ever learn of it. If this ever went to court then further evidence would no doubt be needed. If the ?police? could find the camp and not too much time had passed then they would find lots of dead tuskens, all with wounds typicla of a lightsaber. They could possibly find Anakin fingerprints or hair there too.

But as others have said, the big issue is not the legal thing but the moral and ethical reasoning by Padme and Anakin. For Padme a key issue is that she has just heard that Anakin totally lost controll and went on a kill-crazy rampage, unable to stop himself. This makes Anakin a big danger to himself and all around him. If such a thing happened again then who knows how many he would kill? Padme should have told Anakin to seek help and tell Obi-Wan and if he refused then the responsible thing would be for her to do it. By staying silent and even saying that what he did was not so bad, Padme becomes an enabler, she makes excuses for Anakin and that is not what he needs to hear.
Some speculated that Padme DID tell the jedi or that Qui-Gon informed Yoda. This I very much doubt, if the Jedi had known what he had done I find extremely unlikey that they would just ignore it. As for Qui-Gon, from RotS I got the sense that Yoda being able to communicate with Qui-Gon was a recent thing, not something that he had been doing for years. If Qui-Gon had spoken to Yoda for years then why didn?t he tell him that Palpatine was a sith?

Regards
Nordom

 

That's part of the point: the "police" on Tatooine were the Hutts, and from what we see in the movies, they are not likely to care what Anakin did, unless the Tuskens were giving them money to care, which I doubt. They also didn't care that the Tusken men were terrorizing the settlers. If there were any sort of justice on Tatooine other than vigilante justice, the farmers could have called on that system instead of going after Shmi themselves, and getting slaughtered as well (26 farmers) or dismembered (Cliegg).

I'll stop short of calling her an "enabler" because Anakin didn't have an addiction. I agree that Padme should have encouraged Anakin to get help, to talk to Obi-Wan or the Jedi Council and tell them what happened. But I don't think that conversation should have happened in the Lars garage; it could have happened in the few hours or day afterwards, before the funeral. Or it could have happened after the funeral if they hadn't gotten the message that Obi-Wan was in trouble.

I think Lucas' intent was not to portray Padme as negligent or covering Anakin's butt. I think the point of the scene was to show how Anakin lost control due to his anger, and how that would later be used against him. The only point at all of Padme being in the scene was for Anakin to have someone to confess to. Another character in that scene would have worked as well.

Did Qui-Gon know that Palpatine was a Sith?

I don't really think Padme told anyone, but I do think Yoda suspected what happened. He saw that Anakin was in pain and he saw "pain, suffering, death." So either he only saw that Shmi was tortured and that Anakin was in horrible emotional pain, without seeing the Tusken slaughter--which would be pretty selective Force visioning if that's the case--or he knew that Anakin had lost control. So would the Jedi Council also be "accessories" for not questioning Anakin about why he was on Tatooine in the first place and what happened while he was there? Obi-Wan knew he was on Tatooine.

 

Both of which were points that I made, and seem pretty common sense to me. What it led to from there was not so much what he did, but how he could beat the rap, which is another discussion altogether - and not one I'd care to contribute to, to be honest.

And I would completely agree, which is why I think your next question - are the Jedi accessories - isn't necessarily relevant, in that I don't think Lucas even considered the (legal) implications of Yoda being aware of Anakin's act (which I think he more or less was.) It's a good question, but I think it falls well outside the scope of what Lucas was trying to convey in these scenes.

(That being said, if I had to give an in-universe answer, I'd wager that the Jedi wouldn't necessarily be accomplices prior to the fact, because they expected Anakin to be on Naboo. After the fact....well...war is breaking out by that point. Many Jedi were killed, and Anakin made a very strong showing against Dooku, so perhaps the Jedi would look at his tusken affair as a terrible misunderstanding with a lesson learned, so let's deal with the details after all the dust has settled. Meanwhile, they need all the trained Jedi they can muster to hold off the Separatists.)

 

Thank you Nordom! I have not yet leveled other charges against Padme such as attempting to harbor a fugitive or obstruction of justice (her actions in ROTS).

Here's some stuff for Darth_Davi to chew on!
Darth_Davi, you had some great points on murder vs. manslaughter, but I?m afraid that murder is the more applicable.
Anakin sets out to find his mother in addition to exacting vengeance on her attackers. He?s not flying into a blind rage, he has an objective in mind ? to hunt down the Tuskens, rescue his mother, and make the Sandpeople pay for what they?ve done. It was willful and premeditated. He was even cautioned by Clieg Lars not to set out to find his mother because she would already be dead. Do we feel we would do the same in his position? Yes, we do. But do we haul a convicted child murderer out of the court and execute him/her after the conviction? No, we don?t.

In addition to Anakin?s confession, Padme has other firsthand knowledge of the crime as she knows where and when it took place ? which could extrapolated from the direction in which Anakin set out on his speeder-bike and the amount of time he was gone-firsthand knowledge that Padme possesses. Additionally, Padme?s testimony would be collaborated with the testimony provided by the jawas he meets up with as he?s searching for the Tuskens.

Dark Side=Insanity defense doesn?t make any sense.
1. There no way to confirm Anakin was in the ?thralls of the dark side? in AOTC. He went to the dark side in ROTS.
2. The Dark Side being equivalent to insanity would require the assumption that those who are in the ?thralls of the dark side? have little to no control over their actions. Yet, Darth Sidious has immense control over his own actions as well as control over the actions of others. Yes, he is deplorable, murderous and vile?but insane ? as in having no idea or what he?s doing?...no, he?s very much aware of what he is attempting to accomplish.

I?m sorry, Darth_Davi. It was murder and Padme was a witness to it. I realize that you, like many, want Padme absolved of any wrongdoing, as she is very beautiful and certainly a good person at heart, but the evidence is too weighty against her.

 

(Imagines Padme's arrest by the Jedi Council and Senate)

Padme:

"Wait a minute...what the Hell is this? What's going on?!? I'm being charged with a crime? Is that it? I'm being charged with a CRIME? This is FUNNY!! That's what this is!! This is....(to Jedi Council members while being restrained) I'M GOING TO RIP YOUR EYES OUT OF THEIR SOCKETS AND PISS IN YOUR SKULL!!! YOU JUST *****D WITH THE WRONG SENATOR!!!!

 

YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!





Oops...wrong movie.

 

It's collective punishment.

Really, with Tatooine, only Luke could really reform it. When you've got the guy who (as far as anyone knows) single-handedly killed the two most hated people in the galaxy and destroyed the Sith Order (for now), you don't need the slave/spice economy. But until then, unless anyone has any better ideas...

 

Yeah, on Tatooine, there were really only two types of justice: vigilante, as enacted by Anakin, and paying off a Hutt and hoping the Hutt gives a crap about what happened.

I'm curious as to what exactly Anakin was supposed to do, call the cops? If you want to say he should have just killed the men and left the women and children alone, I'll agree with you, but if you say that he should have not gone into the camp at all, should have just let the Tuskens get away with killing his mother, or better yet, that they had some right to do so, I have to wonder what your basis for that would be.

Anakin knew his mother was still alive because he felt her through the Force. He did not go to the camp to slaughter the Tuskens, he went there to get his mother. I'm sure he knew that "aggressive negotiations" were going to be involved in rescuing her, but that doesn't change the fact that his main goal was to rescue her. I'm sure if he had found her there unharmed and was able to untie her without any Tusken interfering, no Tusken would have been harmed, he and Shmi would have just left peacefully.

 

Anakin_girl, you're my favorite! I think the answer to your question is in the line that Anakin delivers to Padme after his confession: "I'm a Jedi. I know I'm better than this."

The Jedi are essentially "the cops" or keepers of the peace. One scenario could have been Anakin requesting advice on a course of action from the Jedi Order. They may have told him to "let go" as attachments are not allowed. They may have sent out other Jedi to assist with ensuring justice was done. Anakin, as a Jedi, is the law, but he went above and beyond the "law" of the Jedi Order. Finally, Anakin did untie his mother without the Sandpeople?s knowledge and may well have been able to leave with her body with no need of confrontation.

A few questions have consistently nagged me when watching AOTC and ROTS.
Those being:
1. Why the killing of Sandpeople was maintained as a secret between Anakin and Padme.
2. Why Obi-Wan had to be knocked unconscious in ROTS during the Dooku fight so that he would not be a witness to Palpatine?s mention of his own knowledge of the Sandpeople?s killing and Anakin?s desire for revenge (that revenge also related to Dooku?s killing).

The main issue is why the need for this secrecy if Anakin did nothing wrong?

 

Who said Anakin did nothing wrong?

Obi-Wan got knocked unconscious during the Dooku battle because Dooku knocked him unconscious. What do the Sandpeople have to do with that?

You seem unnecessarily obsessed with the Tusken scene and want to implement it into your interpretation of every scene in both movies. I'm not following, but feel free to tell me I'm "wrong" for not interpreting the movie your way. Or you just don't like Padme, which is certainly your prerogative. But if you're going to accuse her of being an "accessory to murder," I suggest that you take a leaf from your own demands on Darth_Davi, do some research to back up the accusation, and cite links. He did; I'm sure that since you believe he was wrong, you are capable backing up your points as well.

 

On what Anakin should have done:

If he had contacted the Jedi, they would have asked him what the blazes he was doing on Tatooine in the first place and told him to get his *** back to Naboo where he was supposed to be. I very seriously doubt they would have sent any Jedi to help, and if they had, how would justice for Shmi have looked any different, other than the Tusken women and children remaining alive, which we all agree was a desirable outcome? Unless you think the Jedi would have taken the Tuskens to Coruscant for a trial. Come to think of it, that might make an amusing fan fic, assuming the Jedi and the Tusken men would have all survived the trip, which I seriously doubt.

This may be back tracking a bit but I don't think the Jedi should have expected Anakin to ignore a Force-vision of his mother dying. To make a comparison to the US military, I believe soldiers are allowed leave if a parent is dying. And in the case of the Jedi, Force visions count as evidence, messages, whatever you want to label it, you can't really say that they had no proof and that Anakin just had a dream.

They absolutely should have expected him not to slaughter the entire village, but he should have been allowed to try to rescue her, and maybe if he had been allowed to do so as soon as he told Obi-Wan about the dream, Shmi might have lived.

So can I charge Obi-Wan with accessory to murder?

 

Obi-Wan was "knocked out" for a much simpler reason that had nothing to do with Palpatine mentioning the Tusken slaughter...well, at least relegated that to a far secondary concern. He simply didn't want Obi-Wan to witness Palpatine's much more direct seduction of Anakin to the Dark side. It was more about Obi-Wan not witnessing Anakin executing Count Dooku, about Obi-Wan not overhearing Palpatine encouraging Anakin to do it. It isn't all about the damn Tuskens!

 

This is why you're my favorite, because you keep seeing a situation from every possible angle!

Anakin killed Dooku in revenge and Palpatine emphasized with Anakin's need for revenge by also mentioning the example of the Sandpeople. I just find it rather convenient that Obi-Wan was unconscious so that he would not witness that exchange.

Allow me to pose a different scenario to you. Let's say Obi-Wan is not knocked unconscious, but is only rendered helpless like in the Dooku fight in AOTC. Do you think the scene would still play out the same if Obi-Wan was conscious?

 

Yes, absolutely. In fact, I think Palpatine would have relished the look of shock on Obi-Wan's face. And if Obi-Wan reported Anakin for it, and Anakin were expelled from the Order, Palpatine could use that to his advantage.

 

Ahsoka_SkyGal explained it quite well. Dooku's mentioning of the Tuskens was part of the seduction. You're just repeating what she said.

 

YEAH....because that was so much more effective than reminding Anakin that Dooku cut off his arm. Something that happened years ago that Dooku had nothing to do with, or the direct loss of one of his appendages...gee, which is going to be more useful in sparking Anakin's desire for revenge against Count Dooku? Maybe the part that actually involved Dooku, perhaps?

Of course the scene would have played out differently...DUH.

But claiming it was so Obi-Wan didn't overhear the part about the Tuskens? They were a MINOR, INSIGNIFICANT part of that scene compared to Dooku himself. Once again, its not always about the damn Tuskens.