BOOSTERRIFIC! BLOG

Showing posts 1 - 2 of 2 matching: law and the multiverse

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Time Travel and Statute of Limitations

In the latest issue of Booster Gold, Booster is put on trial for something related to his theft from the 25th century Space Museum. (The issue was light on the exact charges.) However, Booster was sentenced to death in a Federal court for his theft back in his first volume of adventures. From a continuity standpoint, this raises several questions: Is Booster being tried at a time prior to his sentencing? Is Booster being tried not for the theft, but for escaping from custody? Or is Booster being tried in another jurisdiction altogether?

It's been 25 years since Booster came to the 20th century with his stolen goods. That's a long time. Is possible for Booster to escape the statute of limitations for a crime he won't commit for another 500 years? Fortunately for us, Law and the Multiverse discusses the question of time travel and the statute of limitations here. It doesn't explain what happened to Booster Gold, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Comments (5) | Add a Comment | Tags: law and the multiverse

Jesse posted on Mar. 1, 2011 at 6:17 PM
25 years in our time is not 25 years in Comic time so the statute wouldn't have run out yet. For most crimes in which the death penalty is the punishment there is usually no statute of limitation at all. If booster commited murder in the 21st century and there was still a record of it in the 25th, he could still be charged with the murder.
About the only thing that would account for Booster being tried twice would be Zero Hour, or an unethical prosecutor during the first trial if the second trial took place first (whoah, time travel headache).

Boosterrific [Official Comment] posted on Mar. 1, 2011 at 7:13 PM
Booster wasn't tried in BGv1 #14, but subject to an automatic death penalty for stealing a time machine. Since Booster escaped from that sentence, there should be no trial because he is still subject to the original death penalty sentence. Unless that future trial didn't happen thanks to some timeline shenanigans erasing it from proper history.

Erin posted on Mar. 2, 2011 at 5:06 AM
If the sentence is an automatic death penalty then there wouldn't be a trial, not even for the other thefts. They certainly didn't want to waste time for it back in the first run.

Even if that death penalty was erased according to Skeets Booster would have one (another one?) for the information they stolen in the 25th century. This was mentioned when Booster returned from the future in IC.

Boosterrific [Official Comment] posted on Mar. 2, 2011 at 5:58 PM
In INFINITE CRISIS #2, Skeets says that Booster was subject to a death penalty for their latest crime of theft of historical information. So Booster should be subject to 2 death penalties: 1 for the initial crime of stealing a Time Sphere, and 1 for the theft of the historical information leading to the activation of Blue Beetle III.

After escaping from the sentence for the first crime, Booster would not be granted a new trial for that crime: the death sentence would still be applicable. Any trial that took place in any jurisdiction after 2462 would be in addition to his already sentenced death penalty (which would be pretty pointless as even in the 25th century you can't kill a guy twice).

The more we know, the less sense it makes. To quote Basil Exposition, "I suggest you don't worry about those things and just enjoy yourself." Yes.

Morgenstern posted on Mar. 4, 2011 at 4:16 AM
But that was before Superboy punched reality! (I guess that excuse will still be used for a few more years.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Law and the Corporate Crusader

Late last week, Law and the Multiverse addressed my question of Booster Gold's liability in the case of misuse of the Brysler Motors' Boostermobile:

Walter writes "I'm curious about the Boostermobile, an automobile in the DC Universe endorsed by Booster Gold. In Booster Gold vol. 1, #11 (1986), Booster becomes concerned that his endorsement of the car (manufactured by Brysler Motors under license of Booster Gold's Goldstar, Inc.) may result in his becoming liable should a supervillain use the car for nefarious purposes [Ed. or if it's simply defective]. Is there any merit to Booster's fear?"

In practice the answer is likely to be 'no,' but if someone is asleep at the switch then the answer could be 'yes.'... For example, what if Booster got involved with some people who wanted to start a new car company?

The site goes on to lay out a sample scenario where Booster could indeed find himself in jeopardy, but I won't spoil the details. You can find the rest here, under the heading "Superhero Product Endorsements," if you're interested.

If you aren't familiar with lawandthemultiverse.com, I recommend that you pay them a visit. They have considered such legal issues as Bruce Wayne's publicly funding Batman and whether Lois Lane can be legally forced to reveal that her husband is Superman. It's the sort of comic books fun that I think fans of Booster Gold will probably enjoy.

Comments (0) | Add a Comment | Tags: boostermobile law and the multiverse

There have been 2856 blog entries since January 2010.

VIEW LIST OF 2990 KEYWORDS

FIND NEWS BY DATE

JUMP TO PAGE

SITE SEARCH

SPOILER WARNING: The content at Boosterrific.com may contain story spoilers for DC Comics publications.

Booster Gold, Skeets, and all related titles, characters, images, slogans, logos are trademark ™ and copyright © DC Comics unless otherwise noted and are used without expressed permission. This site is a reference to published information and is intended as a tribute to the artists and storytellers employed by DC Comics, both past and present. (We love you, DC.) Contents of this page and all text herein not reserved as intellectual property of DC Comics is copyright © 2007-2024 BOOSTERRIFIC.com. This page, analysis, commentary, and accompanying statistical data is designed for the private use of individuals and may not be duplicated or reproduced for profit without consent.