Talk:Justice (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Confused Episode

The first point about this episode is that it appears to be a retelling of another Star Trek episode entitled 'The Apple', but with a different ending, in which the Prime Directive is NOT violated. In 'The Apple', the people pray to a giant computerized god, which Kirk chooses to destroy, thus interfering with their culture. In 'Justice' their computerized god is left intact, and continues to govern their society.

The most confused aspect of this episode is over the meaning of the Prime Directive. The Prime Directive (a.k.a. non-interference directive) does not have anything to do with obeying the customs or laws of a planet per se, but has to do with not interfering with a culture's natural development. There are no precedents in Star Trek whereby the crew of a Star Ship has to obey the laws of any governmental body outside of the United Federation of Planets' member states, the laws and regulations of Star Fleet, and the laws of a non-member planet, if there is an explicit treaty with that planet. For example, in the episode of TOS 'Wolf in the Fold', Scotty is only put on trial after being accused of murder because there is a treaty with that planet. 'Justice' seems to show a muddled understanding by the writers about what the non-interference directive actually means.

Even in the event hypothetical case where a Star Ship crew should obey the laws governing a non-federation planet, simply breaking those laws would not, by itself, be a violation of the Prime Directive. This basic misunderstanding of the non-interference directive makes this episode extremely problematic.

The larger issue with 'Justice' is that there is no real literary value to the episode. Unlike the TOS episode 'A Private Little War', in which the prime directive is explicitly violated in order to balance a war on a primitive planet which, in turn, fights a domino-effect cold war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire thus explaining (justifying?) the Vietnam War, 'Justice' does little more than yank at the audiences' heart strings. While the audience may, or may not agree with the assertions made in 'A Private Little War', 'Justice' is little more than a Lifetime network production, where a mother is wringing her hands because she might lose her baby.

It could have been better written, I would say. Instead of approaching it in the black-and-white of honouring or not honouring the Edo laws, Picard could have taken the tack of examining with Liator and Rivan why the rules are not explained to visitors, and whether the Edo "god" is also culpable for not prompting its children to explain it. The Edo "god" is, Data surmises, able to exist in multiple places at once, and must surely be aware of other life forms and the diversity of their law and punishment systems. Since "god" and the Edo neglected to explain the white fence rule, in the case of the first offender, allowances should be made, and the Edo encouraged to discuss appropriate disciplinary action agreeable with the Enterprise crew. I remember writing comments back in 1987, that Wesley might get "gardening detail" as "community service" to serve in lieu of the normal punishment. His Edo friend who threw the ball should also get the same sentence for not recognizing the danger before throwing the ball! GBC (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"the Captain is also bound by the laws of the Prime Directive, which states he must protect his people from harm" -- Does Riker actually say this in the episode, or was it just poorly written in the article? Either way, when did protecting his own people become part of the prime directive? If he did say it, then it's a valid part of the episode summary even if it's an incorrect statement about the prime directive. If he didn't say it, then it's just wrong and needs to be changed. LarryJeff (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Awesome Prose

I'd like to commend the guy who wrote this part.

Picard steps forward announcing that "life itself is an exercise in exceptions", and to every living creature within the sound of his voice, "there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute!" Riker adds, "When has justice ever been as simple as a rulebook?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipotlehero (talk • contribs)

Wesley not Picard's son

I removed a comment (which had a "citation needed" placed on it) from the Trivia section. I just watched this episode on the G4 Network (USA) on Friday, March 8, 2007. When Dr. Crusher and Capt. Picard are discussing Wesley's fate on the planet, this conversation takes place:

CRUSHER: What do you intend to do about my son? PICARD: He's being held safely until sundown. CRUSHER: When he faces execution! Althought he's committed no crime, atleast not one any sane orreasonable person would... PICARD: You saw what that thing was about to do. CRUSHER: I apologize sir, but this is very difficult for me. If he were your son, you'd be as frightened ... PICARD: But I am.

This was not a reference to Wesley being his child, but Picard being able to empathize her pain. Dr. Crusher wouldn't have said "If he were your son" if he was.

Anyways. Just FYI. 68.198.34.245 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(This was made by me, including the deletion... moved to another browser and didn't realize I wasn't signed in! Bsheppard 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

The original trivia never stated that Wesley was Picard's son, rather it was an unsourced statement that supposedly Roddenberry played around with the idea that Wesley would be revealed to be Picard's son in a future episode. This of course, never happened. Cyberia23 04:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Justice (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

• In this episode, Wesley Crusher (Wil Wheaton) inadvertently breaks the absolute law of an alien world. When he is sentenced to death, Captain Jean Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) has to deal with the world's powerful and mysterious protector, as well as considerations concerning violation of the Prime Directive.
  • This could benefit from a rewrite. First, it sounds like Picard is sentenced to death even though you are referring to Wesley. Second, the fact that he "has to deal" with the problem, makes it sound like it is an inconvenience to save Wesley's life. Third, "considerations concerning violation of the Prime Directive", is a bit too aloof. However you choose to rewrite it, you may want to mention that Wesley was part of the away team to an alien world. While playing catch with the local kids, he inadvertently breaks a greenhouse while receiving a pass and is sentenced to death. Captain Jean Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) must negotiate with the powerful and mysterious protector of the world and consider violating the Prime Directive to save Wesley's life. Or something like that. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've reconstructed those lines. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for trying! For the sake of clarity, I changed it to "The episode received a mostly negative response, with critics pointing to issues with the quality of the acting and the predictability of the plot." If you look at the criticism section, all of it falls under 1) acting and 2) plot predictability. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• nature of the plot
  • That's not very specific. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've redrafted to make it more specific. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Copyedited. If you disagree with my changes, feel free to modify. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Plot

Resolved

• Copyediting in progress...
  • Copyedit complete. The last paragraph reads somewhat poorly. You may want to look at it to see if you can improve it. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Production

Resolved

• His idea was based on the colony planet of Llarof with capital punishment inflicted for any offense except against those deemed to be immune from the law.
  • You neglected to mention that the idea came from his original film treatment of the story. That's an important part of this sentence, otherwise nobody knows what the colony is referring to here. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Black explained that the premise that a society developed laws to prevent terrorism and anarchy, saying "Let's say that what we do is kill everybody who is a terrorist or suspected of being a terrorist. Now the people who have killed everybody, what do they do?"
  • I think you meant to say, "Black explained the premise of a society that developed laws to prevent terrorism and anarchy: 'Let's say that what we do is kill everybody who is a terrorist or suspected of being a terrorist. Now the people who have killed everybody, what do they do?'" Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Copyediting still needed... Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Copyedits complete. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Reception and home media

Resolved

• This section needs copyediting.
  • Copyediting complete. The prose doesn't flow as nicely as I like, but it appears to meet the criteria at this time. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

See also

Resolved

• Can these links be incorporated into the main body? In other words, do we have sources about this episode mentioning them? If not, that's OK. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't find any sources directly comparing the episodes, so I put them into the see also section. I could add citations from the episodes themselves if required. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • No, that's fine. Citations aren't needed here. It's just that whenever I do reviews of any kind (formal or informal) I look to see if links in the see also section can be incorporated into the body of the article. I've found that about half of the time it's possible. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Lead OK

   Plot OK (improvements welcome)

   Production OK

   Reception and home media OK

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Overlinking in infobox and other sections. Please review WP:OVERLINK

   OK

   Are there no sources that would allow use to merge the see also links into the body of the article?

   OK

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Huntington Library trivia moved to note. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Mostly simple issues with prose. Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are there only young people on the planet?

Why are there only young people on the planet? Is there any explanation for this?--2003:CE:BBC6:6CED:4043:3D3C:A91C:35A3 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously because you get killed the first time you make any minor mistake? Laws like that would make it very hard for anyone to grow old. 2001:9E8:4607:A000:DD7A:9CCE:9FE:6163 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Prime directive

Why did starfleet even visit this planet when the civilization was not warp capable. 2600:6401:A206:683:ED6C:677F:A836:EF26 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)