Skip to main content

robots - What happens to someone who destroys a Star Wars Droid?


Some Star Wars Droids are definitively sentient beings, but it appears that they are not treated as such.


The Legal Status section of the Droid article of Wookieepedia (which have no references) said they are typically treated as property, but does the status change along with the various governments? Is there any known canon occurrence in the expanded universe where consequences of the destruction of a droid have been explored?



Answer



The book 'The Courtship of Princess Leia' mentions (in passing) an activist group for droid rights (when Threepio asks to address the Senate, who for some reason have a say in who Leia can marry).


Under the Empire, droids had no rights.


I haven't read anything after the Vong invasion, so I can't speak to that.


In general, consensus for thousands of years has had droids as property, with rare ones as independent operators (though their legal status is questionable).


There is a definite indication that the New Republic was more lax in this - Threepio WAS permitted to address the Senate, and state a contrary opinion, without any significant repercussions, but droids ARE generally property.



And it makes sense - droids are manufactured for tasks, engineered and designed with a purpose in mind, do not self-reproduce, are marketed and purchased, easily controllable by commercially available items (restraining bolts), and - with regular maintenance and routine wipes - completely lacking in distinct individual personality.


Droids like R2 and C3-P0 are unusual (owing to their history, if nothing else). Most droids do not even approach their level of personality or individuality.


As to whether this is RIGHT (ethically), I can't speak. Certainly we've seen that droids have the potential to be more than property, but there has never been a general emancipation of them.


It's even likely that, were there to be a general granting of rights to droids, they would cease being created (or new droids would lack the capabilities that are at the core of what gave droids rights) - it wouldn't make fiscal sense for a company to produce end products which they would be unable to sell.


Edit: To more correctly answer your secondary questions:


It's never explicitly stated what happens (legally speaking) to someone who destroys a droid. They have no intrinsic rights, so it would be treated (under every government I'm familiar with) as destruction of property. If you legally owned the droid, nothing would happen except that you wouldn't have a droid (unless the droid had some special circumstance, such as having evidence in another legal matter, in which case it's destruction could be obstruction of justice or similar). If it was another's droid, it could legally be considered destruction of their property, and punished as such.


If the droid was state property (battle droid, court recorder, maintenance droid, etc) it would be destruction of government property.


If the droid had no owner, like with IG-88 (the independent assassin droid), there would likely be no legal repercussions (well, maybe 'littering' if you left it lying there, or 'disturbing the peace' if you caused a big ruckus in destroying it).


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.
Post a Comment
Read more

What is Tolkien trying to say in this letter?

In a draft of a letter, later recorded as #246, Tolkien makes a strange statement. I am interested in the first few sentences of the letter, but I will include the remainder for the sake of context. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', 1381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond . But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power . But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen in Elrond's words at the Council. Galadriel's rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous thought and resolve. In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy ...
Post a Comment
Read more

tolkiens legendarium - Was Galadriel's temptation of Boromir instrumental to his fall?

We know Galadriel tempted the members of the Fellowship, did she tempt Boromir with visions of taking the Ring and saving Gondor? In the books, Boromir willingly accepts the judgement of the council that the Ring should be destroyed, but after the meeting with Celeborn and Galadriel his personality seems to change. Was the temptation offered by Galadriel in some way responsible for Boromir's fall? Answer It's likely, but not certain I believe it is likely Galadriel tempted him with the ring, and in doing so re-ignited a pre-existing idea to take the ring, but to be clear lets break this down into three parts. Boromir at the Council of Elrond Boromir after setting off Boromir after being tempted Boromir at the Council of Elrond Boromir pleas for the ring to go to Minas Tirith, to help Gondor in its defense against Mordor. “ Why should we not think that the Great Ring has come into our hands to serve us in the very hour of need? Wielding it the Free Lords of the Free may surely...
Post a Comment
Read more

harry potter - What is the difference between Diffindo and Sectumsempra?

In the Harry Potter books, Diffindo is called the 'Severing Charm' and it’s most commonly used to cut ropes and the like. However, in the last book Hermione uses it on Ron but misses, creating a 'slash in his jeans' and his knee gets cut, causing him to 'roar in pain'. We've only seen Sectumsempra used once on screen when Harry directly uses it on Malfoy in the sixth book, but there it's mentioned that he is 'waving his wand wildly'. Wouldn't Diffindo, if used in such a fashion also cause a similar effect? Similarly, if it was able to cut Ron, it would also be able to, say, chop off an ear (George's)? In that case, how are these two spells different, except for Sectumsempra seemingly used exclusively to hurt humans? Answer While Diffindo and Sectumsempra both can be countered by other spells, Diffindo is far more easily countered. Reparo, a relatively common spell, can completely reverse its effect when used once. “He pulled the old cop...
Post a Comment
Read more