Talk: Crimes of the islanders

Renaming[]

I believe that we should rename it to "Crimes of the Islanders". Because lying and cursing are sins and we don't have them listed.--Captain Insano

I agree. Also, sins is a bit strong, and crimes would suit this better.-- Lost Soul talk contribs

I agree. John Locke BIGGEST fan

I say keep it. Its not quite as precise, but it sounds good. --Piscez 06:37, 17 August 2006 (PDT)

It doesn't matter if it sounds good. The title has to match the page.-- Captain Insano

I don't think "crimes" can be appropriate, as it requires a legal code to define acts as being criminal. There's no such code known to be on the Island, though the Others may have a social hierachy / compact that could be considered a legal framework. I suppose we could judge it by the Lostie's home juresdiction, so Charlie would commit a crime if he did something ilegal in Britain, Sun and Jin would be judged based on the laws of Korea, and so on, but I think that would get clumsy very quickly. "Sins", of course suffers the same problems as the show includes people following Catholic, Muslim and Buddhist teachings, as well as many that don't appear to have any religious inclination, and therefore have no definition of "sin" that can be meaningfully applied... --Wintermute 07:53, 22 August 2006 (PDT)

So what is your suggestion?--Captain Insano 12:44, 22 August 2006 (PDT)

That's a very good question. And I really don't know. --Wintermute 18:40, 22 August 2006 (PDT)

Agreed with most of these comments above, am renaming to just "Crimes of the Islanders", for simplicity's sake. As Cap mentioned, we are not being comprehensive with "Sins", since we are not listing lies, affairs and so forth (which are better captured under Character secrets. As Wintermute pointed out, "Crimes" is not really a perfect title either, as true crimes imply jurisdictions of law, which we do not have on this desert island. We are generally applying US law to these actions, as though they happen on US soil, which is not accurate. --Pandora X 15:11, 11 November 2006 (PST)

Misdeeds would be more appropriate or wrongs, if you look at it from the philosophy of Locke Rousseau or Hume. crimes are governmental construct, which vary from state to state. in most countries Littering is a crime yet isn't listed, despite the numerous times a character will simply drop something. However to do not place the moral emphasis on it that we do murder so even the original term of sin would be more appropriate as long as it held in the abrahmic definition, or given the eastern influence on the show perhaps some term for negative karma. JD 19:17, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Crimes[]

Sawyer assaulted Sayid, blaming him for the plane crash.

Shannon falsely accused Sayid of leaving his baggage unattended in the Sydney airport.

Shannon committed several acts of larceny, possibly grand larceny (getting money under false pretenses from Boone).

Hurley engaged in at least two acts of petty theft (eating an 8-piece dinner from Mr. Cluck's without paying for it, and stealing garden gnomes). It could also be argued he benefitted from insurance fraud (overinsurance of the shoe factory that burned), though he wasn't involved in the actual operation.

Sawyer conned several people out of money (larceny and grand larceny), and engaged in a bar fight, head butting a government offical (assault).

Jack initially engaged in perjury over his father's drunken operation, but recanted.

Locke stalked Anthony Cooper. He also became an accessory after the fact to grand larceny (getting the money from the safety deposit box).

Locke assaulted Charlie.

Ana-Lucia was guilty of at least one act of police brutality.

Kate is guilty of attempted identity theft / forgery (altering Joanna's passport). It's also likely she is guilty of forgery or identity theft (in order to get to Australia).

Mr. Eko is guilty of extortion and identity theft, as well as conspiracy to transport drugs.

Charlie was guilty of theft (from Lucy). He also is guilty of possession of narcotics.

"Henry Gale" is guilty of identity theft.

"Henry Gale" is guilty of attempted murder (of Ana-Lucia).

According to Alex, the Others are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder (on Claire).

Ethan killed Scott, and made other death threats.

On the island: Locke assaulted & drugged Boone.

Sun poisoned Michael, although she intended to poison Jin. Kate, in fact, suggested the idea.

Hurley hoarded food from the hatch--possibly considered theft. Also destroyed "contraband" rather than return it to the group.

Sawyer & Charlie conspired to steal the guns from the Hatch.

Off the island: Sun & Jack had extra-marital relationships--though, apparently, no sex.

Three people are injured/killed while Kate flees from the authorities: Edward Mars, Tom Brennan, Ray Mullen

Sawyer conned many people. (Somehow that hasn't been mentioned yet.)

What crimes are not crimes?[]

Eko and Ana Lucia's killings of the Others were in self defense. There's no legal system I know of that considers self defense a crime (although some extremist pacifist ethical systems would).

Boone's death was an accident. Locke had no intention of his dying at the time. His talk of Boone being a "sacrifice" was rationalization after the fact.

Likewise Ana Lucia's killing of Shannon was an accident, even Sayid acknowledged this.--Tricksterson 08:03, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

actually in some countries, self defences isn't a legal defence, so its hardly extremist anything. Locke would be at the very least be guilty of manslaughter as would Ana Lucia under the "but for" rule. JD 19:24, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

I completely object to calling what Bernard, Jin, Sayid, and Hurley did in fighting off the invading others "crimes." Sawyer's killing of Tom is a different matter. Maybe there should be a section for "Acts of Violence (Non-Criminal)". Boloboffin 19:49, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

Claire: "Drove the car that crashed and led to the coma of her mother." Is a car accident a crime?--Paidinfull 17:27, 24 June 2008 (PDT)

Do we count crimes commited off the island?[]

Given that the original question was "Who has killed more people since they went to the island, our guys or The Others?", why are we enumerating crimes commited before the crash? Apart from anything else, this is bound to skew the results purely because The Others have had no flashbacks, so we have no idea what they were up to before they arrived, or for that matter, before the Losties arrived. We could even go one further, and weight them by number of people, as a group of 40 Losties behaving exactly as ethically as a group of 12 Others will commit more crimes just by dint of there being more of them. --Wintermute 10:12, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

Agreed. We should be sticking to what's occured on the island. --Doc 13:11, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

Another possible standard would be, "Crimes since the crash of Flight 815." The "Scorecard and Analysis" reads like an attempt to judge the relative morality of the Lostaways and the Others. Given that we know a great deal more about the history of the Lostaways (Juliet is the only Other for whom we've seen a back story) than of the Others for story telling purposes, it is biased to include the prior crimes in the summary. It would be better to do it within the context of what has transpired since they came into contact with each other. --Eyeful Tower 05:57, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

Ana Lucia[]

In the Lostaway crimes on island, it says it is in chronological order. But it has Michael killing Ana Lucia before ana Lucia killing the female other. so basically its stating that ana killed her while dead. i have a strong feeling theres something wrong with that. ;-)--LOST ON CRAPHOLE ISLAND!!!!! 13:23, 13 September 2006 (PDT)

I cleared it up.--Captain Insano 14:27, 13 September 2006 (PDT)

I don't remember her killing a female Other. I thought the first Other she killed was Goodwin. --Amberjet11 09:03, 1 November 2006 (PST)

- She killed an Other during the raid where they took the children. It was where she discovered the list. Dharmatel4 12:35, 21 March 2007 (PDT)

Kidnappings[]

I believe the Others have kidnapped more than one person - just look at the tail section - according to Ana Lucia. My memory is not fresh, but I believe it should be updated. -- Oh my n0 21:54, 21 October 2006 (PDT)

What is murder?[]

I updated and cleaned this article up a bit, but counting the crimes for the table was a bit confusing. Are Eko's killings of the Others murders? Maybe the table could specify intentional murder versus any other type of killing (then the ambiguous ones, such as Locke/Boone could be put in that category, where there is cause to believe he lead to Boone's death). Bellemichelle 06:15, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

Ahh, I see someone tried to address this above - but even the accidental deaths still involve some sort of culpability. Should the table be redone to show this? Bellemichelle 06:21, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

The standard for murder should be that there is no self-defense involved in the action. Michael for example is guilty of a double-murder. Eko's killings of the Others don't meet that standard. Locke is responsible for Boone's death but his degree of responsibility would depend on how he decided to defend himself. Locke's current stated opinion is that Boone died because the island demanded his life as a sacrifice. If he were to say that in a court or to a jury, he would probably be either found insane or found guilty of second-degree murder. If he said it was an accident, he would probably be guilty of no more than manslaughter. In cases where self-defense isn't clear or its an accidental death, the crime and degree of guilt comes down as much to how the person explains their actions as anything else. Dharmatel4 12:21, 21 March 2007 (PDT)

Alexandra's Status[]

Should she be considered an Other or a free agent? She has comitted or helped commit several assaults on Pickett and Aldo.--Tricksterson 11:50, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I would say free agent. --Princess Dharma (banned) 11:52, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Why can't she be both? Damon and Carlton have said that there are more than one faction of Others, and have called her an Other. Yet, it's also clear she is a sort of free agent (but then sort of not, because she feels obligated to return to Ben). --Pandora X 11:54, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Crossrefs[]

Can some kind soul crossref this page please? --Princess Dharma (banned) 11:45, 8 February 2007 (PST)

'Corporate' crimes.[]

I'd say the Others' crimes have a strong element of organisation about them that makes them deliberate, in a way that the Losties aren't.
For example, you could argue that Ben, as leader of the Others, is part responsible for everything Ethan did, because Ethan was following Ben's orders. There is no equivalent of this in most of the Losties clashes with the Others, because the Losties were reacting to what was happening around them; and in several cases they were merely struggling for their own freedom.
The majority of countries distinguish between at least 2 degrees of murder, basically pre-meditated or heat of the moment (killing someone during a fight, say), plus manslaughter (unintentional killing), crimes of passion, even infanticide, and with all sorts of mitigating circumstances.
Since the sentences reflect the percieved severity of the crimes, I think the Losties/Others table ought to take this into the reckoning.Burt Gummer

When the Losties act as a group, their crimes are as corporate as those of the Others. An example would be that everyone in the group that went to the Barracks is responsible for what Locke did to Mikhail (which was murder). Everyone who knew about Ben being held captive was responsible for everything that was done to him. In the case of the Others, Ben is responsible for everything people like Ethan do when they are carrying out tasks that he has given them. Ben would not be responsible however if an individual decides on their own to do something. An example would be Pickett's attempts to kill Sawyer.

Many actions by the Losties are not all that defendable. For example, Charlie deliberately murdered Ethan. When Sawyer and Kate decided to go shoot Others for following their group, thats not self-defense anymore. You can claim self-defense if you are defending yourself, but you can't claim self-defense so easy if you ambush someone or if you fire on them past the point where they are a threat to you. The other thing to keep in mind is that the losties having a conversation about doing something ilegal (killing or torture) is a conspiracy and is a crime itself. Dharmatel4 12:14, 21 March 2007 (PDT)

I think Ben's list is really incomplete, because he ordered almost all actions of the Others and so there had to be a long list of "Conspiracy to..." for him... --Prolinesurfer 06:35, 13 May 2007 (PDT)

I think I'd like to see him in court getting a sentence of... let's say 4 16 years for... let's say 108 crimes and then to see his face... ;) --Prolinesurfer 06:53, 13 May 2007 (PDT)

Heroin[]

why is Heroin use listed as crime? its hardly some moral trespass, JD 19:25, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Standard for murder[]

The standard for using the word murder in the article has been as follows: A planned, deliberate or pre-meditated killing of another person with no obvious self-defense involved. Mitigating circumstances not involving obvious self-defense that might be brought up in court are not considered because they make it too complicated. Using a live human being to test a fence is murder. Shooting a man who is unarmed and longer poses an imminent threat is murder. Making an elaborate plan to kill your father, taking out an insurance policy to profit from the death and then carrying out the plan is murder.

The reason for the distinction between killing and murder in the article is because there should be a distiniction between those who killed as self-defense and those who made a deliberate decision to take another life. I've found no cases so far where this standard for murder has any ambiguity to it. Dharmatel4 21:01, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

OK that's generally helpful but not at all helpful for the case that brought up the issue to begin with: Locke pushing Mikhail through the sonic barrier. It fails your "no ambiguity" because "planned, deliberate or pre-meditated killing" depends on intent and we don't know if Locke's intention was 1) kill Mikhail out of pure meanness or to keep him silent or some other plan 2) test the fence without regard to Mikhails safety but not specifically trying to kill him 3) prove that the barrier was no functional or dangerous not expecting it actually be lethal. Not only do I find it ambiguous, it really seems like it was intentionally written to be ambiguous. --Jackdavinci 21:50, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Thinking some more about it, since we can't read the character's minds, I think we should not word anything in ways which suggest intention. Better just to label the action itself than to try to characterize it. --Jackdavinci 21:52, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Locke pushing Mikhail through the sonic barrier would count as murder anywhere I can think of. He deliberately and with pre-meditation pushed him forward into the fence. "testing the fence" with a human being is as much murder as killing him out of "pure meanness". Pushing him physically into the fence is the murder. What Locke thought about the fence doesn't matter. Intent doesn't come into the standand here. 1) there is no self-defense involved 2) It was a deliberate action on Locke's part 3) a man died as a direct result. Dharmatel4

When did Charlie incarcerate Mikhail? and other mistakes[]

I must have missed that in the episode... When was Mikhail ever incarcerated in the first place? I changed Charlie's and Jin's entries accordingly to "accessory in holding captive" and Desmonds to "held captive". Added a Hurley entry for this incident because he was involved in the crime as well. Further I deleted the line for Kate which accused her to be responsible for the death of Tom by crashing the car. Tom was shot to death by a police officer and he stayed in the car voluntarily despite Kate begging him to get out. I changed Michael's entry about Libby to "(accidently) killed" because he didn't murder her. I changed Locke's entry about his involvement in the marijuana farm to reflect his real involvement. I deleted his entry: "* Unintentionally gets Peter Talbot killed by telling Anthony Cooper that Peter is on to the con of marrying his mother, not telling Peter the truth and not going to the police with what he knew. ("The Man from Tallahassee")" because that is not a crime. There was no way Locke could have forseen Peters death. Roger 07:10, 6 May 2007 (PDT)

In the case of Kate, in most legal jurisdictions she would be responsible for the death of Tom. She is a fugitive in the act of fleeing the police and that makes her respoinsible for whatever happens regardless of the voluntary nature of anyone staying with her.

In the case of Michael, he had just murdered one person. He then shot another person. That is not an accident. That is murder. If you think otherwise, try and find out the last person who got away with a defense of an accidental shooting someone during a robbery or other crime. Dharmatel4 21:34, 14 May 2007 (PDT)

It's not the point if they can get away with what they did in front of a jury. It matters what we saw them do. And Mike didn't murder Libby. If you want to apply a real world angle then tell me how a real world court would ever get wind of the crimes of the Losties, how would they ever be able to collect evidence of the crimes in the first place?! :) It counts what we saw them do and if that "would" be a crime in the real world. The killing of Libby is a highly speculative case but it was not murder as we were able to witness.

Concerning Kate - are you sure? I does not matter if she tried to prevent him from going with her, she is nonetheless responsible for his death by a police officer? I'm not a U.S. attorney but if this is true it's an extremely twisted law, my friend! Roger 03:27, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

In the case of Kate she might get manslaughter at the worse for it and the police officer would get tanned for open firing on a moving vechicle with an innocent inside.

Total Rewrite Needed[]

Short of a total NPOV re-write, this article should be removed. This article was always pushing the POV that the Others were not as "bad" as the Lostaways. An article pushing POV on Lostpedia is bad enough. Now that we know the truth about the Others, that they used poison gas to murder hundreds, the article is an embarassment. Thank goodness it is difficult to find.--Eyeful Tower 05:15, 12 May 2007 (PDT)

The article does not push a POV. It lists crimes. It would be POV to apply a double-standard to criminal acts. Kate and Sawyer are, for example, both murderers. No matter what Ben or anyone else might have done, they are still murderers. What you are asking for is POV rewrite. That said, I dont defend the scorecard portion of the article. I think the value of the article is in listing all crimes and criminal actions. I would not mind seeing the comparative material go away.Dharmatel4 21:26, 14 May 2007 (PDT)

I don't think it should be removed, but it should be revised. Especially, it should be considered, that the term of "crime" is relative, depending on a national legal system. For example, some of the sexual relations amongst the Losties (outside marriage) would be illegal under most Islamic jurisdictions (note that Sayid is a Muslim). Also, maybe we should consider to use "possible crimes" instead of "crimes", because I doubt that anyone of us has studied law... --Prolinesurfer 18:12, 14 May 2007 (PDT)

"Crimes" is just an expression of convenience for the title of the article. Obivously, there is no applicable legal system on the island. If any crimes are being commited, they are moral crimes, for which there is no definitive written code, as opposed to legal crimes. It could even be argued that the Others have legitimate claim as the presiding goverming body of the island and as such all of their actions (except Juliet, Karl, and Alex's betrayals and Ethan's premature capture of Claire) are "legal" and all of the Losties actions are "illegal". The real point of this article is to explore the issue that both the producers and Ben himself brought up about whether our/the Losties viewpoint is skewed or biased about the actions of the Others. And in the skirmishes between them, which side has truly been the offender. For this reason I think we should focus on the specific conflicts between the Others and the Losties, and include the actions of both sides against other parties as a seperate ancillary section. --Jackdavinci 12:45, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

An easy solution would be to put Crimes in inverted commas "Crimes" of the Islanders, explaining the reason below. This whole article is only good as a trivia section anyways since it is so conflicted in itself and of no real use for people who take the real world aspect of LOST too seriously.Roger 03:32, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

a really bad direction[]

"All of these crimes are not borne of malice, but more due to circumstances that arise. Furthermore, in the majority of cases, Charlie’s crimes are not to benefit himself, but to benefit others, showing him as a caring, sensitive person who is willing to protect those he considers friends."

The problem with the new direction for this article is on display above. The so-called prose just degenerates into lengthy justifications, excuses and attempts to promote each person's favorite characters as being "a caring, sensitive person". Dharmatel4 10:15, 30 May 2007 (PDT)

I wrote this, so I suppose I'd better defend myself. ;) I did this to fulfill the article attack's wish of "analysis". I decided that instead of just detailing the crimes, it would be good to explain exactly why they were done - the motives behind them. However, I do agree that the last sentence bit about "caring, sensitive person" is unnecessary and should be removed. However, I stand by my belief that analysis here is better. And also, Charlie is not one of my favourite characters :P Thanks, -- Lost Soul talk contribs 10:20, 30 May 2007 (PDT)

Definition of on-island crime[]

Why are we assuming that any of the acts listed as on-island crimes? We do not know what system of laws there is on the island, if any. Not the place for a jurisprudential discussion on this issue.

Messy?[]

Does anybody else agree with me that this article looks messy? There's images all over the place, and bolded text here and there, and it looks strange. Maybe we could put this in table format or something? Any thoughts? -- Lost Soul talk contribs 01:06, 31 May 2007 (PDT)

Maybe something like this? -- Lost Soul talk contribs 01:21, 31 May 2007 (PDT)
- I had been playing around with a similar model. I can't remember offhand where I found the origional, but I liked the format. I know I currently have it bulleted, and Lostpedia I think is wanting to move away from that, but it's an easy enough fix. --Suddud (Talk) 05:02, 2 June 2007 (PDT)
  - Another note is that marking up the entire article like this will take quite some time, just that page took me a good couple hours, and I don't have all that much time to spend on here, but I may be able to finish a large part this weekend if people like what I've done so far. --Suddud (Talk) 05:07, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

I'm liking your design. :) Think it looks very neat indeed. -- Lost Soul talk contribs 13:57, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

Well, that's one positive vote, I'll try to finish as much as I can, I'll post it in with stuff already there, and maybe that will get a bit more attention and opinions. --Suddud (Talk) 23:27, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

So I'm thinking (never good) do we need to distinguish between on and off Island crime? --Suddud (Talk) 23:46, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

Wrong accusations![]

Kate DIDN'T directly or indirectly kill Tom Brennan! Why is that still a fact for some people? Watch the episode. Tom was shot by a police officer! To prevent a discussion I will give you an example why, applying the wrong logic of the "Kate killed Tom"-shippers, even Hurly would have to be entered as the killer of Libby: If you argue that Kate let Tom come with her thus leading to his death you have to see that Hurley didn't keep Libby from getting the blankets from the Swan thus leading to her being killed by Michael! So either you enter Hurley as Libby's killer too, or you give Kate a break. -- That said, Michael DIDN'T MURDER Libby! Murdering means planning to kill. Michael didn't plan to kill Libby because she walks in on him and he shoots her with shock! Please watch the episodes before you present imaginations as facts. I changed that before but these wrong facts like to reappear. Frustrating...--Roger 07:45, 3 June 2007 (PDT)

Okay about Kate, but you're wrong about Michael murdering Libby. No armed robber plans to murder anyone... they just plan on going into a bank or store and point guns at people and threaten people to do what they say... but if they kill someone then it is murder because that is an obvious result of point deadly weapons at people and not something the criminal did not consider or plan. If the robber has a car accident while recklessly fleeing the scene of the crime and kills someone then that too is also murder as it still happened during the commission of their crime -- even if accidental as he wouldn't plan on crashing and getting caught. You are responsible for deaths as a murder if they are a result of your so called lesser crimes. Michael realized he was playing a deadly game and he could get himself or others killed. Tymes 21:00, 12 January 2008 (PST)

- NO. Wrong about Kate. Kate is guilty of murder in the case of Tom Brennan under the felony murder rule. Her flight from the police and her use of a car to assault the police bring Brennan's death under the rule. Felony murder covers the situation where a victim dies accidentally or without specific intent in the course of a serious crime. It changes what would normally be treated as manslaughter to murder. An example of the way the law works is that if you shoot it out with the police during a robbery and an innocent bystander gets killed, you can't go into court and plead it wasn't your intention to kill the person. Its murder as a consquence of the crime you were committing. As far as Michael goes, that was outright murder. Standing over the dead body at a murder scene and shooting the next person that comes into the room is not going to be considered manslaughter by any court. Dharmatel4 21:41, 12 January 2008 (PST)

- - I agree WRT Kate, but I think we have to be careful with terminology on this page (it's pretty much a mess as it is). It's OK to use the term 'murder' in a colloquial sense, in that Michael is most definitely responsible and morally accountable for his actions when he killed Libby, but referencing what a court would do implies that there is some government with jurisdiction and a court system on the island to prosecute Michael. It's possible we'll learn at some point that the island is Australian (or American, or Indonesian, etc) territory, but as long as that's in doubt I think the application of the legal standards of western civilization to actions taken on the island might be out of place.--Bonefishj0e 21:53, 12 January 2008 (PST)

A second wrong accusation is that Jack killed the marshal. He was against euthanizing him. Sawyer went into the tent and shot him so he died quicker. I never saw evidence that Jack sped up that process after Sawyer shot him. I think the count needs to be changed, unless someone has proof otherwise. --JDKnits 09:43, 1 April 2008 (PDT)J. Byrne

Sayid killed Ivan?[]

Is there any proof of that? The actor who plays Ivan is not part of the beach camp raid despite Tom saying that Ivan was killed there and it's not clear which of the two explosions killed him if we assume he was there for suspension of disbelief's sake. So for the meantime I would say we change "Ivan" in Sayid's victim list to "unidentified/unnamed Other". -- Roger 08:41, 3 June 2007 (PDT)

Sayid killed Jason. Ivan was killed in the explosion. --Marik7772003 10:23, 3 June 2007 (PDT)
- Sayid blowing up the tent killed 3 people. If as some assume Ivan was on the beach he could have died by Sayids explosion. Nonetheless there is no evidence of him being on the beach. There is no black actor part of the scenes at all. The question remains: Where does the idea stem from that Sayid killed Ivan with his explosion? If it's just a brainfart I'm happy to remove the name from Sayid's list. -- Roger 10:32, 3 June 2007 (PDT)
  - Just did. -- Roger 10:12, 4 June 2007 (PDT)

She did?[]

How do we know that Danielle killed Montand and Brennan? Robert K S 01:41, 28 February 2008 (PST)

Addition of Freighties' crimes?[]

So, with Keamy and company's rising body count (on-island and on the Freighter), I'm thinking we should begin including the Freighterfolk among the Lostaways and Others in terms of crimes committed. Charlotte has assaulted Juliet, Miles has threatened Jack at gunpoint, Keamy has killed Alex, Doc Ray and Gault all by himself, the mercenaries have killed many of the Team Locke redshirts, and I know I'm likely missing some, but I'd say this warrants our new friends their own little section here. --Aero *Zeppelin 02:11, 11 May 2008 (PDT)

Post Script: I would gladly begin this, but I think the commitment would be best left to those editors among us with more expendable time. --Aero *Zeppelin 02:12, 11 May 2008 (PDT)

Jacob[]

Jacob beat Richard when the first met. Why is this not on the page? Ocie14 19:23, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Kate and Aaron[]

Why isn't the kidnapping of Aaron Littleton included in the list of off-island crimes? Kate had no justification for claiming him as her son. And Jack, Hurley, Sayid and Sun are guilty of accessory to kidnapping. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fish1941 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC).

Sounds like you're letting yourself get a bit bias there. Kate did have a justified reason for claiming Aaron as her own - to keep up the lie. I agree that she should have let Claire's mother know sooner, but who knows if she could be trusted? She also had a good reason for taking Aaron off the Island. His mother was missing, could have been dead, and she didn't want to leave a baby behind on the Island who would have still been without his mother, and would have grown up with no sense of the normal world off the Island. Ultimately it was the right thing to do if Claire was under the influence of MIB. I do think it counts as a crime though, but just see it from the characters POV that there was a reason for doing it.--Baker1000 20:03, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Sentencing jurisdiction[]

I think it would be better if survivors' 'sentences' were determined based on the maximum penalty imposed for their crimes by their country of origin, rather than that of the US, as several main characters are not Americans. For example, Claire and Jin would escape death as capital punishment has been abolished in Australia and abolished in practice in South Korea. Rtozier (talk) 17:32, November 17, 2013 (UTC)