PLEA * vol. 29 No.2 Learning About Law with Completely Unauthorized * simpsons The Simpsons is arguably the most popular television program ever. For twenty years, its portrayal of contemporary society has been enjoyed by 80 million viewers worldwide. Entire books have been written that examine its views on philosophy, sociology, politics, and religion. However, The Simpsons’ approach to the law is still largely unexplored.This issue of The PLEA explores law-related areas of The Simpsons, and outlines how the law can be better understood through the weekly ordeals of the world’s most famous animated family. Understanding Law, Satire, and The Simpsons The law plays a surprisingly dominant role on The Simpsons. Sometimes, circumstances can be as simple as Marge Simpson being told to hold a ticker-tape parade to hide a litter law violation. Other times, the show wades into more complex legal and social issues, such as the legalization of same-sex marriage in Springfield, the town where The Simpsons is set. At the core, however, the Simpson family seems to exist in a democratic, law-abiding society. Steven Keslowitz, Executive Editor of the Cardozo Law Review, claimed that public perceptions of law-related concepts are shaped by their portrayal on programs like The Simpsons. However, it is important to remember that The Simpsons is a satire of contemporary society. Therefore, to understand how The Simpsons approaches issues and shapes perceptions requires an understanding of satire. Satire, at its core, is meant to expose folly. Because The Simpsons is animated, it can make use of extreme exaggerations to expose this folly. For example, when Homer Simpson eats 100 slices of processed American cheese, the viewer can temporarily suspend belief and accept that Homer has actually eaten all of this cheese - no matter how unlikely it would be in the real world. Satirically, the absurdity of Homer eating 100 slices of cheese can be read as a statement about the gluttony of contemporary society. Often, The Simpsons’ satirical approach to law is similar. For example, Police Chief Wiggum is sometimes portrayed as naive or lazy, and lawyer Lionel Hutz is sometimes portrayed as dishonest or incompetent. Neither of these portrayals represents reality. Instead, they are meant to be satirical exaggerations, much like Homer eating 100 slices of cheese. Therefore, when watching The Simpsons, remember that while the program’s satire may be holding a mirror to society, much like a house of mirrors at a carnival, the reflection is a distorted version of reality. Details are exaggerated in order to bring about humour, expose folly, and make people think critically about the world in which they live. FREE CLASS SETS VIEW ONLINE My opinions are as valid as the next man’s! Creating Laws in a Democracy In a democracy, citizens are entitled to • Mayor Quimby represents the have their voice heard when laws and elected official other government decisions are being made. The Simpsons represents this • Kent Brockman, Channel 6 news well. Springfield’s citizens appear to anchor, represents the news media have a high degree of civic responsibility. • Mr. Burns, Springfield Nuclear Town hall meetings are attended by all Power Plant owner, represents main characters and many speak their the business class mind on issues. These characters often become the satirical representation of • Homer and Marge Simpson their class, role, or other identity in represent the average middle- society. For example: class citizen Taxes and Public Expenditures: Springfield’s Bear Patrol Dr. John Considine, professor at the College of Business and Law at University College Cork, thought that The Simpsons shows how voters are unable to see the relationship between public expenditures and taxes. He pointed to the season seven episode “Much Apu About Nothing” as evidence. In “Much Apu About Nothing,” a docile bear roamed into Springfield and destroyed the Simpsons’ mailbox. Incensed, Homer led an angry mob to town hall to complain about bears. Faced with an angry mob, Mayor Quimby agreed to unnecessarily extensive bear patrols. Ground troops and stealth bombers were used to keep Springfield bear-free and the high cost resulted in a tax increase. Unable to comprehend the bear patrol’s burden on the public purse, Homer once again led an angry mob to town hall, this time to protest high taxes. Unwilling or unable to explain the concept of taxes to the townspeople, Quimby appeased the mob by blaming high taxes on the burden of illegal immigrants living in Springfield. 1. By blaming illegal immigrants for high taxes, Mayor Quimby deliberately misled voters. a) Should Mayor Quimby have explained the concept of taxes and public expenditures to the citizens of Springfield? b) Do you think that the general public is more interested in understanding issues facing their community, or would just like quick fixes to problems? 2. Dr. Considine felt the message in “Much Apu About Nothing” was that citizens want the highest quality of public services, but are unwilling to pay for them. Do you agree? Why or why not? Teachers: For more 3. Mayor Quimby chose to raise taxes instead of borrowing money. Money borrowed information on local to pay for current government services is called a deficit. When governments run government, check out deficits, they are providing services for the present taxpayer that will have to be paid for by future taxpayers. Municipalities Matter: Local a) Who benefits the most from deficits? The least? Government and Civic Elections. b) Can you think of circumstances where government deficits are necessary? Find it at plea.org. c) Overall, do you think deficits are a good idea? Why or why not? 2 Creating Laws in a Democracy By intermingling multiple viewpoints public meetings and there is usually into Springfield’s town meetings, The a common belief that all citizens are Simpsons is able to present perspectives moral equivalents. of many groups who shape society. Unfortunately, participation alone does Because of this high degree of not always lead to successful public involvement in local government on The policy and laws. Springfield’s voters and Simpsons, Dr. Pete Woodcock, senior politicians alike tend to be ill-informed, lecturer in politics at the University and act in a self-interested manner. of Huddersfield, noted that democracy works in Springfield: Local control is exercised through frequently-held Informed Public Debate: Springfield and the Monorail Andrew Wood and Anne Marie Todd, both Assistant Professors of Communication Studies at San Jose State University, found that The Simpsons “mocks the potential of the masses to demonstrate common sense.” They pointed to the season four episode “Marge vs. The Monorail” as evidence. In “Marge vs. The Monorail,” Springfield held a special town meeting to determine how to spend a three million dollar windfall. Many divergent ideas were put forth but when Marge suggested investing the money in rebuilding Springfield’s Main Street, the townsfolk seemed to agree. Before the citizens could vote on Marge’s proposition, a fast-talking huckster suddenly appeared, and he sold Springfield on a mass transit monorail, claiming it will put Springfield on the map. The Monorail proved to be a complete failure and the huckster ran off with Springfield’s money. Even if the monorail had been properly constructed, Springfield is a small community with a centralized population, which means a mass transit system was not necessary. 1. Many residents of Springfield come to town hall to decide how the three million dollars should be spent. Do you think this kind of involvement in local politics happens in your community? Should it? 2. What does this episode say about how informed the average voter is on civic issues? Do you think the town hall meeting would have been different if the voters were more in tune with the needs of their community? 3. Consider major projects that have taken place in your community. a) Did you or anybody you know contribute to the local political debate surrounding the issue? b) Is there a risk that this project could or has already become a large waste of money, such as Springfield’s monorail? 3 This verdict is written on a cocktail napkin. And it Crime and Punishment: still says guilty! Marge in Chains Criminal law sets a standard of behaviour for all people who live in our country. Its main purpose is to protect society and to keep communities peaceful and safe. When a person’s behaviour does not meet the standards set out in the Criminal Code and other laws, they could face criminal charges. In the season four episode “Marge in Chains,” Marge Simpson found herself in such circumstances by stealing a bottle of bourbon. The situation surrounding Marge’s theft was complex. A flu epidemic left Marge to take care of her entire sick family. Exhausted, Marge appeared to accidentally forget to pay for a bottle of bourbon at the Kwik-E-Mart. Marge was caught, then charged with and found guilty of theft. She was sentenced to 30 days in the Springfield Women’s Prison. Sentences for Theft in Canada Canada’s Criminal Code divides theft into two types: • Theft of something worth more than $5,000 is an indictable offence. Indictable offences are considered more serious crimes. Sentences for indictable offences range from short periods to life imprisonment. • Theft of something worth less than $5,000 may be dealt with as either an indictable or summary offence. Summary offences are generally considered more simple matters, and have a maximum six month jail term and a maximum fine of $5,000. Juries are not used in summary offence trials. In most cases if a judge or jury finds a person guilty, the defence lawyer and the Crown Prosecutor each recommend a sentence to the judge, then the judge chooses from the range of sentences set by law.