Is &quot;No More Mutants&quot; Genocide?
<p>It's September 28th 2005. A heartbroken mother who recently lost her twins and their father has a mental breakdown and utters three words. Too bad that she is a quite powerful reality bender and that reality follows her <em>order</em>.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/1dAfC.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/1dAfC.png" alt="House of M #7" /></a></p>
<p>The immediate result of this was carnage and a group of people that had about a million members globally, joined by a genetic characteristic, was reduced to a fraction of that. Initial estimates listed 198 individuals and at best &quot;a few thousands&quot;. Several of those affected outright died. In total, 986 618 individuals were affected by either having the common genetic characteristic erased or their life cut short. The direct death toll of the event might be in the 4-digit range.</p>
<p>This raises the question: Does the act of pretty much <em>eliminating</em> the genetic characteristic from the world count as Genocide and could Wanda Maximov be tried for several thousand cases of murder and almost a million cases of <em>something</em>. I guess the most likely inserts for <em>something</em> might be <em>performing medicine without a license</em>, <em>malpractice</em> by <em>amputating</em> something of a non-consenting person, and a very substantial portion being cases of child abuse cases as many victims were below 18.</p>
<p>In any way, let's assume that Wanda Maximov is apprehended by suitable means in the state of New York. <strong>Can she be tried for <em>Genocide</em> and where might the case be held?</strong></p>

<p>New York has no law prohibiting genocide, though it does have a law against murder. Since you specifically ask about genocide, at the state level, the answer is &quot;no&quot;. At the federal level, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 1091</a> does criminalize genocide. But the action fails to meet the definition of genocide.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a) Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the
specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, <em>a
national, ethnic, racial, or religious group</em> as such...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Mutants fail to satisfy the ordinary conditions for matching people to &quot;national&quot;, &quot;ethnic&quot; and &quot;racial&quot; groups (and &quot;religious&quot; is <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&amp;height=800&amp;iframe=true&amp;def_id=18-USC-990180262-1447140697&amp;term_occur=999&amp;term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:50A:section:1091" rel="nofollow noreferrer">statutorily defined</a>). This is not to say that an aggressive prosecutor could not construct a line of reasoning that people with a certain (undefinable) genetic property fall within the ordinary meaning of &quot;race&quot; or &quot;ethnicity&quot;. But, to consider an analogous case, the courts do not consider left-handed people to be a separate &quot;ethnicity&quot;, likewise blind, deaf, nor those with Downs syndrome. Specific legislation is (was) necessary to make individuals with genetic conditions be a protected class – it does not flow from a general prohibition against racial discrimination.</p>
<p>It is also unclear from your scenario whether defendant has &quot;the specific intent to destroy&quot;. In reality, uttering a phrase does not make it so.</p>

<p>It's impossible to answer this, because it turns sharply, <em>if not entirely</em>, on the body of the statute and case law pertaining to mutants, as it has evolved at the point of the accused's trial.</p>
<p>At extremes, it could be a &quot;Callie on Battlestar Galactica 2004&quot; situation, where the dead aren't even seen as humans, thus not a crime.</p>
<p>Or if the law viewed mutation as a disease, the action could be viewed as a cure.  And that might interestingly invoke laws that protect &quot;good Samaritans&quot; and doctors who kill while genuinely trying to heal.</p>
<p>However, if the overall action was viewed as a crime, then there'd be a problem with the &quot;Eggshell Skull&quot; rules:  You must take your victims as you find them, so an <em>unforeseen</em> death due to the mutant suddenly losing their powers, well, since that happened in context of a crime, it's a crime - manslaughter. And wrongful death in the civil context.</p>
<p>It would suck to be that person; even if they evaded criminal charges they'd spend the next 15 years in depositions.</p>

new-york-state law-in-fiction