Bender: Lack of Free Will or Legal Criminal?

Happy Wednesday, Fanaticals! We are halfway through Futurama week, and today we are taking a dive into everyone's favourite robot. Bender is probably one of the most controversial characters of the series, has there are a lot of discrepancies and hypocrisies surrounding him. Anywhere from being a member of the Robot Mafia, to petty theft and self-discoveries; Bender has a rap sheet much longer than any human.

As well, we are going to look into the legalities of Bender's argument regarding the Professor and Cubert; was he legally able to make the arguments? Let's take a dive into today's insights!

Can Bender have his History Expunged?

One of the biggest things when it comes down to Bender is the Season 9 episode where they point out that robots do not have free will. The episode then descends into utter chaos as Bender tries to find his free will, going as far as to become a Robo-Monk until he discovers that his answers lie with Mom, the richest woman of the future with multiple monopolies. At the end of the episode, he gets charged for attempted murder on the Professor, and they chalk it up to he finally has free will.

Here's the thing: if we go back to the argument at the very beginning of the episode where he supposedly did not commit the crime because he does not have free will and it was programmed into him, then what does that say about his criminal history, and that of other robot criminals as well? If Robots truly do not have free will, then how can they be convicted of crimes unless it was programmed into them to commit them, which means they are set to be convicts.

Bender's and other robots' lack of free will would absolve them of their actions, but yet the legal system requires to hold them accountable due to laws and regulations of the actions the committed. Therefore, according to this logic, could Bender actually appeal all of his previous convictions and use the argument that he does not have free will to be declared innocent?

Bender is Actually a Lawyer

Now, while many people might overlook this mini theory, it does beg a good question. In Season 5, when Leela, Fry, and Bender become Superheroes, the three of them must escape the mayor's office to change costume for an important mission that comes in while they are there in street clothes. Bender hysterically states that he has to go take his LSATs, which is the test that you take in order to become a lawyer. While it's a quick excuse in the episode, could it actually be true that Bender-at some point-actually TAKES the LSATs?

In Season 7, when the crew finds themselves watching the evolution of robots, they also wind up in a courthouse due to the Professor stating that he had created them; Bender serves as their legal representation. If we go based on two seasons earlier that he stated he needed to take them, he could potentially be a lawyer by this point when they go before the robot judge on the robot planet.

Not too many episodes later, comes the Trial of the Farnsworths in the episode Overclocked. In this episode he steps in and makes a legal argument (that I will be getting to in a moment here), and it is instantly accepted. If he was a lawyer, and a decently well-known one at that, by this point then it would make sense as to why his argument was accepted with zero question. Now, to see what that argument was!

The Legality of the Farnsworths

This is a tricky little situation that is questionable in multiple episodes. If we look back at Season 5, episode 3, Cubert and Dwight legally take over Planet Express due to the fact that the Professor had "legally" been declared dead which meant that Cubert inherited everything. Fast forward to Season 8, and now we have unanswered questions.

As mentioned above with Bender making a well-thought-out legal argument, he gets Curbert off from the charges because he is a minor. Then, a moment later, he gets the Professor off the charges due to "double jeopardy" on account of Cubert being the Professor's clone, and they had just dismissed his charges.

If the argument stuck in Season 8, then what does that mean for the future if we base everything on what happened with Season 5 as well? Legally, if they are counted as the same person when it comes to a court case, then are they not the same person when it comes to inheritance? Can Cubert actually inherit from the Professor? Obviously, in Season 5 that information had not been public knowledge, just that Cubert was listed as his "son". However, with the information in the public eye, now we have the question of where the legalities lie in the future when the Professor truly has passed on.

While legal plot holes can generally come in for comic relief, it makes you wonder about certain things; between joking and what could actually happen. So, is Bender actually a lawyer and can Cubert actually inherit? What do YOU think? Come join our community and see who agrees with you, and counterarguments against! Join me tomorrow as we jump into a current conspiracy theory that might just hold true in the year 3000. Until then, keep on theorizing, Fanaticals!