This is a very interesting topic. I would say part of how you view the topic depends on your religious upbringing and your view of "absolutes".
To illustrate, for example - Do you *really* feel that Superman is "perfect"? According to many religious beliefs, to be perfect is to be "without sin".
Is Superman without sin? Well again, this would depend on your religious beliefs - but according to many beliefs the ideas of both lying and stealing are considered a sin. And, at least in the LNC series, we have seen Superman do both - as Clark Kent. We have seen him steal - a couple of examples are the perfume from Miranda's shop in "Pheromone". Another example is when he stole the diamonds from Mazik's Jewelers.
Now, we've also seen him lie. In my opinion he normally doesn't "out and out" lie about his identity - I would call his actions more like deception or subterfuge - in fact I would go as far as to say that *most* of the time he words things very carefully so as to avoid lying... just allowing people to believe what seems plausible without coming out and actually stating a lie. However, who is to judge when a shady area becomes a lie? And that's a discussion for a whole other day...
So back to the original thought. In the world of black and whites and absolutes - Superman/Clark Kent - has been a liar and a thief. And according to those beliefs mentioned above, those actions would account for sin. And if he has sinned he is not a perfect man.
If he is not a perfect man, then he is as capable as the next person is of committing murder. He is as imperfectly capable as any other normal human is of committing murder... of allowing his feelings to be pushed past the point of no return.
Would he do that? IMO? No. But in my opinion most normal human beings who've grown up in a loving family like he has and been taught good values wouldn't do that either. But there's always that "x factor" that one thing that could be possible to push us past our point of no return.
So I think if it were written well and that moral breakdown was thoroughly explored, that yes, it is possible - not probable - but possible.
Should he be punished for it? Yes. If he is capable of murder, like any other human, then he should be held responsible for his actions, like any other human...
This doesn't have anything to do with Terry's story (I'm not sure of the particular's of that murder) but... one interesting note. In Superman's case (barring there was no green Kryptonite involved) he couldn't really claim "self-defense" either. It would be malicious. How would the courts consider that in their ruling?
Oh, and yes, what *would* his punishment be?
Okay, there's my 2 cents worth - I just couldn't resist.
-- MR
