We, The Infected

I was watching one of those true crime stories, and as I often do upon such occasions I wondered how I would vote if I were on the jury. I've never been on a jury. Been called for jury duty, but never even got close to being picked. Although, unlike a lot of people I talk to, I wouldn't mind serving on a jury, provided the trial wasn't a loooong affair. After seeing many cases in the news where I go, "What were those mooks on the jury thinking!?", it would be good to having the opportunity to actually do the dispensing of justice (at least, I hope I would dispense justice LOL).

Which brings me to the topic of this thread. What if Eli were caught by the authorities and put on trial? In the course of the trial, I'm sure all the details of her/his wretched life would be revealed for the jury. Now, of course, we here at the forums are Infected and thus very sympathetic to Eli. But, if you can, imagine that you are hearing all of Elias'/Eli's hardships and killings for the first time, seeing Eli small and frail-looking at the defense table (probably in special shackles to prevent escape). Would you vote to convict? If so, what charge would you be willing to vote guilty on? Murder? Manslaughter? Would you be in favor of putting Eli in an institution rather than prison?

I'd like to hear the opinions of other forum members, just as I'd hear the opinions of other members of a jury I'm a part of, before I offer my "verdict."

I'd go for either institution or some otherwise "outpatient" care with regular blood transfusions, unless he needs to be inside the institution to prevent him from being a threat to society. If he could control his urges with transfusions (under the Democrats' health care bill? lol) then I see no reason to lock him inside some place.

I can't say it'd qualify as a murder conviction, due to 1) he needs to survive and 2) he's 12 and I think immature brain development lessens subjective guilt somewhat, sort of like those insanity pleas.

I wouldn't just let him off scot-free however.

The age of criminal responsibility in Scandinavia is 15, so Eli would not see court, he would be dealt with through social services.
Even if gaoled, he would just fly away from the exercise yard.

I'd let Eli off scot free. But then again, that statement alone disqualifies me as a juror.

It's interesting, one of my professors has a very low opinion of juries. It's like that old joke, 12 people who could not get out of jury duty are not my peers. Basically, America juries are so lowly paid that anyone with the slightest bit of responsibility would have a big motivation to do everything they can to get out of jury duty. So in his words, someone's fate would be decided by people who have nothing better to do than to watch Jerry Springer all day.

I'm sure that in a perfect society, Eli wouldn't mind being locked up for a time with an adequate blood supply as atonement, but there'll probably be an angry mob waiting to drag her out into the sun no matter what the verdict.

I would help defray her legal fees and volunteer to defend her.

We don't have juries in Sweden, so the question doesn't apply here in its original form. However, we could re-state if to be if I think a Swedish court would convict Eli. The answer to that is no.

The judicial system handles questions of morality. Children, sick or abnormal people are never convicted; Eli would be in some or all of these categories. I actually think this would be true in any modern country.

Eli's case would be handled by social securities. He would probably be taken into custody, some special laws would be created if necessary. If it is possible for him to live without killing, he would be given help to do so. Otherwise - I think he would be left to starve to death.

First, I have to say that I could not convict Eli. My position at this point is so biased that I cannot even begin to speak to how I would have answered eight months ago, before the infection. (I am no 'bleeding heart liberal', but, at present, I might be hard pressed to prove it )

I think that, first and foremost, Eli is still a victim. Certainly her horrifying story would bring at least part of the jury to tears. She's is still a child, horribly abused, tormented, and alone. She didn't ask for this. She hates her life. A case could be made (maybe not a legal one) that she is already living her sentence.

It is hinted that she has tried other means of obtaining food, and failed, so she has made an effort not to kill. She has done only what she had to do to live. If someone can find a means of feeding her, I think she would be a minimal risk to society. (A cure would be better, but I think it would be hard to develop, given only one known active infection.)

I'm sure someone will post the reality check here, and explain how we would actually form an angry mob and drag her out into the streets at dawn to watch her burn. The reality check here for me is that we typically do not know, or care about, the assailant. We have no problem, in general, dragging the anonymous, heartless 'monster' into the streets for justice, but we know Eli, or at least we (like to) think we do. (Is there a practical difference if our reactions are influenced either way?)

I have thought aboyt that for mabye a future Fan-Fic. Oddly enough.. And I thin that as long as Oskar and Eli are together, and don't die by sunlight or something in jail. I'll be okay with almost anything.. (If they don't get blood they'll day. (If Oskar is turned that is)
No one is allowed to part Eli and oskar! No one!

intrige wrote: No one is allowed to part Eli and oskar! No one!

A little defensive on that point, eh?

If I can chose what to get angry about, this would be it