If you were on the jury...
For Kenny's murder or for Jane's murder, would you find Kenny guilty? Would you find Jane guilty?
This has been discussed much already but many people have raised the question of "morality": who was more moral, and who was less moral? Morality is grey in a post apocalyptic world. But if people want to discuss morality as though they still live in a regular society, then we could also discuss morality from the perspective of modern law. If you were on the jury panel for Kenny's murder of Jane, would you find him guilty? If you were on the jury panel for Jane's, and Clem's murder of Kenny, would you find Jane guilty?
I'm not a lawyer but my opinion based on a common understanding of law: Jane was manipulative but that is not a crime. Murder with the intention to kill is. The law isn't perfect, but if I were on the jury, unfortunately, what Jane and Clem did was in self defense, but what Kenny did was murder motivated by anger. If a heartbroken father murdered a woman because he believed that she killed his baby, you would understand his anger but likely still find him guilty to some degree, because everyday crappy things happen that make people extremely angry, that does not make it okay to murder people.
Of course in this game I don't blame Kenny or Jane, it's as crappy a world as it gets and there is really no such thing as legal or moral anymore. There's only everyone's best judgment on what will keep them and others alive. I believe players made the choice based on who they liked the most and Kenny was a much more developed character with more context so people chose him. (I chose Jane because I personally identified with her coolheadedness and I believed in her ability to change while I didn't believe Kenny did. Again, it's just our own best judgment on character).
What do other people think? Let's try to really stay objective as though you are on a jury panel.
Comments
I would find Kenny guilty of murder, however considering circumstances, no punishment.
I would find Jane guilty of reckless endagerment of a minor (the baby) and disturbing the peace, but innocent of defending herself against Kenny. Again, no punishment.
Death penalty
Kenny would go down for voluntary manslaughter. I have no idea what the hell Jane would be convicted of when it comes to what she did to Kenny. Probably aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for slashing at him with her knife.
Kenny was the initial aggressor so yes. Any American jury would probably agree. Jane, if she lives, could easily cite self-defense.
Someone making you very angry is not a valid excuse for physically attacking them and then later killing them. Kenny would never get off for that crime.
Kenny was the aggressor and Jane could say it was self defense but she kind of provoked Kenny and I think deep down she knew he was gonna flip out like that but there's no proof hmmm..
I don't know much about American laws but isn't being a jury illegal if you know (or have some kind of emotional attachment to) the person(s) on trial?
She pulled a weapon though (and used it), isn't that lethal intent?
Death penalty for Jane for putting Clem and AJ in danger cos of her selfish reasons.
No penalty for Kenny for putting Clem and AJ in danger cos of his reckless thinking.
IMO, Kenny wasn't trying to kill her at first. He was mad and probably was going to beat the shit out of her. It became a death match when Jane drew the knife and slashed his stomach. I would say Kenny was defending himself, but then lost it and killed her. But Jane had just as much deadly intent if not more than Kenny to kill.
I would say Kenny was the aggressor, but acted in self defense.
Jane, I would say she was also the aggressor, and was also acting in self defense.
Things escalated and it became deadly, but I wouldn't outfit call it murder on either side.
It's still self defense in response to an attack.
It doesn't matter if she provoked him.
It clearly wasn't by accident
Jane, I would say she was also the aggressor, and was also acting in self defense.
This, I totally agree. I stated the same thing is several times in other threads, they both were aggressors and after some point tried to kill the other and refused to back down even though there were pauses in the fight where one of them could try to reason or just back away. Only that because Jane was on the ground that she looked like the victim. And it seemed like that was her plan all along (judging by what she said to Clem before the fight "no matter what, stay out of it") That is why I think Jane was responsible for the fight, if she never hid the baby it wouldn't come to this.
They're both to blame. It escalated and Clem couldn't do anything except for using deadly force herself. My biggest complaint is that we should've had the chance to shoot Jane too. It's only fair IMO. After we find AJ alive, instead of just walking off. We get 2 chances to shoot Kenny. 2
Jane. None.
I noticed that too. I don't know why the developers didn't make the scene look more objective at least by the end, when the choice flashed on the screen, maybe if both of them held a weapon it would look much more different. I think they thought shooting Kenny would look much more dramatic (and it kinda is) and wanted to trick people to go for that option. It's like Sarita's arm.. Most people (including me) thought it was the best shot they had and it turned out to be the most horrible one.
Jane would be tried for felony murder, which is tried in the same way as the murder in the first degree in 46 of 50 states.
Which means a capital punishment is aplicable to her, due to it being in existance in the state where the crime was commited.
Also, she commited a felony child endangerment, and punishment for that is 1-10 years in prison
Not to mention agravated assault with a deadly weapon
Clementine would also be taken out of her custody due to that.
Thus the punishment is 10-20 years in prison and execution
Kenny on the other hand would be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and punishment for that is 5-10 years in prison.