"The Jury's Out" Reaction

     In class, we played "The Jury's Out", a game where we split the class and debated whether or not Feanor and his sons were guilty of the crimes they committed on their quest to reclaim the Silmarils, including the First Kinslaying and the burning of the Teleri ships. I was on the side of the prosecution, arguing that Feanor and his sons were fully in control of their actions and should be tried accordingly. The verdict came back in our favor, the jury and judge agreeing that Feanor and his sons should be held accountable.

    Being on the prosecution side of the argument, Feanor and his sons had to be viewed in a negative and almost antagonistic light. Our main argument was that the actions they took were all of their own accord, and the oath that they swore to had no part to play in it. Looking at these characters through this viewpoint really highlighted their despicable actions and put into perspective how their choices affected others. For example, the First Kinslaying was only done because the Teleri refused to give up their ships. Their oath never said to slay their fellow Elves in order to return to Middle-Earth. This choice was only due to Feanor's pride and arrogance.

    As stated above, the jury and judge came back with a guilty verdict for Feanor and his sons. Obviously, this is a decision that I agree with. I don't see how someone could look at all the evidence for what Feanor and his sons committed and come to the conclusion that they should not be punished. Even if you wanted to believe that they could not break their oath, like the defense did, the oath makes no claim that Feanor and his sons should kill the Teleri or burn their possessions when they are done with them. These actions were done purely out of Feanor's arrogance, and I am satisfied that the judge and jury could see that and ruled accordingly.