The subject of Sylvie's actions is another of those gray areas I alluded to in Leon's conversation with the Knights in Chapter 6. I mean, think about it. Sylvie is guilty of murdering innocents. She also died. By any legal definition, paying for your crimes with your life is considered the end of it. You killed, you're guilty, you died. end of story.
So what happens when someone who died for their crimes is brought back? Are they still guilty? The law says no. But then again, the law never had to deal with artificial people who's memories stayed intact as long as the brain wasn't damaged.
Also, the law when Sylvie committed those crimes was that Sylvie was property. A thing. And things don't commit crimes. They can only void their warranty. If a computer-controlled car suddenly loses control and drives through a crowd of people, it's a horrible thing. You scrap the car. But you don't charge it with murder and sentence it to death. That's just silly.
So there's more of that gray area. Sylvie couldn't be tried for murder because the laws at the time said that she wasn't a person, and thus had no legal liabiilty for her actions. You don't charge a runaway forklift. You scrap it.
The legal system would have no choice in the end but to very quietly sweep it under the carpet if anyone pursued it. They'd probably encourage Sylvie to stay out of sight, maybe give her some pointed advice about finding somewhere else to live. But legally? You can only charge someone for a law after its passed. You can't hold her accountable for actions performed before it became illegal. So no matter how unfair it may seem, no crime was actually committed.
[Edit:] Something else I thought of after writing this. It would never go to court. She was performing those actions while in possession of the DD Battlemover. That weapon, remember, was an illegal device, built by the Generos facility specifically to sell to a proscribed country in the Polar War for some quick, off-the-books cash. The moment she gets associated with it, she'll get an offer from the various international police agencies and governments at the time which police these things. The easiest way to handle the thorny problem of her liability is to offer her a blanket amnesty for things she did at the time, when her personhood was in question.
The reason they'd do this, is because she can provide sworn eyewitness testimony to the deliberate design, production, and intended sale of a tactical battlefield weapon to a proscribed country, which was armed with a strategic thermonuclear failsafe. As far as any government would be concerned, sworn testimony about the Battlemover's construction and sale would be worth an amnesty by the politicos in charge of the country. And her lawyer likely wouldn't settle for any less.
---
Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.
So what happens when someone who died for their crimes is brought back? Are they still guilty? The law says no. But then again, the law never had to deal with artificial people who's memories stayed intact as long as the brain wasn't damaged.
Also, the law when Sylvie committed those crimes was that Sylvie was property. A thing. And things don't commit crimes. They can only void their warranty. If a computer-controlled car suddenly loses control and drives through a crowd of people, it's a horrible thing. You scrap the car. But you don't charge it with murder and sentence it to death. That's just silly.
So there's more of that gray area. Sylvie couldn't be tried for murder because the laws at the time said that she wasn't a person, and thus had no legal liabiilty for her actions. You don't charge a runaway forklift. You scrap it.
The legal system would have no choice in the end but to very quietly sweep it under the carpet if anyone pursued it. They'd probably encourage Sylvie to stay out of sight, maybe give her some pointed advice about finding somewhere else to live. But legally? You can only charge someone for a law after its passed. You can't hold her accountable for actions performed before it became illegal. So no matter how unfair it may seem, no crime was actually committed.
[Edit:] Something else I thought of after writing this. It would never go to court. She was performing those actions while in possession of the DD Battlemover. That weapon, remember, was an illegal device, built by the Generos facility specifically to sell to a proscribed country in the Polar War for some quick, off-the-books cash. The moment she gets associated with it, she'll get an offer from the various international police agencies and governments at the time which police these things. The easiest way to handle the thorny problem of her liability is to offer her a blanket amnesty for things she did at the time, when her personhood was in question.
The reason they'd do this, is because she can provide sworn eyewitness testimony to the deliberate design, production, and intended sale of a tactical battlefield weapon to a proscribed country, which was armed with a strategic thermonuclear failsafe. As far as any government would be concerned, sworn testimony about the Battlemover's construction and sale would be worth an amnesty by the politicos in charge of the country. And her lawyer likely wouldn't settle for any less.
---
Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.