I’m not sure if this will work but I thought it might be an interesting way to have some debate without getting too emotional by using a theoretical situation.
Some background: In the series they have a symbiotic life form. The symbiote is joined with a ‘human’ host and this creates, in essence, a new being which shares the memories and personalities of both beings. When the human host dies, the symbiote is moved to a new host and the process continues, this time with the new being sharing the memories of both human hosts and the symbiote.
The symbiote cannot survive long without a human host and, once joined, the host and symbiote cannot be divided without both dying.
The issue presented in one episode involves a crime allegedly committed by a prior host and the symbiote. The question being whether the new being can be held responsible for the crimes of a prior being, in particular the human host (who in the episode was not even alive when the alleged crime occurred).
Presents some interesting ethical and legal issues to ponder, and I thought it might be fun to give it a try.
Might also let us use other fictional situations to spark discussions.
In the tv episode the crime warranted the death penalty, so for me that was an easier answer to reach, you simply wait until the human host dies and then the symbiot, if guilty, can be executed.
But it’s a bit harder when you bring in the idea of jail time, etc.