One of the opposing arguments that can be made for Henry’s innocence is that Henry isn’t technically a human. I disagree with this statement because Henry is able to do the same things that humans can do once he switched places with his victim: the new Aniday. After the switch, he took piano lessons, went to college, and even started a band, 3 things only humans can possibly do. So I believe the argument that Henry Day is technically not an adult is irrelevant, because he is able to live a sufficient life as a human. Another opposing argument that was made was that Henry Day wasn’t even a real person in real life, so that he couldn’t possibly be charged with a crime because he doesn’t exist. I again wholeheartedly disagree with this statement because that wasn’t the point of the trial. The point of the trial was to declare who was guilty within the realm of the story, and not relate it too much to real life outside of The Stolen …show more content…
But even without the evidence from the trials, from just reading the novel alone, I would definitely find Henry Day guilty of identity theft. He is guilty because he knew that he was taking someone’s identity and he wiped away the talents and personality of the old Henry day and made his so called parents suspicious that he was an imposter. Oftentimes, changelings are afraid of typical humans finding out about their identity because they fear the consequences. And that is because that they know that there are consequences because they are committing a crime. So just because changelings have their own “changeling culture” per say of stealing people’s identity doesn’t mean they should be able to get away with it. Overall, I am positive that Henry Day is guilty of identity theft and he should be punished for his