Lawyers and scientists answer the tough questions in TWD

[kidgloves]

Interesting, if short, read.

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/04/walking-dead-lawyer-doctor/

[Staredge]

Do they get credit for time served? :D

[Wyldwraith]

It's interesting to consider TWD from a legal perspective, but there are a few flaws in their assertions:
1) Imminent Danger: Court after court has ruled that "Imminent Danger" can and has included circumstances such as a battered wife knowing an abusive husband will be returning from the bar in a heavily intoxicated state in a brief enough span of time she cannot be sure of having time to flee. If a court would rule that a threat 5-15 minutes away can be imminent, then the certain knowledge of reanimation post-death within minutes would likely also fall under this aegis.

2) Their original premise, of shipwrecked or other cut-off survivors being later called to legally account for their actions only holds true because the apocalypse was in that form a microcosm, while the rest of the world continued functioning as normal while the individual was shipwrecked somewhere. In the event the apocalypse became a macrocosm, history has lessons to teach us about accountability becoming all but nonexistent during such lawless spans of time. Even in the event society was reconstituted at some point in the future, those future magistrates would all have the shared experience of either a) Having "murdered" one or more other humans during the apocalyptic anarchy, or having enjoyed the protection of someone who murdered others on their behalf. It's VERY doubtful such individuals would have an interest in prosecuting what had become the societal norm during that period...and would, most likely, concentrate their efforts on dealing with individuals like the Governor.

As for the psychological examination of the characters' actions/outlooks, I found them fascinating and agree that trauma...even that as great as what is regularly experienced by many inhabitants of TWD universe, does not in and of itself create monsters like the Governor. Rick's breakdown exemplified this perfectly....while he might have been in an acute psychological crisis, he never made the leap to objectifying other people. Something I believe someone like the Governor would have been doing even BEFORE the zombie apocalypse to some extent.

Good stuff, and quite interested to hear other takes on the article.

[Morto Vivente]

2) Their original premise, of shipwrecked or other cut-off survivors being later called to legally account for their actions only holds true because the apocalypse was in that form a microcosm, while the rest of the world continued functioning as normal while the individual was shipwrecked somewhere. In the event the apocalypse became a macrocosm, history has lessons to teach us about accountability becoming all but nonexistent during such lawless spans of time. Even in the event society was reconstituted at some point in the future, those future magistrates would all have the shared experience of either a) Having "murdered" one or more other humans during the apocalyptic anarchy, or having enjoyed the protection of someone who murdered others on their behalf. It's VERY doubtful such individuals would have an interest in prosecuting what had become the societal norm during that period...and would, most likely, concentrate their efforts on dealing with individuals like the Governor.

I agree Wyld. If humanity ever recovered from such a worldwide disaster any functioning legal system would be looking to prosecute individuals who in a non-apocalyptic parallel would be considered war criminals or mob bosses. The actions that individuals would be willing or not wiling to take is an integral part of the ethical quandary that is TWD, but for the article writers to simply super impose the societal conventions of a non-apocalyptic world onto a ZA seems to miss the point IMO.

- - - Updated - - -


As for the psychological examination of the characters' actions/outlooks, I found them fascinating and agree that trauma...even that as great as what is regularly experienced by many inhabitants of TWD universe, does not in and of itself create monsters like the Governor. Rick's breakdown exemplified this perfectly....while he might have been in an acute psychological crisis, he never made the leap to objectifying other people. Something I believe someone like the Governor would have been doing even BEFORE the zombie apocalypse to some extent.

Good stuff, and quite interested to hear other takes on the article.

For me that's 2 for 2 Wyld. I agree that a personality like TG would probably have engaged in sadism on some level before the ZA struck, it seems like it's second nature for him. When comparing individuals I suppose it's difficult to predict how much brutality an individual can take before they start to duplicate/adopt that kind of behaviour. As you said Rick has experienced tragedy but he hasn't taken the same route as TG. I believe that even if Carl died Rick's resilience and inner resources would prevent him from taking the express train to unbridled "Nutterdom". We all know that the continual experience of extremely stressful circumstances, especially those during times of war can bring out the worst in people. Individuals who normally wouldn't commit heinous acts subsequently go beyond the actions of survival and simply "being a soldier". I suppose ultimately it's in the nature of the beast.

Looking back on TG arc over the season, when it came to homicide he wasn't fussy. He engaged in both mass murder (the cranium aquarium), spree killing (the National Guard and the Woodburians) and it looked like he was about to start down the serial killer path (Andrea).

As a little aside, I came across an article on the Devil's Staircase. The proposition by scientists that a mathematical formula can predict the attack frequency of a serial killer.

http://phys.org/news/2012-01-serial-pattern-based-brain.html

[Wyldwraith]

There's a problem if their research bears fruit,
Such research is establishing the "credible scientific basis" prerequisite for use in an affirmative defense of Not Guilty By Reason of Mental Defect. Should their research become "widely accepted" by the scientific community, the research ITSELF would, ALL BY ITSELF, become a new affirmative defense for Serial Killers.

Given the low probative value that such research has. (Ie: Not much chance of offering practical benefits in stopping serial unsubs), and the legal certainty that they would be creating a new shield for killers to use to escape justice, if it were me on that research team I'd discontinue the project immediately, while the data is still unsubstantiated.

[Mike70]

.

2) Their original premise, of shipwrecked or other cut-off survivors being later called to legally account for their actions only holds true because the apocalypse was in that form a microcosm, while the rest of the world continued functioning as normal while the individual was shipwrecked somewhere. In the event the apocalypse became a macrocosm, history has lessons to teach us about accountability becoming all but nonexistent during such lawless spans of time. Even in the event society was reconstituted at some point in the future, those future magistrates would all have the shared experience of either a) Having "murdered" one or more other humans during the apocalyptic anarchy, or having enjoyed the protection of someone who murdered others on their behalf. It's VERY doubtful such individuals would have an interest in prosecuting what had become the societal norm during that period...and would, most likely, concentrate their efforts on dealing with individuals like the Governor.

I doubt that people would even care after a certain point, Wyld. I think it most likely that people would just want to forget about the chaos, death and murder and get on with living. there would be no point to re-living the past at all. I could even see communities arising that would forbid the very discussion of what went on when things fell apart or they might go farther and just erase the past as much as they can and move on. i think most folks would be of the mind that "we all did things morally ambiguous to survive. who am i to cast stones" attitude.