"Do the Undead Have Legal Responsibilities?" Topic

Quite interesting article here.

"…The AMC television series The Walking Dead, based on the comic book series of the same name, has rapidly become one of the most famous examples of the zombie fiction genre. Although the series takes place during a time when federal, state, and local governments have basically failed, it's important to remember that, assuming some kind of government is eventually reconstituted, the survivors may still have to answer for their actions during the zombie apocalypse.

There is no statute of limitations on murder, after all, and there is historical precedent for isolated people in dire circumstances being called to account after the fact, such as survivors of shipwrecks.

Obviously the walkers themselves cause most of the deaths in The Walking Dead, but could they ever be held legally responsible in any way? To answer this question, we must first answer the question "Are walkers legally dead or legally alive?" The answer may not be as obvious as you might think, as the cause of the zombie plague in The Walking Dead works a little differently than in other zombie fiction.

Rather than being spread directly by the walkers, the "infection" remains dormant until death, rendering every living human a carrier with the potential to become a walker. As explained by Dr. Jenner in Season 1 episode "TS-19", when a human dies, the infection rekindles some sort of brain functioning, resulting in a walker. The cortical areas of the brain (the parts that allow us to do things that are uniquely human) remain offline, while the brainstem reactivates. In real life, the brainstem alone would not be sufficient to allow for movement and other functions, which require respiration, circulation, and energy metabolism.

Medically and legally, it is relevant that a walker's brain continues to function, even if it is only the brainstem (and possibly some other "lower" parts of the brain). In the vast majority of states, legal death is defined by a version of the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which states that a person is dead when they have "sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem." Were it not for their lack of a functioning heart and lungs, walkers would be considered legally alive. But since they are indeed legally dead, there is no hope for holding them legally responsible for the death and destruction they cause, either criminally or civilly.

Having considered the walkers, we now turn to the surviving humans. Throughout the show, the survivors visit all manner of violence upon each other, sometimes even motivated by good intentions. But how much of it would pass legal muster, even allowing for the extreme physical and mental situation the survivors find themselves in?

One of the most understandable instances of human violence is the mercy killing. Knowing that someone is likely to die, another survivor preemptively kills them in such a way that they will not return to life as a walker. This may even be done with the dying person's consent. Examples include Daryl Dixon killing Dale Horvath in Season 2's "Judge, Jury, Executioner" and Lori Grimes in the Season 3 episode "Killer Within." Lori gave birth by C-section, effectively dooming her to die by blood loss; her son Carl shot her in order to prevent her return as a walker. We can sympathize with the difficulty of Carl's choice and his ultimate decision, but was it, strictly speaking, legal?…
full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

Try watching "In The Flesh" (recent 3 parter from the BBC) which also covers a lot of this.

The Partially Dead Deceased Syndrome are deemed to not be guilty because it was the untreated disease that made them do it. Not everyone agrees with this ruling….

sorry, this is the kind of piffle that comes from over-analyzing a tv show…

I agree Dynaman8789-just enjoy it! Huh..sorta like gaming.

Reading that prattle makes me want to feed all the lawyers and constitutional legal scholars to zombies.

And crack bad jokes like: "The only good lawyer is an undead one."

At the risk of sounding cliche' … The only good zombie is a dead zombie …

If a "walker" isn't exactly dead, then it owes taxes!

When I read Dynaman's complaint, my first thought was about Hitler being so punctilious as to pay Ford and GM royalties for the trucks they produced during the war.
As I recall, they were in Swiss bank accounts, but held in escrow.
I find such legal speculation amusing.

I found the article rather weak. Not because I find such speculation pointless or without value, but because it was insufficiently developed. There was not, for example, any consideration of whether or not the undead could be considered moral agents, and thus held legally accountable despite being dead.

Really, Some legal eagles and shrinks had so much extra time on their hands that they had to dwell in to the legal, psychological, moral aspects of zombie plague, did anyone ever noticed how many zombies in the first season or so of the TWD were wearing suits and ties.
Hello it's fiction guys and they said us gamers didn't have a life, here's a new game Suits vs Gamers in a Zombie Plague who will come out on top as the survivors?

Hey, they was "billable hours" and that is all law firms care about, right?

The legal issues around what constitutes 'death' and its effects on inheritance of property and retention of aristocratic titles is considered in some depth in Kim Newmans various books, although pertaining to vampires rather than zombies (or which zombies are a sub-species).

Lord Ruthven simply sidesteps all the issues by pretending to be his long lost son on a regular basis over the centuries, whereas Dracula simply doesn't care.

Well, since I've been waiting for Season 3 to hit Netflix I guess I shouldn't have read the last paragraph. :)

…and legal schmegal…in a situation like that, anything goes. Survival is what matters.

"They're dead, Jim …" Doctor Leonard "Bones" McCoy, USS Enterprise NCC-1701

You think the Suits know something? That they are just laying the ground work for an opportunity as to cash in on it later?

The basic premise of the article is flawed. It is assuming that there is somewhere an authority that could exert its will and/or morals. The Walking Dead has no such thing. The whole world is infected. No one will ever be held accountable by some State/National society because there is no State/National society. Everything is handled locally.

And since it has been determined that everyone is infected and WILL turn zombie when they die, there is virtually no chance that any long-lasting civilization can be created. Small local "villages" like the Governor's maybe.

We're doomed !

It's called "self-defense."
If you kill a zombie, you are acting in self-defense or in defense of another against a serious threat to life. In fact, since the zombie is, by default, intent on killing, and no other method will reasonably prevent that act, a pre-emptive and deadly attack from hiding or even a defended position would be justifiable and reasonable— not unlike shooting a known suicide bomber, or an invading soldier in time of war. One could even argue that a "zombie plague" constitutes a de facto state of war, with any and all zombies being enemy combatants and invaders, and thus legitimate targets for even civilians acting in defense of themselves, their families, their communities and even the nation as a whole— in the same way that it would not have been "murder" for a British citizen to kill a non-surrendering German invader, had Hitler crossed the channel. (And since zombies can't, won't and don't surrender, killing is the only option.) Likewise the pre-emptive deadly act on someone dying and destined to become a zombie falls under self-defense. In any case, it's unlikely any restored government would pursue prosecution of such incidents.

But as others have noted, it's a bit of a silly discussion.

And since it has been determined that everyone is infected and WILL turn zombie when they die, there is virtually no chance that any long-lasting civilization can be created.

I don't watch the show, but I can imagine a society that developed devices that instantly destroy the brain stem upon death. Everybody wears them, from birth on, and they can't be removed. You could build a civilization easily enough with that.
Until that's developed, use a policy of cremating all dead before the "revival" can occur. Viking funerals, and all that.
The fact is that the zombie "reproductive" cycle is presumably entirely dependent on death of living humans— which means that effectively, zombies numbers don't grow unless human numbers do. So with my proposed policy in place, and active incineration teams destroying pre-existing zombies, the zombie population could in fact be reduced quite rapidly, as they can't make up their losses. I take it these are standard zombies— attacking without intelligence or direction, not capable of strategic thought? If so, they might as well be angry lemmings.

Here's how the civilization starts: walled compound surrounded by heavily staked ditches— the stakes don't do anything lethal to zombies, but I'd bet that an impaled zombie isn't effective at climbing walls or moving forward.
Clear a "fire field" beyond the wall, with flammable materials through which the zombies must approach. Burn 'em as they come.
Presumably, especially if you start in a relatively rural setting, after many harrowing nights, the number of zombies will be greatly reduced and eventually eliminated (I presume, again, that zombies can't use cell phones or radios to call up buddies and say, "hey, I've found some lovely brains over here.")

Now you can start your society, gradually expanding it into other rural areas and establishing communication systems, building up industry and so forth. Eventually, you'll be able to mount effective offensive actions against strategically valuable objectives— like, say, military armories and supply depots. Sure, they have zombies, but zombies can't use the weapons… and you can always set up a "baited field" to draw them out, then send in teams to acquire useful things like white phosphorus grenades, flamethrowers, etc. Napalm is ideal— let the zombies set each other on fire.
Gradually, as your military supplies improve and your industry advances, you can develop means to burn zombies out of cities, too. Since, again, zombies aren't strategic thinkers, don't communicate and won't be aware of your society, you can set them up with "baited" ambushes all day long. Just drive a truck into the city (heck, use a remote controlled one), blast out "living" sounds so they pursue the noise, and lead 'em into another burning field. Fry, rinse, repeat.
So, yeah, civilization could indeed rise again.

I think the Undead have a rotten attitude.

I second that BabyFBAM.

To answer the question though, simply, no.

Zeds have no capacity for reason, consequence or anything else. To hold them accountable for something they couldn't even comprehend is ridiculous. The purpose of being accountable is a mixture of punishment and as a consequence of that punishment they change their behaviour. You couldn't say if the zombie was lamenting it's decisions and would change. People are not held accountable on the grounds of 'diminished responsibility' so to hold a corpse accountable, it's daft to even consider, never mind answer the question on a gaming website…

I hereby invoke the MST3K Mantra:

"It's just a show; I should really just relax."