we are the walking dead

In my attempts to fund my pending enrollment for graduate study, I've been looking for scholarships and all that fun stuff. This one in particular required an essay on the death penalty which I want to share here. I'm really a silly, silly person. I also think I'm a shoe in for the money.


The Walking Dead is a weekly comic book written by Robert Kirkman. The comic has been an ongoing series for several years and I follow it regularly. Though not a traditional book by the standards expected here, this book has honestly been one of the largest influences on my opinion of the death penalty and my life in general.

The death penalty is no easy topic to discuss. Like the other party-defining political hot buttons, such as abortion or gun control, there is little gray area for one's opinion. You either are in or you're out, and your decision leaves little room for inquirers to guess your other stances on such topics. It's extremely difficult to work outside these predisposed "boxes" and truly have an original and heard opinion.

The Walking Dead is a book about a global plague that causes the dead to rise and consume human flesh, more commonly referred to as "zombies". All government, economy and civilization as we recognize it has been obliterated and it's nearly every man for himself. The story has us following a small group of survivors simply trying to do just that in this harsh and unforgiving world.

In one instance, the survivors discover a murderer in their midst. This man is caught red-handed, literally, and is temporarily incapacitated and imprisoned for his insanity and irreversibly dangerous nature. There is little debate about what needs to be done with the criminal as he will only consume resources and attempt to cause more harm if he is to be kept alive. There are few qualified among this small group to offer this man any sort of help and their efforts are really better placed elsewhere, farming or building worthwhile community. The rehabilitation of the insane is not something one can afford when the simple act of waking up in the morning is a constant question.

This argument is one of logic. In an environment of severely limited resources, population and time, one cannot afford to have such an unpredictable human factor murdering the able bodies the rest of this small society depends on. The luxuries of opinion and belief are forcibly suspended in the face of simple survival and a sort of coerced de-evolution must take place. The comfort of self-awareness, imagination, wonder and self-endowed purpose takes a back seat to the basic principles of instinct: water, food, and reproduction. It's what makes the heavy decision of ending another life, albeit a dangerous one, so very simple.

These same principles could theoretically apply to our zombie-free society. We could appeal to logic and simply say that those who do not obey the most basic law of society will not be able to participate in it. I share in this deduction. I don't believe we have the right as human beings to take a life, but as a society, we have the right to remove those who do not oblige the law. The greater intangible that exists with a collection of ideals, even vague and generalized, is what gives us the right to spend those valuable resources where they can better serve the parent civilization. It is our collective belief in community that pulls in those in need, but also pushes out those who threaten our very survival.

Unfortunately, these ideas don't really fly in this pre-apocalypse United States. I do consider myself a bleeding heart liberal, but I cannot oblige this one stereotypical factor on the left. In all honesty, my greater notions are probably more socialist and black listed than those of your every day capitalist, but I stand by the idea that a cultivated and nourished community, rather than the placated and pampered individual, could potentially yield some of the greatest triumphs of mankind. It's extremely unfortunate that the personal desire for success and unfettered greed corrupts these lofty ideals and trumps any communal efforts before they are even idealized. I do not think that any "greater good" will be recognized until we actually are facing down the apocalypse and by then, of course, it will be too late. It's also funny that if and when that happens, these media-saturated, emotionally-charged topics of debate will be the least of anyone's concern.



HAHAHAHAHA. I am so getting a million dollars.