First Treatise on Zombies

Sometimes its hard to pay attention in the last class of the week. However, not paying full attention in class can leave room for important intellectual pursuits. In this case, Mike asked a question about whether we could harvest organs from zombies. Thirty minutes later, we had a short treatise on the subject, which I have the honor of posting here:

First Treatise on Zombies
by Brad Sarnell and Mike Vomacka, Future Esq.'s

Question 1:
To whom does the body of the reanimated zombie belong?

*The necromancer- This appears to work under a Lockean theory of law. Without his labor, the body would still be dead. The necromancer could also be appropriating abandoned property if the estate is far enough removed from their kin. This is supported by use of cadavers, property of owned by hospitals or states- this suggests that dead bodies can owned by third parties.

*The dead person- You have property in your body when you’re alive, and your parents (despite having to perform labor to bring you into being) never actually own your body. If the property is never relinquished, the zombie would maintain his ownership. Alternatively, the zombie could be reclaiming ownership of its body through conquest. However, this has one fatal flaw: the zombie would a have will other than that of the necromancer.

*The estate- Let’s face it, higher brain function appears to be lacking in most zombies. They can move, they can groan, and they can eat brains. This is pretty much it. That probably qualifies them as an incompetent, and therefore control of them would go to the executor, who has power of attorney.

Now this is important not only to the question of organ harvesting, but also to the question of who is liable for the zombie’s torts. If control of the body belongs to the estate or the necromancer, they both have control and the knowledge that they can exert that control in the extremely likely event that the zombie escapes and starts eating people’s brains. A zombie could also be compared to an employee of the necromancer, suggesting liability under respondiat superior.

Question 2:
Can the zombie or his estate sue the necromancer for wrongful undeath?

*The issue is what you are compare the undeath to. There is no recovery for wrongful life, because courts say you can’t compare not being born to being born with a defect. (For the sake of argument here, I’m gonna count undeath as a defect.) However, in this case, the zombie was once alive. So are you comparing undeath to life, or undeath to death in order to decide how much compensation is due the zombie.

Prior case law suggests it is likely the zombie/estate can recover for diabilities caused by negligent reincarnation (lack or hindered bodily functionality). However, it is unclear whether the restoration of life alone is an injury courts will be willing to grant recovery for.

Proponents of judicial restraint may argue for the consideration of living (deceased?) wills – people could manifest their intent to be reincarnated. However, a practical approach suggests many people will be unprepared for their undeath. Do religious beliefs accentuating a future reincarnation manifest a latent desire to be zombified?

Further considerations:
> Does the discussion change when we consider the reincarnation of chattel (dogs, horses, sharks)? Chattel is incapable of self ownership, and the disposal of many animals is regulated by government agencies.
> If the chanting of two necromancers contributes to a reincarnation, would the body shared among parties?

Hopefully, this is only the first incarnation of this treatise, or at least the first of many intellectual discussions that will end up gracing the pages of this blog.

May all your hits be crits,
B

A few quick hits

Just some thoughts that I should have gotten down on paper some time in the past:

* New schedule of classes this quarter, and already Criminal Justice is my clear favorite. Not only is EVERYONE we talk about in class guilty as sin, and usually for drug possession, there are so many exceptionally fun things to talk about. We spent an entire class today talking about "exposing possessions for public view." Now, I believe that this sounds like something that we should be worried about people who walk around in trenchcoats and dark glasses doing, but apparently this is a very live constitutional issue. And any time one needs to question whether there is a constitutional right to dumpster dive or to run around naked in your backyard, that is the class for me.

*Best sports name ever: Von Wafer. There's really no wrong way to say it. I mean, try it. Say "Von Wafer" like you're Scottish, like you're angry, like you're shocked. It's amazing regardless. Plus, he sounds like a German cookie baron, which is awesome.

*Rock Band is amazing beyond all reason. I tried this for the first time on my recent trip to Chicago, and I've never had so much fun playing a video game in all my life. In fact, I think I had more fun than any of you... My guitar is good, my singing ranges from excellent to decent (I could TOTALLY have been lead singer for The Offspring), and my drumming breaks all records for white-guy lack of coordination. The worst part is, I know how to play the drums IRL. I'm not good, but I know how. I just wasn't getting it for some reason. Oh well, more practice obviously necessary.

*Marie and I are the parents of the most excellent cat in the history of ever. It's just a fact of life. She snuggles people, sleeps on the bed, and doesn't get too pissed when I accidentally almost kick her off the bed at nights. Really, what more could you ask for?

May all your hits be crits,
B

Stoplight or the Ultimate Embodiment of Free Will

Hey all. Sometime in the past decade, the powers that be decided that the old pedestrian lights, the ones that said either WALK or DONT WALK, were phased out. I assume that someone who couldn't read got hit by a bus, and they had to make a change. The possibilities for lights now are:
* The ones that talk. I hate these, especially the one on 55th St. and Lake Park in Chicago. I mean, if I hear, "WALK SIGN, 55th Street, WALK SIGN, 55th Street...) one more time, I very well might take a hammer to the speakerbox.
* The ones that count down. These, on the other hand, are awesome. It gives a certain amount of gravitas to the simple act of crossing a street. I mean, countdowns occur for things like bombs and the end of important sporting events. To add it to crossing the street makes crossing that much cooler. Plus, in DC (althought not in Chicago), they give you more than 20 seconds to cross the street, which makes things way better.
* The ones with the little man and the orange hand. These appear to be the most common, and are really the topic I want to discuss.

Recently, albeit only in New York, I've noticed what I originally thought was an interesting glitch in these signs. Instead of there being just a walk sign, the little man and the orange hand were up at the same time. Now, one could assume that this was merely a mistake, that seeing both at the same time was just a flaw. However, I believe that this is more philosophical (especially because I've had to read Locke for Property). At the point when there are cars going by, we should stay out of the street, so only the orange hand goes up. However, when there are no cars going by, you have the option of walking, BUT there is nothing preventing you from staying where you are. You are endowed by your creator with free will, and you can simply choose to stand there throughout the light cycle and wait for the next one. This is not a glitch, it is simply giving you your options, and letting you decide. Truly inspiring.

May all your hits be crits,
B

A Well-Deserved Break

Hey all. So, as usual, its been a while since I've posted, so I'll have to sum up my life over the past month.

*While I'm a big fan of law school, in general, I'm not so big a fan of law school exams. Not that I failed or anything, but my Torts exam especially was the most physically and mentally exhausting thing I have ever done. I quite literally had issues supporting my weight when turning in the exam. And, for the first time in a while, this wasn't due to the sheer amount of weight. Working all the time and not eating does phenomenal things for your waistline, although very little for your general wellbeing.

*New York was solid. I got to spend a good amount of time with the family, watched a ton of Top Chef with Maddy and Cassy, played some video games with Jarrett, and just generally took it easy. However, I am kinda troubled by my family's desire to do cool things when they know I'm not going to be there. Last time I went to Chicago, they went to London. This time, they went on a cruise to Mexico. I'm beginning to think they do this to spite me.

*Chicago, despite being its usual winter self, was amazing. Tons of amazing food, a new kitty (on whom a great deal will be written and pictures posted), and best of all, time with Marie for the first time in a month. Marie's Wii was a blast, and Rayman Raving Rabbids might be the most fun of any video game I've ever played. Might have been even more fun if I wasn't entirely sober, but that's an experiment for another time. NYE was fun. Marie and I got together with a whole bunch of AEPi alums for a party in Lakeview, and much fun was had by all (except maybe Lee, who lost his phone in the cab).

Now I'm back in DC, learning about international law (or I will eventually). The best thing so far: a case cite to Moxon v. The Fanny. I hope, for Moxon's sake, he beat The Fanny.

Hopefully, I'll be better about posting with less work to do, but I can't promise.

May all your hits be crits,
B