Squid Games with Fishy Consequences
Introduction: The Suspension of Civil Society Legal Protections
1. Recently, there has been a very popular fictional television series aired titled, Squid Game. One of the key selling points of this series is that it captivates the audiences intrigue in the suspension of legal protections that ordinarily apply in civil society; that allows blatantly illegal actions such as theft, property damage, kidnapping, chemical disablement of persons, deception for material benefit, coercion, threats of violence, variations of assault, and even murder to take place without legal sanction or deterrence. Viewers also spectate over the internal moral struggles of the contestants as they strive to the fulfilment of their illegal contractual arrangements with the Squid Game Architects made under duress, deceit, misrepresentation, and desperation. It is a dystopian portrayal of what could possibly happen if human relations are not governed under a rule of law system of justice but governed by a rule by law system whereby contestants only have to abide by three contractual conditions within the game’s ecosystem to survive and possibly win the prize money: the first clause states that the contestant is not allowed to stop playing. The second clause states that the contestant who refuses to play will be eliminated. The third clause states that the Games may be terminated at any time if the majority of the contestants agree; some prize monies are awarded to the families of eliminated contestants instead with the released contestants receiving nothing but their liberty in return. As the contestants discover, laws that protect the sanctity of life are not enforced within the Squid Game ecosystem.
Mass Murder As The Way of Life
2. In one scene, the human condition is reduced to its most barbaric form in a riotous brawl of mass murder for survival. There is no illusion that the goal of the riot instigators was not to maim or disable other contestants or without the intention to kill, which may be classified as manslaughter instead of murder, but murdering others to avoid being killed in kind as the contestants inadvertently realise in a previous scene that the death of a fellow contestant by any reason during their entire stay within the game’s ecosystem: -
A) Has no legal consequences;
B) Contestants are financially incentivised to literally eliminate other contestants by which each contestant’s death releases more money into the total winnable prize pool to the ultimate victor of the Squid Game;
C) Eliminating other contestants decreases competition to maximise one’s own self interest in ultimately emerging as the sole surviving victor to receive the prize money.
3. As illustrated above, contestants were encouraged by the design of the Squid Game’s Architects to adopt ‘a kill or be killed mentality’ as entertainment for the spectating VIP Squid Game guests.
4. But what if a Squid Game contestant did not want to kill anyone but simply wanted to survive the riot by hiding first, and only defending against themselves if they were first attacked by another contestant? Since the riot took place in the open sleeping quarters hall where all contestants were congregated, a contestant could not simply extricate themselves without the real risk of being caught up in the brawl. For the purposes of this hypothetical exercise, if police had arrived on scene in the aftermath of the riot and seized the CCTV footage monitoring the hall and were to decide who to charge for criminal offences from the riot, what would be the determining factors in whether assault or murder charges would be laid or could be proven in a Court of law?
Statutory Self-Defence Requirements
5. If Squid Game had taken place in Victoria, the Court could assess the validity of self-defence pursuant to Section 322K of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic): -
Self-defence
(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if—
(a) the person believes that the conduct is necessary in self-defence; and
(b) the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as the person perceives them.
(3) This section only applies in the case of murder if the person believes that the conduct is necessary to defend the person or another person from the infliction of death or really serious injury.
Context of the Murders Taking Place
6. The following contextual variables are relevant in assessing the validity of a self-defence proposition in the Squid Game riot scene depending on what one could observe was taking place: -
A) The killings were firstly targeted to victims that had offended the main riot instigators but evolved to indiscriminate killings, meaning every contestant’s life was at risk of imminent death;
B) The killings were first instigated by a discrete group of contestants but soon evolved into a ‘free for all’;
C) Makeshift weapons were used to gain an advantage over those unarmed;
D) Contestants that tried to escape through the locked hall doors were killed;
E) Defenceless contestants were killed without hesitation;
F) The aggressors only stopped attacking someone once the victims were dead;
G) The lights were deliberately flickered on and off by the Squid Game Architects to add a heightened sense of fear and confusion and also encouraged more killings by anonymising the murderer’s identities from future repercussions and reprisals;
H) The guards barricaded the entrance to keep contestants inside the hall and did nothing to enforce order;
I) Fights were not evenly matched as groups would gang up on individuals and backstabbing took place amongst groups of allied contestants;
J) Contestants hiding underneath their beds were dragged out and killed;
K) Contestants hiding in the higher bunk beds were toppled and killed;
L) There was seemingly no end in sight as to how long the riot would be allowed to continue.
How Self-Defence Could Be Realised
7. Hide: Facing the above intense and fast-evolving variables of events unfolding during the riots, we can learn from what Player 001 did in this situation. Player 001 retreated to the highest peak of a secure high bunk bed area to best avoid confrontation. In this way, a contestant would completely avoid requiring their actions to be retrospectively scrutinised for self-defence as their actions in retreating to a tentatively safe area did not cause any physical harm to another contestant.
8. Protective Circle: Forming a protective circle with other contestants with makeshift weapons pointed outwards but not attacking would be a possible ground for self-defence of yourself and of others in your group. For this method to be effective, and indeed, maximise your chances of survival, you would have to form a close-knit group with other contestants that you trust and stand your ground with them in a protective circle with weapons only used to repel attacks, rather than proactively advance attacks on other contestants. That way, you would have a chance to deter other unallied contestants from picking you off as an easy target as well as demonstrating that you are not a threat to others. Like the eventual strategy adopted by Player 456 and his allies, when confronted by another group, it resulted in a stalemate whereby no group was willing to make the first move in committing further hostilities.
9. Focus on Disarming: If unable to effectively hide or find allies within such a short time span and you are first attacked by another contestant, then an individual contestant could focus on disarming aggressors as self-defence can only enliven when you are personally at risk of death or really serious injury in the absence of having allied contestants to protect as well. Once an aggressor is disarmed, it could possibly dissuade further attacks.
10. Focus on Immobilising: If a hostile contestant is engaged in a frenzied attack against you and all verbal requests to cease hostilities are ignored as you continuously block attacks, a last resort measure to target the limbs and non-vital organs to immobilise a contestant from being a further threat to you without resorting to killing could be a strategic way of satisfying the requirements of self-defence.
11. Control Your Emotions and Exercise Restraint: If you are initially attacked and successfully repel an aggressor contestant who backs away and you give chase to counterattack, this would not satisfy the requirements of self-defence as you had already neutralised the threat to yourself personally in now taking vengeance. Likewise, the aggressor contestant calling for back-up to gang-up on you would not absolve the gang of criminal responsibility in attacking you if you do not give chase. However, if you do give chase in a counterattack when the other contestant had fled, then the group the originally aggressive contestant belongs to may have grounds of collective self-defence of their group member in repelling your counterattack, possibly to your detriment.
Conclusion: There is No Justice in Dystopia
12. In an alternative dystopian universe such as Squid Game, it is difficult to assess what material benefit there is in conforming to laws which may handicap a contestant’s individual survival chances in a ‘free for all’ no legal consequences ecosystem. Indeed, to the layperson, a simple ‘do no harm’ approach may be an overarching principle in maximising one’s survival chances and at the same time conform with seemingly suspended laws of civil society that only serve as a handicapped personal moral code within the Squid Games ecosystem. It is a terrifying situation to try to survive in, which fortunately, we are protected from in the real world.
Disclaimer: This article is written for satirical and comedic purposes only. It is not to be taken as any form of legal advice and is not an endorsement for the blatantly illegal activities that take place in the fictional television series, Squid Game.