Legal ramifications of a rescue
+2 4 Votes
Rate it:
By vegarover
- Legal ramifications of a rescue
- Created: Jan 15, 2008
- Last updated: Aug 13, 2008
- After episode: 3.22: Through The Looking Glass
- Status: Current
- Flag this theory:
If the Losties do get rescued, they’re gonna have alot of legal problems when they get home.
— vegarover
I was thinking, that if there were a legitimate rescue of the Losties from the outside world…the US or Australian agencies (or whoever has jurisdiction) would then investigate the wreckage on the island to find the cause of the crash…but they would probably discover quite a few bodies buried on the island that weren’t killed by the crash. Thus resulting in plenty of criminal charges.
First off you have the Marshall, who’s buried just outside the beach camp. A pathologist who examined his body would see the gunshot Sawyer gave him, but probably determine the cause of death was from Jack euthanizing him. In both the US and Australia, Sawyer would probably be charged with attempted murder. While Jack would be charged with murder in the US and probably in Australia as well (although I don’t know about their mercy killing laws).
Next you have Ethan, who’s buried just outside the beach camp as well. He also has a few gunshot wounds which any pathologist would determine as the cause of death. Charlie is the culprit, but he’s off the hook because he’s swimming with the fishes. Although the bigger surprise to the investigating team would be that Ethan wasn’t on the plane.
Then you have Anna-Lucia and Libby, who were shot and killed by Michael. If Michael does come back (which many are speculating that he will), he’ll have a nice double-homicide charge awaiting him.
The nice thing about Anna-Lucia getting whacked though is that she won’t have to face charges for the killing of Shannon. An investigation with eyewitness reports would probably deem that Shannon’s death was accidental, but Anna-Lucia could have still faced involuntary manslaughter charges.
Anyway, there’s more you can add to the list, but you all get the point. If the Losties do get rescued, they’re gonna have alot of legal problems when they get home.
That is of course if there are any laws or precedents that excuse criminal behavior in the case of a disaster/survival situation. Even if there are, it would probably take years of court hearings to determine if the defendants were protected by these laws.
Anyway, I hope what I said here isn’t a garbled mess. If anybody has anything to add, especially anyone with knowledge of the law in cases like this…I’d love to hear it.
Key characters
| Short Name | Full Name | Episodes | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ana-Lucia | Ana-Lucia Cortez | 2.20, 2.7, 2.8 | 138 |
| Charlie | Charlie Pace | 1.7, 1.2, 2.10, 1.24, 3.21 | 403 |
| Jack | Jack Shephard | 1.1, 1.5, 2.11, 1.11, 1.16, 1.20, 3.9, 3.22, 3.1, 4.10, 4.12, & 3” href=”/episodes/theres-no-place-home-parts-2-3/”>4.13 | 1451 |
| Sawyer | James “Sawyer” Ford | 3.4, 2.3, 2.6, 2.13, 1.16, 3.10 | 451 |
| Shannon | Shannon Rutherford | 2.1, 1.8 | 123 |
Key events
| Theme | Relevant Episodes | Theories |
|---|---|---|
| Michael shoots Ana-Lucia and Libby | 2.20 | 121 |
| Sawyer shoots U.S. Mashall in tent | 1.3 | 59 |
What you are assuming is that the authorities can locate the island. What makes you think they can? Jack can’t and he’s been there. He’s (in his flash forward) is bent on getting back. Obviously, if Jack can’t find the island to get back to the island, the authorities couldn’t find the island either. The authorities probably only have what Jack and Kate told them as evidence. This is what I think Jack meant when he told Kate he couldn’t anymore. What I don’t understand is, if Naomi is telling the truth, how does the real world reconcile Jack and Kate being alive while they were originally told the plane was found two miles under water, and everyone was dead.
Not only am I assuming that the authorities can find the island…I’m taking the stance (for argument’s sake) that they rescue them from the island in the first place…so they know where it is.
I’m not speculating on the flash-forwards or Naomi’s claims that the real world thinks they are dead. Just that facts that alot of serious crimes have been committed.
Vega, I understand the spirit of the post and it’s an interesting sideline. Not being much of a legal eagle yet still willing to take the idea to realistic margins, wouldn’t there be an issue regarding ‘the law of the land’?
For example, there are some things that are illegal in the state of Texas that I am pretty sure that Swedish people, for example, find perfectly acceptable.
My point being that American law (or Korean law for Jin and Sun, or British law for Desmond) may not have jurisdictional right to prosecute.
Everything I know about law I learned from the movies, though, so there’s good chance I’m talking out of my ass.
vega, just so you know, the “mercy laws” here in australia are just as crappy as the ones in america. eg, no mercy.
i agree though, IF the rescuers were to go to the island (which i doubt would be likely) the losties would have some fast-talking to do to explain the graves everywhere… or maybe they’d just hand ben to the authorities & say “he did it”? :)
To begin with, AngeloComet makes an excellent point: Jurisdiction, at least in the Anglo-American legal system, is the preliminary matter. Personal jurisdiction - do they have jurisdiction over the parties? Subject matter jurisdiction - do they have jurisdiction over the issues?
Unless the Island could be ultimately found to be part of some country (possibly within its territorial waters) I would assume that no nation in the world would have jurisdiction over these people.
There is a strong case that could be made which basically consists of the assertion that the agreement between the Losties - more or less an unwritten social compact - possibly best encapsulated in Jack’s “live together, die alone” may govern here. There is no elected government, but an argument could be put forward that Jack is their leader and that his decisions would be the law.
However, if this was prosecuted under American Law, I am not sure that American politicians would be ready to take people who lived in a survival situation and prosecute them for things they did - for instance, killing the U.S. Marshall instead of letting him slowly bleed to death and suffer with no possibility of medical relief over the course of several days, moaning in pain and agony. It would, like anything else in the US, become a media circus. Some type of pardon is not out of the question.
Then there is the question of who is pressing charges. Who is going to testify? Most of the Losties community has a good deal of solidarity created from their survival ordeal on the island. I’m willing to bet, with the exception of Michael’s killings, that they would be willing to testify favorably for their fellow survivors. Sure, they would tell the truth in court, but the defenses mounted in favor of someone like Jack, who at some point or another saved almost everyone on the island from mortal peril and pulled people out of burning wreckage, would almost surely be incredibly supportive of him.
Ultimately, regardless of jurisdiction, I believe that even if these people were tried, the vast majority of them would be found not guilty.
There islands in the pacific that have no law or order, they have natives living of the land. There was big crotversy last year when a little boy on these islands was canbalised by his tribe. The lost island would be the same because no country has any durestiction there. Losties are free to go.
I understand the jurisdiction arguments you guys are bringing up, but I would think that a crime such as murder between 2 citizens of a nation would be able to be brought to trial no matter where it happend…especially on an island that doesn’t have governing laws of its own.
Most of the main characters are American, and Michael, a US citizen, killed 2 other US citizens, Anna-Lucia and Libby. There has to be some way to prosecute that crime. I understand that if a crime happens in another country, that nation has the right to apply their laws to the case, (like the Natalie Holloway case…she is/was American, but Aruba is a Dutch colony under Dutch law, therefore, they are handling the case) but in Michael’s case, there is no government on the island to prosecute him.
If there was no way to prosecute the crimes on the “Lost” island, then that would mean any crime that happens at sea in international waters would be exempt too…wouldn’t it? Maybe the nation of a ship’s registry has jurisdiction over the case, I’m not sure? But if they are, I would think the same rules apply to an aircraft…so its either under Australian or American laws.
Sorry if I’m babbling, its late =)
Although I doubt Lost will ever go into what charges the Losties would face for their crimes, if this were a real world scenario, then yes, I agree with Vegarover, they would face charges.
As far as Michael…even if there wasn’t a criminal case brought against him, the family of Anna-Lucia or Libby would probably pursue a civil case. So even if he didn’t go to jail, he’d be sued for everything he’s worth…which isn’t much. And he’d definitely lose custody of Walt…of course this is if they are still alive.
As for your question Vegarover…yes, any crime committed in international waters would be the jurisdiction of nation of the ship’s registry. There still is alot of grey area though. For instance, most American cruise lines ships are registered in other countries, so if a crime happens aboard while at sea, both nations could claim jurisdiction. Also, when a ship enters a nations waters and a crime happens, they could be prosecuted under the laws of that nation…but it depends on the nation.
Oh and pacey, as far as the kid being canabalised…there’s nothing anybody can do because he isn’t a citizen of any country…but if he were a citizen of another country, then their would be hell to pay!