Saturday, March 24, 2012

The Walking Dead: Kill Randall? in "Judge, Jury, Executioner"

If you had been part of the group in The Walking Dead episode “Judge, Jury, Executioner,” how would you have voted? Should they have killed Randall or kept him prisoner?

There were convincing arguments to kill him: he’s got 30 scary friends, he knows where Rick & Co. are hiding, and he’s another mouth to feed. There were convincing arguments not to kill him: if they’re civilized, they wouldn’t do it; he hadn’t done anything to them; they saved him in the first place.

The arguments to kill him came mainly from Shane. Dale spoke up—mostly alone—against killing Randall. Sounds true to both characters, doesn’t it?

For the record, I was in favor of keeping him prisoner. I wouldn’t have been comfortable killing someone who hadn’t hurt me or the people I love. My daughter felt the way I did. My husband didn’t want to kill him either, but he did want to take him far away and drop him off.

We’ll never know which would have been the best choice.

But it is interesting that the voice of morality and reason is the one that was silenced in this episode. Will others wear the hat? Will they honor Dale as they said they would?

And what about Carl? The lost boy…the boy who doesn’t believe in God or heaven. The boy who antagonized a walker. The boy who stole Daryl’s gun, who intended to kill that walker. The boy who blames himself for Dale. And, finally, the boy who took the gun his dad offered him. What is going to happen to Carl? Who is he becoming and who can control it?

There was also one sweet moment, wasn’t there? When Hershel gave Glenn the watch—and his approval? Did that give you the warm fuzzies? It did me, which is nice because usually The Walking Dead only gives me the creeps…in a really good way.


  1. Intersting our decisions effect so many aspects of our lives. Good blog. Thanks

  2. Who is to say whether or not that kid would have made an asset of himself to the group? The kid should have been given the chance to prove himself. The kid made his argument at what a dangerous hazard it would be to go out alone. With that knowledge of character and judgement, one can deduce that that kid would not have the guts to abandon the party to seek his old friends. A red flag for the kid's character, is when he is talking to carl and mentions that his old group has a lot of supplies, implying that he possibly did harbor intentions of going back. If i were in that situation I would vote that the kid be given a chance to plead his case and make commitments then and there. It would have to be explained to him why he cannot return back to his old group, if allowed to stay. Dale volunteering to keep the kid in his sights... if the group had not acted on fear and given dale a chance to sponsor the kid, would dale have died that night? I think not. I think dale would have either been attacked or the kid, presuming dale was out on a patrol. If not a patrol, then dale being out there in the first place would have been possibly to ease stress and reflect. Either way, he wouldn't have gone out or at the most been alone. The group effectively killed Dale. How? By acting with fear. We cannot face reason with fear. It must be faced with sincere faith in humanity.

    1. I so agree...We can't face reason with fear. We can't let fear guide our actions--not when we have time to consider other options. Thanks for your response!! :)