Introduction
The South Korean television series “Squid Game,” released in 2021, captivated global audiences with its dystopian portrayal of desperate individuals competing in deadly children’s games for a substantial cash prize. While the series is a work of fiction, it raises profound ethical and legal questions about the boundaries of consent, coercion, and the value of human life in extreme circumstances. This essay explores whether the premise of “Squid Game”—a private, secretive competition where participants risk their lives for financial gain—could be considered legal in real life under UK law. It examines key legal principles such as consent, criminal liability for harm, and the regulation of dangerous activities. The discussion will argue that, while certain elements of the game could theoretically operate within legal boundaries through consent, the overarching framework of “Squid Game” would likely violate fundamental criminal laws related to murder, coercion, and public policy. This analysis aims to provide a sound understanding of relevant legal doctrines while critically evaluating their application to a fictional yet provocative scenario.
Consent and Voluntariness in Law
A central theme in “Squid Game” is the notion of consent, as participants appear to voluntarily join the competition despite knowing the lethal risks. Under UK law, consent is a critical factor in determining the legality of potentially harmful activities. For instance, in the case of *R v Brown* (1993), the House of Lords ruled that consent cannot be a defence to serious bodily harm or worse in private contexts, particularly when activities are deemed contrary to public interest (Elliott and Quinn, 2019). This precedent suggests that, even if participants in a real-life “Squid Game” signed contracts agreeing to the risks, their consent would likely be invalid as a defence against criminal liability for organisers causing or facilitating death or severe injury.
Furthermore, the voluntariness of consent in “Squid Game” is questionable. Participants are depicted as financially destitute, driven by desperation to join the game. UK law recognises that consent obtained under duress or undue influence may not be legally valid (Smith and Hogan, 2021). Indeed, the extreme economic coercion faced by “Squid Game” characters could be argued to undermine the legitimacy of their agreement to participate. Therefore, while consent might initially seem to provide a legal shield for such a competition, closer scrutiny reveals significant limitations under established legal principles.
Criminal Liability for Harm and Death
The most glaring legal issue in a real-life “Squid Game” is the deliberate causation of death. In the series, participants are killed as part of the game’s rules, either by other players or by the organisers’ mechanisms. Under UK law, causing death intentionally or recklessly constitutes murder or manslaughter, respectively, as defined by the Homicide Act 1957 (Ormerod and Laird, 2020). Organisers of such a game would almost certainly be liable for murder, given their role in designing and enforcing lethal conditions. Even if participants consented to the risk, as previously discussed, this would not absolve the perpetrators of criminal responsibility.
Moreover, secondary liability principles could implicate other parties involved in the operation of the game. For example, under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, individuals who aid, abet, or procure the commission of a crime—such as staff facilitating the deadly games—could also face prosecution (Smith and Hogan, 2021). This broad scope of liability underscores the unlikelihood of a “Squid Game”-style competition evading legal consequences, regardless of its private or secretive nature. The law prioritises the protection of life over individual autonomy in such extreme cases, rendering the premise fundamentally unlawful.
Regulation of Dangerous Activities and Public Policy
Beyond direct criminal liability, the organisation of a real-life “Squid Game” would contravene UK regulations on dangerous activities. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 imposes a duty on organisers of events to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of participants (HSE, 2023). A competition explicitly designed to harm or kill would be a clear breach of this duty, exposing organisers to both civil and criminal penalties. Additionally, local authorities in the UK have the power to prohibit events deemed unsafe or contrary to public interest under licensing laws such as the Licensing Act 2003 (UK Government, 2023). It is highly improbable that any authority would grant permission for an event resembling “Squid Game,” given its inherent dangers.
Public policy considerations further compound the illegality of such a concept. UK courts have consistently ruled against activities that undermine societal values, such as the sanctity of life (Herring, 2020). For instance, euthanasia remains illegal in the UK, partly due to concerns about coercion and the risk of abuse, even when consent is apparent. By analogy, a competition that commodifies human life for entertainment or profit would likely be deemed repugnant to public morals and thus unlawful, irrespective of participant agreement. This perspective highlights the tension between individual liberty and the state’s role in protecting vulnerable populations from exploitation.
Feasibility of Legal Loopholes
Despite the clear legal barriers, it is worth considering whether a modified version of “Squid Game” could operate within the law. For example, if the games were non-lethal and participants were subject to rigorous psychological and financial assessments to ensure genuine voluntariness, some elements might be permissible. Reality television shows like “Survivor” or “Big Brother” demonstrate that competitive, high-stakes environments can be legally conducted under strict oversight (Hill, 2015). However, even in such scenarios, broadcasters and producers are bound by ethical guidelines and legal duties to prevent harm, as evidenced by past controversies over participant welfare in reality TV (Ofcom, 2023).
Arguably, the core appeal of “Squid Game”—its life-or-death stakes—cannot be replicated without crossing into illegality. Any attempt to sanitise the concept would fundamentally alter its nature, rendering it a different enterprise altogether. Consequently, while creative adaptations might skirt some legal issues, the original premise as depicted in the series remains incompatible with UK law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a real-life “Squid Game” would be overwhelmingly illegal under UK law due to multiple legal and ethical violations. The limitations of consent as a defence to serious harm or death, the criminal liability for murder or manslaughter, and the regulatory framework governing dangerous activities all preclude the possibility of such a competition operating within lawful boundaries. Additionally, public policy considerations reinforce the state’s commitment to protecting life, even in the face of apparent participant agreement. While theoretical adaptations of the concept might mitigate some risks, the essence of “Squid Game” as a lethal contest defies legal and moral acceptability. This analysis underscores the importance of critically evaluating fictional narratives through a legal lens, as they often illuminate broader societal debates about autonomy, coercion, and the value of human life. Future discussions might explore how economic desperation—an underlying driver in “Squid Game”—could be addressed through policy rather than exploitative schemes, highlighting law’s role in balancing individual choice with collective welfare.
References
- Elliott, C. and Quinn, F. (2019) Criminal Law. 12th edn. Pearson Education.
- Herring, J. (2020) Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 9th edn. Oxford University Press.
- Hill, A. (2015) Reality TV: Key Ideas. Routledge.
- HSE (2023) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Health and Safety Executive.
- Ofcom (2023) Broadcasting Code. Office of Communications.
- Ormerod, D. and Laird, K. (2020) Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law. 16th edn. Oxford University Press.
- Smith, J. and Hogan, B. (2021) Criminal Law. 15th edn. Oxford University Press.
- UK Government (2023) Licensing Act 2003. Legislation.gov.uk.
[Word Count: 1082, including references]
