When we were discussing the case of the explorers within the last reading, I want to discuss why there were a number of those in class who were inclined to believe that these men were not guilty for the actions at hand. I understand this rational of being in a position of no social order; however, these men were planning on re-entering society. It is as if they went on a vacation that had no restrictions on survival. That mindset allows me to believe that anything illegal is actually legal within the right circumstances and settings. How can this ideal be just or fair?
Josh brought up an excellent example in class in regards to speeding outside the country. Is there no legal stature that allows us to enforce any law outside of our jurisdiction? I could be rambling, but I believe that the basis many of us look at to be the foundation of this not guilty verdict can actually be a means of no order as we see it. People can just do their dirty work outside of society and re-enter as they please. To me that is a problem. This ideal of nature can only be permitted so much. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interestingly enough, I do believe that it is the case in this country that anything (almost anything) illegal is actually legal within the right circumstances and settings. If there is an emergency we are legally allowed to break the speeding restrictions and we are legally permitted to “murder” another person if our own lives are in danger. These are just two instances, but it is nearly impossible to construct law with out having stipulations and exceptions. I don’t believe it weakens the law to do so, because it a static non-tangible thing that has to be applied to society which is constantly changing and evolving. Therefore it makes sense that something initially viewed as illegal should be allowed the exception of being excused, seen as legal, in situations that weren’t ever foreseen when the law was created.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s not about the fact that there’s no formal order in the situation they are in, but rather the fact that when the circumstances and context in which legal laws are formed don’t exist, these laws stand void. There should still be some moral values that are always applicable but these are things a man can only pay attention to after his basic needs are met. If one is starving, isolated and scared, as they seemed to be, survival is all that one’s senses are driven towards. In their minds, the alternative was probably all of them dying, and therefore it probably made sense to do what they did.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the fact that they committed a crime outside of the society is an issue. It's like as if they went into the cave expecting to murder one of their own, as you're trying to perceive it. They weren't trying to get rid of their "dirty work" when they chose to exit the bounds of society. Instead they were forced into a survival situation and had to put the law aside, and not by their own choosing. I personally believe the right to life is the most basic of rights that we as humans possess. Because of this idea I feel as though it is up the law to recognize that whenever someone is put in a potentially life threatening situation, they have the right to act out whatever means necessary to ensure that they live.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that in the right setting and with the right circumstances that almost anything illegal has the possibility of being legal. In most cases this would not happen but there are a few exceptions. Like Bkaush said, "if one is starving, isolated, and scared, as they seemed to be, survival is all the one's senses are driven towards." If someone's life is in danger their survival instinct takes over which may cause them to kill someone in order to protect themselves. It's in cases like this where i feel that something like that is an exception.
ReplyDelete