The case of the Speluncean Explorers closely resembles a case decided in 1884 which some of you may be familiar with, Regina v. Dudley and Stevens. Thomas Dudley, Edward Stevens, a man known as Brooks and a boy, Richard Parker, were cast away in a storm on an English yacht. The yacht was badly damaged and the men had only two cans of turnips and a limited supply of fresh water for their survival. They caught a small turtle on the fourth day, which was completely consumed by the twelfth day and had no luck catching any other form of nourishment. After twenty days, Dudley and Parker, without the consent of Brooks, decided to kill and eat Parker, who was very ill and probably wouldn’t have made it much longer. After feeding on Parker for four days, help arrived and the three men were alive but in very poor condition. It is thought that without killing Parker, none of the men would have survived. However, after returning to land, Dudley and Stevens were arrested and brought to trial. The court held that the defendants were in fact guilty of murder based on the idea:
“Where a private person, acting on his own judgment, takes the life of another, he is guilty of murder, unless his act can be justified by self-defense.”
The court struck down the defense’s argument of self-defense because in order for self-defense to be an option, the defendants must be in imminent danger of an attacker (in this case Parker). However, Parker was entirely too weak and unable to offer any resistance to the men. I’m wondering how everyone feels about this case, if it is any different from the explorers and if you agree with the guilty verdict.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the case of the speluncean explorers I agree with the guilty verdict provided there is some leniency. However this is partly because Whetmore was informed and did not object to the roll of the dice. In this case,Parker was a sick child who was not capable of defending himself and seemingly had no input on the decision reached...so although the cases are similar I think Stevens and Dudley are guilty. In either of these situations no one can really justify self defense.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the two cases are similar mainly because in each case the man killed did not consent to the idea of killing someone for food. Had Whetmore not backed out of the deal and consented to one of them being killed, the two cases would have varied. I’d say they did something unjust, but I don’t know if they should feel guilty about it given their situation. I’d say if one’s desperation is obvious, and if there can be proof that it wasn’t deliberately done, the question of punishment should be left out...
ReplyDelete