Consider The Queen v. Dudley & Stephens. The case was brought before the British crown in 1884, and was the O.J. Simpson trial of its day.
Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks were sailors that were forced to abandon ship. They, along with a seventeen-year-old boy, Parker, were set adrift in a lifeboat. They floated for days with almost no food. Finally, after seven days without food, eighteen days after they were set adrift, and all four near death, Dudley and Stephens slit the throat of the boy, Parker. When he was killed, Parker was by far the weakest and lay dying on the bottom of the boat. The three older men had previously discussed drawing lots, but they then discussed how much weaker Parker was, and also how they had families. Brooks was against it, but didn't, as the record notes, refuse to drink his blood after he was killed, nor did he make a move to stop the killing. For four more days, they lived off of the blood and body of Parker. It was accepted that if they had not killed Parker, all four men would have died.
After those four days, Dudley, Stephens and Brooks were picked up by a passing boat. They were arrested when they were returned to England and put on trial for murder.
Guilty or not guilty of murder? If guilty, what is a just punishment?
The court found them guilty, ruling that taking the life of an innocent is not justified under any circumstances. Dudley and Stephens were sentenced to death.
8 comments:
"Dudley and Stephens were lost out at sea.
First there were four of them, then there were three."
The death sentence was eventually commuted, btw. :)
My professor is a bit of a dramatist -- he closed our last class by saying that he would start the next class with the story of what happened to Dudley and Stephens, and he would leave us in suspense.
Now I know why. :)
May I add your journal's link to my own?
Thank you!
Absolutely!
What is your URL? You can mail it to me if you'd prefer. :)
Thank you. I'm just a first timer. Just learned this BLOG thing through AOL. I hope I am not bad as a starter, lolz.
http://journals.aol.com/ladyinagony/ItsallaboutME/
do you really believe there is such thing a just punishment. it is a matter of someone's perception what he believe is just. the basic premise of this case is that
the means does not justify the ends. it is ironic that they have to kill to live and live to die because of it.
do you really believe there is such thing a just punishment. it is a matter of someone's perception what he believe is just. the basic premise of this case is that
the means does not justify the ends. it is ironic that they have to kill to live and live to die because of it.
My paralegal class talked about this same case. The reason why it's murder is because there's no necessity for them to kill a child. They could have killed anybody in that boat. Also, no one can tell whether they would have gotten rescued. The whole reasoning from the court is whether there is a nessecity to kill someone in order to extend your own life. And the sentence was death, but do note that the court later on changed the sentence to 6 months imprisonment.
Post a Comment