Question

Chapter 1 Discussion Forum Note: This is a post-first discussion forum. Once you have posted your initial post, please respond to two other students. 9 A Question of Ethics-Stare Decisis. On July 5, 1884, Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks--"all able-bodied English seamen"-and a teenage English boy were cast adrift in a lifeboat following a storm at sea. They had no water with them in the boat, and all they had for sustenance were two one-pound tins of turnips. On July 24, Dudley proposed that one of the four in the lifeboat be sacrificed to save the others. Stephens agreed with Dudley, but Brooks refused to consent-and the boy was never asked for his opinion. On July 25, Dudley killed the boy, and the three men then fed on the boy's body and blood. Four days later, the men were rescued by a passing vessel. They were taken to England and tried for the murder of the boy. If the men had not fed on the boy's body, they would probably have died of starvation within the four-day period. The boy, who was in a much weaker condition, would likely have died before the rest. [Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. (Queen's Bench Division, England) 273(1884)] (See Common Law Tradition) 1. The basic question in this case is whether the survivors should be subject to penalties under English criminal law, given the men's unusual circumstances. You be the judge og e. 3:15 PM ? ^ x ENG 18/2020

Answer 1

1. The circumstances for crimes have always been considered when weighing potential remedies. The question asks whether or not penalties should be levied against the criminals given the extraordinary circumstances. The answer should only be that the only justifiable taking of another man's life should be in self defense. Since the young boy posed no threat to the stronger men, self defense is not a viable defense. If the men were pardoned for murder however necessary to survive, it would condone other takings for self-benefit. No human has the right to judge the survival capability of other and this was an act of rarest cruelty and should be punished sternly.

2. The judges should have the power to look beyond the letter of the law in making their decisions. Laws cannot be written to encompass every single potential instance. There is the 'letter' of the law and the 'spirit' or 'intention' of the law. Both are important and must be taken into consideration when making a decision. The job of a judge is always to be impartial and unbiased. So, if there happens to be a clear tussle between the letter and spirit of the law, the judge shall first attempt to interpret the law so as to create an acceptable compromise to both or if it cannot be achieved, the matters are usually judged by a bench which has the power to uphold the true spirit of the law and not the the letter of the law. Thus, although most cases would use Stare decisis, the judge has the authority to come to a different conclusion if he or she believes that the precedent ruling is incorrect.