|
Regina v. Dudley and Stephens
Three able-bodied English seamen Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens (defendants, D), Brooks, and a 17-18 year old boy Richard Parker were the crew of an English yacht and were cast away in a storm on the high seas 1600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope. They were compelled to put into an open boat belonging to the yacht. They had no supply of food or water except two tins of turnips upon which they subsisted until the third day. On the fourth day, they caught a small turtle, upon which they subsisted on until the twelfth day. With nothing left to eat or drink, D suggested to Brooks that someone should be sacrificed to save the rest, but Brooks refused, and Parker was not consulted on this matter. On the twentieth day, D killed Parker, and the three of them fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days until they were rescued by a passing vessel. D were charged with murder by Queen.
Whether D’s killing of Parker is justifiable on the ground of self-defense (=no)
In determining whether the prisoners in killing Parker were guilty of murder, the court examined if D can claim the murder is justified on the ground of self-defense. However, the court concluded that the self-defense principle is not applicable in this case, because D were not protecting themselves against any act of Parker. Parker did not inflict any force against D, for he was in such a powerless condition due to starvation. Next, the court looked at the question of necessity. It could be claimed that the homicide is excusable because it was necessary to kill him in order to sustain Ds’ lives. With this, D asserted the necessity of “self-preservation” to justify their murder. Generally, starvation is not a justification, but D were in such an extreme situation such as two drowning men on a plank board enough to support only one, which justified the killing of another to save themselves. Yet, the court held in the prosecution’s favor. There was no such necessity delineated by D, because at the time of the crime, it was uncertain whether they could be saved or not. They might possibly have been picked up the next day by a passing ship or they might possibly not have been picked up at all. In either case, it is obvious that the killing of the boy was unnecessary and profitless. Furthermore, their terrible temptation could not be vindicated in a moral sense. To preserve one’s life is generally a duty, but it may be the plainest and highest duty to sacrifice it. Unlike the duty to sacrifice is morally admitted as sacred, the duty to “kill” another to preserve one’s life is not. Therefore, the court ruled that D’s act was willful murder and there are no legal justification of the homicide.
The court then proceeded to pass sentence of death upon the prisoners.
Feedback:
(One random note: this case had the same judge sitting as the Queen v. Ashwell case - Lord Coleridge, C. J. Also, it was interesting how the shipwrecked tiger from Life of Pi has the same name as the victim, Richard Parker. The allusion to cannibalism in the book probably has some correlation to this case.)
This class involved a lot of hypothetical situations and comparing them to each other, which made understanding this present case much easier. First, killing in the war cannot be compared to this case because at war, the solider has a the moral necessity to kill the opponent in the service of their Sovereign and in the defense of their country. This case is different in that this is a private homicide whereas war is a public homicide. Dudley and Stephens could have sacrificed themselves but chose to kill the boy, so killing the boy was not an absolute duty.
Hypo: there’s one parachute and three people, but the Stephens/Dudley case is different in that morality is applied, and in Stephens/Dudley case had other chances of survival such as a ship passing by. It was uncertain whether they could be saved or not.
Hypo: in a cliffhanger situation, necessity is satisfied because a specific threat of significant, imminent danger existed, the situation required an immediate necessity to act, and no effective legal alternatives were available.
For all these hypothetical situations, necessity should be applied because one has to consider the element of priority - life prevails over the other, and there’s no reasonable alternative for the other.
One of the elements of necessity is the balancing test: the harm caused wasn’t greater than the harm prevented. When a mother steals a milk to save a starving baby, milk’s cost is not greater than one’s life. However, in this present case, the killing a life over another life is not preventing greater harm. Killing the boy to save three lives is not justifiable because there still exists other alternatives such as what the other students said: dying together, sacrificing oneself, or to just wait for a boat passing by. However, Dudley and Stephens did not give the boy an equal chance to survive. Without consulting the boy and without casting lots (giving equal chance), the prisoners unilaterally killed the boy. It was "not more necessary to kill [the boy] than one of the grown men,” and all lives should be considered equal; no life is more valuable than the other. We have to consider that the human beings have the basic instinct to survive under extreme situations, so we cannot condemn them for not having the sense of morality and conscience. But this still does not justify them for killing the boy.
|