Us Vs Holmes Analysis

In the case US v Holmes, Holmes was charged under the act of April 30th, 1790, “for punishment of certain crimes against the United States.” (p.) The act states that if any sailor commits manslaughter on the sea, he will be imprisoned for three years and charged a $1,000 fine. Holmes was responsible for throwing 14 male passengers off the boat. In his defense, the judges, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Hazlehurst presented three arguments to justify Holmes’ actions. The first argument presented by the defense explains the conditions of the environment and situation that led Holmes to throw passengers off the boat. The defense opens its statement by saying that, “the boat was leaking from below, it was away from land and subject to destruction …show more content…
The defense argued that since Holmes was under natural conditions, the law of the commonwealth cannot be applied. Instead, the judges should turn towards the law of nature and under this law, both passenger and sailor have an equal worth of life and there is no relation between passenger and sailor. Hence, there is no duty of the sailor towards the passenger. This argument justifies Holmes’ actions because according to this law, Holmes has no responsibility towards the passengers, but, even then he saved them. However, the Court rejected this argument based on the premise that the relationship between the sailor and passenger cannot change, even if the ship is in danger or in a state of nature. The Court gave importance to this relationship and said that the sailor has greater value on the life of others than his own. Since both parties are in different positions, it is expected from the sailor to preserve the ship and everyone on it, while putting himself in danger. However, no such expectation is required from the passenger. According to this, Holmes is responsible for the murder of fourteen individuals because instead of protecting them, he threw them in the water. Furthermore, even with the death of fourteen individuals, Holmes saved more sailors and less passengers and the Court used this fact against …show more content…
Instead of charging him three years in prison and a fine of $1,000, they sentenced him to six months of hard labor and a fine of $20. I agree with the Court’s decision because they acknowledged the fact that Holmes did not have an intention to kill the passengers while throwing them in the water. Rather, his intention was to prevent the boat from capsizing. Due to this, he should not be given full punishment but, since his actions resulted in harm, he cannot completely get away with it. Hence, the Court’s decision of lenient punishment is