Jurisprudence- Critical Discussion of the Speluncean Explorers
1040 Words
Mar 26th, 2013
5 Pages
As a presiding judge in the case of the Speluncean Explorers, my verdict will strongly relate to judge Keen’s opinion. I find the defendants guilty for the murder of Roger Whetmore. The statute states that “whoever shall wilfully take the life of another shall be punished by death”. As a positivist, the law is unambiguous and direct. Firstly what is positivism?
According to positivism, there is nothing intrinsically moral about the law. A law enacted by a legislature can be evil and immoral; there is no fundamental connection between the two. Whether what they did was right or wrong is not a matter for a judge. A judge is educated and skilled to discern legality from morality. According to John Austin, legal positivism is the actual …show more content…
According to positivism, there is nothing intrinsically moral about the law. A law enacted by a legislature can be evil and immoral; there is no fundamental connection between the two. Whether what they did was right or wrong is not a matter for a judge. A judge is educated and skilled to discern legality from morality. According to John Austin, legal positivism is the actual …show more content…
She further goes on to say that as a judge, it is our duty to uphold the pre-eminence of the parliamentary division of government. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to faithfully enforce the written law directly at face value meaning without any interference of personal emotions and desires.
So why do I find the defendants guilty? According to the facts of the case; the idea was first initiated by Roger Whetmore and by doing so deposited the kernel in the minds of the remaining members. His idea was one of a Utilitarian – minimising the number of deaths. The intention behind the case was to save the lives of others by surrendering one of their own lives. Yes, one would say this was a good idea and according to natural law, this would be moral and therefore the defendants would not be guilty. However, Whetmore did change his mind therefore they could have done the same. Have they really exhausted all their available resources? Were they at a point of starvation? Scientifically proven, the human body depending on the physical condition of the body can live without food for approximately 3-4 weeks and can go without water for 3 days. The body reserves glucose and energy. According to biblical times, in Matthew 4:2 – Jesus went forty days and forty nights without food and water. In Exodus 34:28 – Moses went forty days and forty nights without food and water on
So why do I find the defendants guilty? According to the facts of the case; the idea was first initiated by Roger Whetmore and by doing so deposited the kernel in the minds of the remaining members. His idea was one of a Utilitarian – minimising the number of deaths. The intention behind the case was to save the lives of others by surrendering one of their own lives. Yes, one would say this was a good idea and according to natural law, this would be moral and therefore the defendants would not be guilty. However, Whetmore did change his mind therefore they could have done the same. Have they really exhausted all their available resources? Were they at a point of starvation? Scientifically proven, the human body depending on the physical condition of the body can live without food for approximately 3-4 weeks and can go without water for 3 days. The body reserves glucose and energy. According to biblical times, in Matthew 4:2 – Jesus went forty days and forty nights without food and water. In Exodus 34:28 – Moses went forty days and forty nights without food and water on