Justice Truepenny: “Our murder statute permits no exception applicable to this case, however our sympathies may incline us to make allowance for the tragic situation in which these men found themselves.”
In Truepenny’s opinion someone still has to be held accountable for what did transpire between those explorers, though he does empathetic towards the individuals. There’s a possibility that the courts will dwell into what happened, and realize that the circumstances bought upon the explorers made them resort to their actions.
Justice Foster: I do not believe our law compels the monstrous conclusion that these men are murderers. I believe, on the contrary, that it declares them innocent of any crime. My first ground is that the enacted law of this Commonwealth, including all of its statutes and precedents, is inapplicable to this case. This case is governed by the “law of nature.”
Foster believed that the men weren’t murderers, in fact non-guilty, but simply did what anyone who has been withdrawn from resources would do. When push comes to shove some people will resort to “primitive” behavior. In addition, when you’re outside of a civilized society the law may not apply and you do whatever to survive.
Justice Tatting: Decided not to vote …show more content…
Through his opinion it’s clear that he displayed no bias towards a particular side, and was able to understand the case from different points of view. In addition, I felt Justice Handy had the least convincing because I feel that public opinion in any court case can easily influence what decisions another person may make. Someone may not be familiar with the background of a case, but sees that the majority is on one side so it may prompt them to go along with what they’ve come
In Truepenny’s opinion someone still has to be held accountable for what did transpire between those explorers, though he does empathetic towards the individuals. There’s a possibility that the courts will dwell into what happened, and realize that the circumstances bought upon the explorers made them resort to their actions.
Justice Foster: I do not believe our law compels the monstrous conclusion that these men are murderers. I believe, on the contrary, that it declares them innocent of any crime. My first ground is that the enacted law of this Commonwealth, including all of its statutes and precedents, is inapplicable to this case. This case is governed by the “law of nature.”
Foster believed that the men weren’t murderers, in fact non-guilty, but simply did what anyone who has been withdrawn from resources would do. When push comes to shove some people will resort to “primitive” behavior. In addition, when you’re outside of a civilized society the law may not apply and you do whatever to survive.
Justice Tatting: Decided not to vote …show more content…
Through his opinion it’s clear that he displayed no bias towards a particular side, and was able to understand the case from different points of view. In addition, I felt Justice Handy had the least convincing because I feel that public opinion in any court case can easily influence what decisions another person may make. Someone may not be familiar with the background of a case, but sees that the majority is on one side so it may prompt them to go along with what they’ve come