F= Facts: The case title is R.v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273. On May 19, 1884 a yacht set sail to Sydney, Australia from Southampton, England. There are four men involved in this case the crew of the Mignonette, Tom Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks, and Richard Parker. The captain Dudley and crewman Stephens were charged with the murder of the cabin boy Parker. The yacht sank off the coast of South Africa on July 5, 1600 miles away from Cape of Good Hope. The crew could access their lifeboats that contain absolute no supply of water a limited supply of food (two 1-pound cans of turnips). Their food supply quickly ran out, in three days precisely. The next day they caught a sea turtle and eat it during a course of eight days.
…show more content…
Instead of finding Stephens and Dudley guilty or not guilty they collectively came up with a decision based on the facts of the case. This decision was referred to a panel of judges for the final verdict held at the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division. In the text it says, “The judges argued that allowing an exception for murder for certain perilous circumstances would set a dangerous precedent for the future, as courts could interpret the decision to acquit other forms killing.” (R.v. Dudley and Stephens, 1884). Meaning this decision can be used in the future to validate other murders which would cause more damage than what is already done. The judges found “insufficient ‘necessity’” (R.v. Dudley and Stephens, 1884) for this murder. Stephens and Dudley were found guilty and sentenced to death and Brooks was not sentenced. But since the public had a strong interest in this case Queen Victoria used the “Royal Prerogative of Mercy” and abolished their death sentence and converted it to six months in prison. If I were to come up with the final verdict Dudley would be found guilty and sentenced to time in prison but not to death. I think death is too harsh, he already had to endure a lot of pain and suffering. I believe Stephens should’ve have sentenced on the same scale as Dudley because he wasn’t the murder, he was more like an accessory. If I were to sentence Stephens I would sentence Brooks too because they both aware and discussed Dudley’s plot to sacrifice one of the crew
Instead of finding Stephens and Dudley guilty or not guilty they collectively came up with a decision based on the facts of the case. This decision was referred to a panel of judges for the final verdict held at the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division. In the text it says, “The judges argued that allowing an exception for murder for certain perilous circumstances would set a dangerous precedent for the future, as courts could interpret the decision to acquit other forms killing.” (R.v. Dudley and Stephens, 1884). Meaning this decision can be used in the future to validate other murders which would cause more damage than what is already done. The judges found “insufficient ‘necessity’” (R.v. Dudley and Stephens, 1884) for this murder. Stephens and Dudley were found guilty and sentenced to death and Brooks was not sentenced. But since the public had a strong interest in this case Queen Victoria used the “Royal Prerogative of Mercy” and abolished their death sentence and converted it to six months in prison. If I were to come up with the final verdict Dudley would be found guilty and sentenced to time in prison but not to death. I think death is too harsh, he already had to endure a lot of pain and suffering. I believe Stephens should’ve have sentenced on the same scale as Dudley because he wasn’t the murder, he was more like an accessory. If I were to sentence Stephens I would sentence Brooks too because they both aware and discussed Dudley’s plot to sacrifice one of the crew