R. v. Dudley and Stephens (1884)
Facts
On May 19, 1884 the Mignonette set sail for Sydney, Australia. The yacht sailed with four crew members: Tom Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks and Richard Parker. On July 5, the yacht sank. The men found a lifeboat that only contained two, 1 pound cans of turnip. On the twelfth day at sea the men had officially run out of food after eating the cans of turnip and a sea turtle that they had caught. After a week of not eating anything, Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks talked about possibly sacrificing one of the group members in order to survive. They talked about sacrificing Richard Parker, the cabin boy, who was not consulted because he was incoherent and sometimes unconscious. Brooks did not want to be …show more content…
On one hand Dudley and Stephen killed Parker so that they could survive. I believe that if they did not kill him then they wouldn't have survived and all of them would have died. So it comes down to weather it's better that only one person died and three survived because one was sacrificed, instead of all of them dieing of hunger. Even though three survived, it does not make what they did in any way right or moral. Especially in this circumstance, killing someone for your own personal benefit is horrible and isn't right. Secondly, the fact that Richard Parker was chosen to be killed based on the fact that he was the cabin boy is just not right. Yes, he might have been unconscious and may not have been a sailor, but he is still a human being, The fact that they chose to sacrifice him just shows how unmoral their actions were. I think overall the case was handled properly and they were given a fair sentence. I also believe that it was a good idea that the Queen used her special power because no human deserves to be sentenced to death under any circumstance. Even though I think it was good that the Queen intervened one thing that does bother me is the amount of time they received. It states that they only received 6 months. In my opinion this was not enough time and they should have been given at least a couple years because their actions resulted in the death of another human being. Furthermore, many people would have different opinions on this case including famous philosophers and their philosophy of law. For example, Plato believed the ultimate purpose of law to be moral and should act like a moral guide to society. Plato would find Dudley and Stephens choices unmoral. While Plato does believe that their are exceptions so some laws he would definitely not think that their circumstance is an exception to the laws against murder and cannibalism. This is because he only believes their is a
Facts
On May 19, 1884 the Mignonette set sail for Sydney, Australia. The yacht sailed with four crew members: Tom Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks and Richard Parker. On July 5, the yacht sank. The men found a lifeboat that only contained two, 1 pound cans of turnip. On the twelfth day at sea the men had officially run out of food after eating the cans of turnip and a sea turtle that they had caught. After a week of not eating anything, Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks talked about possibly sacrificing one of the group members in order to survive. They talked about sacrificing Richard Parker, the cabin boy, who was not consulted because he was incoherent and sometimes unconscious. Brooks did not want to be …show more content…
On one hand Dudley and Stephen killed Parker so that they could survive. I believe that if they did not kill him then they wouldn't have survived and all of them would have died. So it comes down to weather it's better that only one person died and three survived because one was sacrificed, instead of all of them dieing of hunger. Even though three survived, it does not make what they did in any way right or moral. Especially in this circumstance, killing someone for your own personal benefit is horrible and isn't right. Secondly, the fact that Richard Parker was chosen to be killed based on the fact that he was the cabin boy is just not right. Yes, he might have been unconscious and may not have been a sailor, but he is still a human being, The fact that they chose to sacrifice him just shows how unmoral their actions were. I think overall the case was handled properly and they were given a fair sentence. I also believe that it was a good idea that the Queen used her special power because no human deserves to be sentenced to death under any circumstance. Even though I think it was good that the Queen intervened one thing that does bother me is the amount of time they received. It states that they only received 6 months. In my opinion this was not enough time and they should have been given at least a couple years because their actions resulted in the death of another human being. Furthermore, many people would have different opinions on this case including famous philosophers and their philosophy of law. For example, Plato believed the ultimate purpose of law to be moral and should act like a moral guide to society. Plato would find Dudley and Stephens choices unmoral. While Plato does believe that their are exceptions so some laws he would definitely not think that their circumstance is an exception to the laws against murder and cannibalism. This is because he only believes their is a