Although the argument of Foster was well written, I find his first argument is the least persuasive. No one should be sacrificed for any reason. Sacrificing one person to save four others is not justification to kill because the number does not matter. Also, the cave is not outside the jurisdiction of Newgarth; the law applies to them because they are citizens of Newgarth, and the law may be extended to them even if they were outside the territorial borders of Newgarth (D’Amato, 2010).
The defendants had another option, not to eat anyone and wait for rescuers even if they die of starvation, but instead, they did a wrongful act. Case in point, Whetmore changed his mind even if he was the one who propose this idea, they murdered him. They had …show more content…
I also agree that moral considerations are irrelevant in applying the statute that dictates, “Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.” Judges need to separate law and morality to be able to take hard decisions. And we cannot apply the self-defense or insanity exceptions to killing in the criminal law in this case. The four defendants were well aware of their actions and since it is clear that Whetmore made no threat against the lives of these four defendants. Moreover, what if the four defendants were lying and killed Whetmore because he was the weakest or the poorest? I understand the tragic situation, but we have to be skeptical. Their defense of necessity does not justify their crime. No one should be sacrificed even if they did a lottery and regardless of the consequences that will result of their hunger in the …show more content…
Each argument made me think and open new questions to the debate. I asked myself if we spare the defendants’ lives, am I arguing that their lives and survival are more valuable than Roger Whetmore’s life. I was inclined to follow the principles of the law, but the human side prevails in many times while thinking of these four defendants’ mental state at the time of the tragedy. I know that every person has fundamental rights, and no one should be sacrificed for any reason, but if I was really there in the cave with them, do I still do the right thing under those circumstances? Or I will trust God, regardless of the
The defendants had another option, not to eat anyone and wait for rescuers even if they die of starvation, but instead, they did a wrongful act. Case in point, Whetmore changed his mind even if he was the one who propose this idea, they murdered him. They had …show more content…
I also agree that moral considerations are irrelevant in applying the statute that dictates, “Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.” Judges need to separate law and morality to be able to take hard decisions. And we cannot apply the self-defense or insanity exceptions to killing in the criminal law in this case. The four defendants were well aware of their actions and since it is clear that Whetmore made no threat against the lives of these four defendants. Moreover, what if the four defendants were lying and killed Whetmore because he was the weakest or the poorest? I understand the tragic situation, but we have to be skeptical. Their defense of necessity does not justify their crime. No one should be sacrificed even if they did a lottery and regardless of the consequences that will result of their hunger in the …show more content…
Each argument made me think and open new questions to the debate. I asked myself if we spare the defendants’ lives, am I arguing that their lives and survival are more valuable than Roger Whetmore’s life. I was inclined to follow the principles of the law, but the human side prevails in many times while thinking of these four defendants’ mental state at the time of the tragedy. I know that every person has fundamental rights, and no one should be sacrificed for any reason, but if I was really there in the cave with them, do I still do the right thing under those circumstances? Or I will trust God, regardless of the