The Case Of The Speluncean Explorers?

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers is a very interesting fictional account. It show that sometimes there is never a clear path to be taken. The fictional justices proceeding of this case have all taken different approaches in coming to the decision of if the explores are guilty or not. Each justice’s stance can fall into one of the four theory’s we are currently studying. These theories are moralism, legalism, historicism and moderation.
When justice Truepenny states “This statute permits of no exception applicable to this case” he is fully supporting the ideals of legalism. With this it shows that he is completely following the law without taking into consideration of popular support or the underlying morals of the law. Even tough justice Truepenny feels that the chief justice should be sympathetic in his punishing he is still in favor of the ruling given by the trial judge and jury. Also, he states that this was “the only course that was open to them under the law”. This show that he is applying the law how it was written and not letting his own sympathies change his ruling. …show more content…
He understood that these men had broken the law, but believed that they shouldn’t have been subjected to the law. He makes two major points to defend his outlook. The first point he makes is that the case should not be considered under the state’s laws because these men where in a situation that could not be subjected to them. He thought they should have been subjected to the laws of nature instead of the laws of the commonwealth because the laws of the common wealth were not made with this situation in mind. Furthermore, Justice Foster concluded that if the spelunkers were only killing to protect their life then it could be compared to self-defense. This would mean that they were not undermining the law to begin