One of the most important fictional legal cases that legal philosophers debate upon is the Speluncean Explorers case. This specific case displays legal philosophy dilemmas regarding murder, self-defence, and any case necessity can justify murder. The facts in this care mirror the R. Vs. Dudley and Stephens and develop upon the same issues that arose in that case. In this fictional case, the accused persons had been trapped in a cave because of a landslide, the explorers were trapped for 20 days without any contact and on the 20th day, radio contact was established. Ten workmen had died in trying to save them in a consequent landslide and the trapped explorers were informed that it would be at least 10 more days before they could be rescued.
…show more content…
The Medical professional had reluctantly agreed to that statement. The explorers looked for council from others including priests, and they were not given any clear answer. The explorers decided to choose a person or sacrifice based on a draw of dice and the person that had come up with the idea drew the unlucky dice. On the 30th day when they were rescued, only four explorers had survived and Mr. Roger Whetmore was deceased and consumed by his companions. The four survivors of this tragic event were charged with murder and in their trial, the 5 judges had different opinions and dilemmas that contrasted their decisions. Along with these fictional decisions, there is one great contemporary opinion on this case. However, in this short paper the judgment and the jurisprudence behind that decision is explored in …show more content…
Therefore, due to the tough nature of this case, no argument can go unchallenged. With Foster J’s argument, Justice Keen and Tatting raise some questions against his opinions. Tatting J mainly focuses on the fact that the law is not as developed to handle such cases, and he could not separate his morality from his interpretation and application of the law. Therefore he withheld from passing a judgment. However, he argues that Foster J’s opinion is unclear and inapplicable because there is no clear evidence that the cavers had escaped the jurisdiction of the state and were in situation where the underlying premise of law has ceased to exist. Moreover, he argues that Foster J’s opinion of applying a law in such cases would do more harm than good. Keen J. on the other hand passed a judgment in favour of conviction and disagreed with Foster, J in so far as calling Foster J’s reasoning behind the purpose of law flawed and states that there is no single purpose or underlining requirement for a law to be valid. Also implying that Foster J needs to provide exact situations where breaking of some laws becomes reasonable based on these underlining
The Medical professional had reluctantly agreed to that statement. The explorers looked for council from others including priests, and they were not given any clear answer. The explorers decided to choose a person or sacrifice based on a draw of dice and the person that had come up with the idea drew the unlucky dice. On the 30th day when they were rescued, only four explorers had survived and Mr. Roger Whetmore was deceased and consumed by his companions. The four survivors of this tragic event were charged with murder and in their trial, the 5 judges had different opinions and dilemmas that contrasted their decisions. Along with these fictional decisions, there is one great contemporary opinion on this case. However, in this short paper the judgment and the jurisprudence behind that decision is explored in …show more content…
Therefore, due to the tough nature of this case, no argument can go unchallenged. With Foster J’s argument, Justice Keen and Tatting raise some questions against his opinions. Tatting J mainly focuses on the fact that the law is not as developed to handle such cases, and he could not separate his morality from his interpretation and application of the law. Therefore he withheld from passing a judgment. However, he argues that Foster J’s opinion is unclear and inapplicable because there is no clear evidence that the cavers had escaped the jurisdiction of the state and were in situation where the underlying premise of law has ceased to exist. Moreover, he argues that Foster J’s opinion of applying a law in such cases would do more harm than good. Keen J. on the other hand passed a judgment in favour of conviction and disagreed with Foster, J in so far as calling Foster J’s reasoning behind the purpose of law flawed and states that there is no single purpose or underlining requirement for a law to be valid. Also implying that Foster J needs to provide exact situations where breaking of some laws becomes reasonable based on these underlining