Queen v dudley and stephens. The Queen vs Dudley and Stephens (1884) (The Lifeboat Case) Case Solution And Analysis, HBR Case Study Solution & Analysis of Harvard Case Studies 2022-10-21
Queen v dudley and stephens Rating:
5,9/10
535
reviews
Queen v Dudley and Stephens, also known as the "cannibalism case," was a legal case that took place in the United Kingdom in 1884. The case involved four men who were stranded at sea after their ship, the Mignonette, sank in a storm. With no rescue in sight and limited supplies of food and water, the men were forced to resort to extreme measures in order to survive.
The four men, Tom Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks, and Richard Parker, made the decision to kill and eat the cabin boy, Parker, in order to sustain themselves. When they were eventually rescued and returned to England, they were charged with murder.
The case sparked intense debate and moral dilemmas over the concept of necessity and self-preservation. The defendants argued that they had no choice but to kill Parker in order to survive, and therefore should not be held accountable for his death. However, the prosecution argued that the defendants had acted in a premeditated and calculated manner, and that their actions were not justified by the circumstances.
In the end, Dudley and Stephens were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, although their sentences were later commuted to six months in prison. The case set a precedent in English law, stating that necessity is not a defense for committing a crime.
Queen v Dudley and Stephens remains a significant legal case to this day, as it raises important questions about the limits of self-defense and the extent to which individuals are justified in taking extreme measures to preserve their own lives. It serves as a reminder of the harsh realities of survival and the difficult moral choices that may need to be made in extreme circumstances.
The Queen Vs Dudley And Stephens Analysis Philosophy Essay
The special verdict cannot be amended in a capital case by stating the real facts. The observations of Lord Mansfield in the case of Rex v. Dudley and Stephens 1884 with reference to the relevant moral philosophies. That under these circumstances there appeared to the prisoners every probability that unless they then fed or very soon fed upon the boy or one of themselves they would die of starvation. In this scenario, you and your spouse are admitted to the hospital after experiencing a car crash.
There remains to be considered the real question in the case whether killing under the circumstances set forth in the verdict be or be not murder. Huddleston had already planned how he would ensure a guilty verdict and settle the law on necessity once and for all. The body was afterwards eaten. The court members are choosing whether one lives or dies, and if they choose the death option they are performing the exact crime the individual could be on trial for. I think that the consent given by Parker would be justified but not necessary morally justified for Dudley to kill him. However, I think that we have different responsibilities towards these two situations.
The decision made might be unacceptable by others. Whether the killing of Parker was murder considering the circumstances of this case. On the 20th day, the men Dudley and Stephens killed one of their weaker companions, Richard Parker. Further, the judges questioned who was qualified to make the decision of who should live and who die were the principle to be allowed. The duty, in case of shipwreck, of a captain to his crew, of the crew to the passengers, of soldiers to women and children, as in the noble case of the Birkenhead; these duties impose on men the moral necessity, not of the preservation, but of the sacrifice of their lives for others from which in no country, least of all, it is to be hoped, in England, will men ever shrink, as indeed, they have not shrunk.
G stands for Attorney General Sir Henry James and Q. Collins before he came to argue the main point in the case. According to Dudley, the crew discussed cannibalization openly between them during this period. It was also one of the most publicized cases of the late 1800s in Britain. So if divers be in danger of drowning by the casting away of some boat or barge, and one of them get to some plank, or on the boat's side to keep himself above water, and another to save his life thrust him from it, whereby he is drowned, this is neither se defendendo nor by misadventure, but justifiable. They all decided to sleep on it. Parker were stranded on an open boat.
One would hope this case is far from the usual but, unfortunately, prosecutorial misconduct is not uncommon. It is found by the verdict that the boy was incapable of resistance, and, in fact, made none; and it is not even suggested that his death was due to any violence on his part attempted against, or even so much as feared by, those who killed him. We are often compelled to set up standards we cannot reach ourselves, and to lay down rules which we could not ourselves satisfy. By what measure is the comparative value of lives to be measured? The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c. As heart-wrenching as this situation is, most people choose to take their loved ones off of life support after an extended period of time. NOTES A Dutch writer, Nicholas Tulpius, the author of a Latin work, Observationum Medicarum, written at Amsterdam in 1641, states that the following facts were given him by eye-witnesses. .
Defense of Necessity: Queen v. Dudley and Stephens
In fact, it was the stronger killing the weaker, showing no signs of sympathy for the weak Parker who was on the verge of dying. Since they could never be sure that the killing was actually necessary from one minute to the next, this defense does not work. Parker was 17 years old, orphaned and an inexperienced seaman. The language is somewhat vague in both places, but it does not in either place cover this case of necessity, and we have the best authority for saying that it was not meant to cover it. Brooks and the victim Mr. Parker was an orphan and had no dependents further motivates them to kill Parker. As a result, submitting such question to adjudication might have much strategic value.
At this point, is crucial to remember that this contract does not work in court for several reasons. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Attorney General, James, appeared for the prosecution and immediately pointed out a problem. What is true of Sir Edward East is true also of Mr. Stephens and Dudley to be sentenced to death.
Then Lord Hale proceeds: "As touching the first of these -- viz. An example used would be justice, for the reason, it was created by man to punish those who committed crimes that hurts…. The language is somewhat vague in both places, but it does not in either place cover this case of necessity, and we have the best authority for saying that it was not meant to cover it. That in this boat they had no supply of water and no supply of food, except two 1 lb. But the principle has no application to this case, for the prisoners were not protecting themselves against any act of Parker. While off duty, a local officer assisted a boy back to shore after having been caught in a rip tide.
