You be the Judge!!!

[Nole795]

Here is a moral situation, just wanted to get your thoughts on how would you would judge the perpetrators. This is a real case that occurred but I won't say all the particulars since I don't want anyone to be manipulated by the actual verdict. And here you go:

In the late 1800's, 3 men and a boy were shipwrecked and forced to brave the open sea in a lifeboat. Eighteen days adrift and both food and water gone saw "D" and "S" suggest the boy be killed and eaten. The third man"B" balked at the their plan. Two days later, starving and thirsty, the 2 plotters killed the boy by slitting his throat. The 3 men feasted on the body until they were rescued 4 days later.

"D" and "S" were tried for murder. By a special verdict the jury made 3 findings:

One, the men probably would have died within 4 days had they not eaten the boy.

Two, because the boy was in a weak condition, he probably would have died before them.

Three, except by sacrificing one for the others to eat, the chance of survival at the time of the killing was unlikely.

The verdict was then referred to a bench of judges to decide whether a defense of necessity was justified in law. *
Now, can you divorce morality from law? Is it immoral to kill one to save three.

How would you have judged "D" and "S" given the above situation? Include your reasoning and/or basis of decision. Should they be found guilty or not guilty based on the above circumstance.

I will let you know the actual case and real verdict when enough responses come in.

*Copied from an author who I will not mention at this post.

[TPDHellhound]

Sounds like a civil issue to me!! :D

[ChesCopPodz]

Yeah, it happened out in open waters, the court has no jurisdiction in the first place :D

[Reapp]

Sounds like a civil issue to me!! :D

LOL, do I work with you?

[Jynkxxie]

O.k. I am not quite sure if I know exaclty what you are asking for, but I still would have charged D & S with murder. That is, if I was a juror I would have voted guilty. And the reason is really simple I guess for me. Lots of people are starving and they don't kill other people. If I am correct in my memory, you can live a lot longer than they claim they could not have without food. Water is the key component, not food.

[Star]

They declared their own community on the open sea and made their own laws (like pirates). Therefore, the laws of their homeland didn't apply. :rolleyes:

[Nole795]

O.k. I am not quite sure if I know exaclty what you are asking for, but I still would have charged D & S with murder. That is, if I was a juror I would have voted guilty. And the reason is really simple I guess for me. Lots of people are starving and they don't kill other people. If I am correct in my memory, you can live a lot longer than they claim they could not have without food. Water is the key component, not food.

You answered fine Jynkxxie, I just wanted to get a tallie that based on the information would you find the subjects guilty or not guilty.

Thanks

[canuckofapeach]

Does dire straits equal dire measures?
If they were at sea, presumably the water was salty. If one drinks salt water, it can kill. Was the youngster so thirsty he succumbed to the temptation of drinking the water, thus slowing dying? If he was dying, then thirst can be quenched by blood and hunger by flesh, therefore justifying some code or custom of the sea which was not on the legal books.
Perhaps there was a significant legal jurisprudence to this case that would go beyond a judge and/or jury.
In conclusion, they shouldn't be guilty of murder - yet probably were.
:confused:

[hitnrun]

Not guilty! I learned somewhere that when the human body is deprived of food and water (nourishment in general) for prolonged periods of time, certain parts and functions of the body shut down in order to conserve energy for the brain and more vital functions. A part of the body that shuts down in the later stages of this process is the portion of the brain that accounts for ethics and morals (I forget the proper term), thus consciously forcing the person into a "primal" mental state where only the necessary components of the body remain functioning for basic survival. That is how starving people can eat other people, regardless of the moral objections. In the scenario described above, depending on the health and fitness of D and S, they may have been subjected to this particular "reversion of mental states" before B. It should be noted that the Donner Party experienced the same sort of situation. I highly doubt that they just happened to be a group of westward travelers who also happened to be cannibals. Hope that made SOME sense!! I said not guilty, but I doubt they had these medical facts at the time of the trial, which may have proved unfortunate for D and S.

[Nole795]

Great answer by all, reps to you who answered...

So it appears I have one for "guilty"...

and two for "not guilty"...

so far

[ChesCopPodz]

Technically you can put my vote under not guilty because I think the court should not have jurisdiction.

If I were D or S, I wouldn't care either way, I'd be alive.

[Nole795]

Technically you can put my vote under not guilty because I think the court should not have jurisdiction.

If I were D or S, I wouldn't care either way, I'd be alive.

For purpose of this scenario, lets say the crime did occur in the jurisdiction of the courts. Would you agree that given the scenario above, the men should be guilty or not guilty?

[Star]

Sorry, I should have said "not guilty".

[Jynkxxie]

I guess I just always thought that by protecting youth, you ensure a future...not by killing them. Yeah, he may have died all on his own eventually, but I would not want that blood on my hands, I don't care how hungry I was. Just me though.

[Maysville194]

Not guilty!

If they had waited until he died of hunger, the succulent meat would have been dry and tasteless!

*ducks and runs for cover*