Persuasive Essay of Spelunkers
Taking away somebody’s life is not the best option to come out of any situation however horrible it may, because it remains a murder case in whatever circumstance (Kotecha, 2014). The four friends that is; Peter, Greg, John and Paul agreed to go for mountain climbing but later opted for cave exploring. In their exploration, they reached a point where they discovered there was a cave-in that they could not have themselves out. The four men ended up trapped in the cave without food hence coming up with a view of sacrificing one of them to save the three (Lawhorne, 2014). After a period of four and a half weeks, the three were rescued and were immediately taken under charge of murder. This paper will discuss the start of the spelunkers’ exploration. It will discuss their decision to go for cave exploration and their experience in the exploration that resulted into murder. It will also discuss the background of each spelunker. Despite the fact that they looked at their survival, they deprived the other his right to live as a human being hence they should be penalized for the unlawful act taken.
The spelunkers at the start had decided to go for mountain climbing even at the start of their journey, but while on the way, they made a new decision to go for cave spelunking and this later led them to do the act of murder (Lawhorne, 2014). At the end of their first day of exploration, they had reached a very remote cavern where they started hearing loud cracking sound at a distance. This could not prevent them from exploring further, they instead went on and this was done in the agreement of all the four. They proceeded the next day mindlessly and reached where to narrow entryways that they could not explore further. On turning back, they discovered of an enormous cave-in that completely blocked their way out (Lawhorne, 2014). They tried as much as possible to find the exit but all was in vain. It is possibly true to say that they did not inform anybody about their change of plan just because of the length of period it took for them to be rescued. It could be of help if they notified anyone about it such that an immediate action of searching could be done to rescue them before they were completely struck by hunger.
It is very certain that they were trapped in the cave unexpectedly; however, it was not safe at all to let the consequences be carried by one person (Suber, 2012). They were all responsible of the decisions they made right from the start and for that reason, they were to carry the burden jointly not putting it on one person as they did to Paul. They agreed on all the reckless choices they made for example changing plans from mountain climbing to cave exploration, they went with the exploration even after the hearing the cracking noise (Lawhorne, 2014). This could not have led to the betrayal of one person, besides he was not the one responsible of all these reckless choices. Their decisions could be based on their backgrounds, looking at the fact that Paul is the least in the group with a humble background compared to the colleagues.
According to the backgrounds of the four spelunkers, Greg was married and wealthy, Peter was an ordained minister but single, John was married and served as an EBay executive, whereas Paul was single, with a child by his previous marriage and unfortunately unemployed (Lawhorne, 2014). They should have treated Paul as the least member in the group forgetting that all men have equal rights regardless of the background or level of income. Additionally, since the four were best friends, their different backgrounds could not result into killing.
Importantly, Paul could not be the best option to kill by the fact that he has a child and he is unemployed and without a wife. They did not think of who will take of this child if this man is taken. Still on the same note, Paul did not offer himself voluntarily, in fact he even opposed the idea and he said he would not be part of it. However, it does not mean that there was anyone who was worthy to be sacrificed for this case and it is never lawful to sacrifice any human being regardless of status to save others (Katz, 1987).
Greg’s must have made his suggestion taking an advantage that he is married and wealthy and so he would lose a lot in case he died taking advantage of the poor and humble Paul. Just as he valued his life so much he would also think twice that the rest of the members valued their lives the same way (Katz, 1987). All the three were merciless Peter and John inclusive because none of the two came up to disagree with Greg’s idea. If one of the two opposed that idea probably, it would not have worked for that case and Paul would not have lost his life in such a manner.
It would be reasonable if one or any of them died because the situation became worse and could not withstand the condition any more rather than putting someone to death forcefully because of his status (Sterba, 2005). Also, they would let everyone to get for him a way to survive in such a critical situation in that the one who would fail, it would be his own failure rather than taking on behalf of the rest.
According to the period that was spent before deciding on that evil act, a man is capable of staying without food for a period longer than that (Bryant, 2008), moreover they even knew of the water source in the cave. As elderly men, they were able to survive with that water up to the time of their rescue. Still, if they put in their mind whom to eat suppose Paul got finished then they would conclude “what come may”.
In conclusion, murder is an illegal act that must be charged regardless of any justification posed by the person behind it. There were many options that could help all the four survive in that condition other than sacrificing one of their friend. There is no circumstance that lawfully allows one’s life to serve as a savior for the rest (Kotecha, 2014). In particular, they all had poor reasoning and lacked a sense of humanity in them. With that sense of humanity, they would put themselves in that state of Paul and see whether it was really fair to take such actions to a fellow mankind. All in all, the three should be penalized and face the consequences of their actions.
References
Katz, L. (1987). Bad acts and guilty minds: Conundrums of the criminal law.
Sterba, J. P. (2005). The triumph of practice over theory in ethics. New York [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press.
Suber Peter. (2012) The case of the Speluncean Explorers.
Bryant, Charles W. (2008). How long can you go without food and water: Living without food. How Stuff Works. Retrieved from
Lawhorne, B. (2014). The case of the spelunkers fact pattern [Word Document]. Retrieved from https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1084877/files/33488769?module_item_id=7274760
Kotecha, B. (2014). Necessity as a Defence to Murder: An Anglo-Canadian Perspective. Journal Of Criminal Law, 78(4), 341-362. doi:10.1350/jcla.2014.78.4.932
