Speluncean Justice

Introduction

The case at hand is a case that involves determining whether justice was served fairly in the incident where several men took the life of their partner at the plight of saving themselves from starvation. These men were in a cave where they were doing some explorations when the cave caved in before any of them could get out (Schauer, 2016). In this event, they all knew that the only way to survive since there is no food or water and the rescue team can take time before reaching them, they decide to take a vote on who should be killed for others to survive.

Justice Truepenny suggests that the court has the final decision to make but in the case, the five executives can present an argument that can be used to rescue the four men from death will be taken into account. It is not wrong to provide a solution to a case that is similarly of importance for a quick decisive decision.

Foster feels that the chief justice is hiding from executing justice for the four men. He does not believe that the four men should be convicted for trying to save the lives of four at the cost of four. In any case, this act makes them no criminals or murderers since the law of nature excludes them from the accusations implicated them (Van, 2015). The law was enacted to allow the coexistence of men in the society and therefore if the men will be convicted then the law itself is not applicable. From his example of the Stanmore case, Foster tries to explain that you can never convict a person on the basis of being on the wrong side while there is a valid reason for the matter at hand. This is actually applicable in this case since the four men were in a position they all never wanted to be in but nature forced them.

On his part, Justice Tatting does not take sides in the matter as both sides of the stories are complicated but reasonable according to human emotions and thoughts. Tatting thinks that the judgment by Foster is very contradictory on the basis that the law of nature cannot apply on why the four men decided to digest their colleague in cold blood (Emeziem, 2015). From the Valjean case, a man was convicted for eating another person’s a loaf of bread since he was very hungry. This is equal to stealing on one hand and on the other hand it is equal to trying to escape death by starvation but he was actually indicted for that act. Between bread and life, life is more valuable and therefore they will ultimately be convicted of murder. In this example, it is very clear that the four men need more than just conviction. Killing a colleague for survival is inhuman.

Justice keen in his argument argues that if a man takes the life of another then the same should be done to the person. It is wrong for the four men to take the life of another person in defense of their own as a way of escaping starvation. It is his duty to preserve the laws which were developed for man by man and according to the law; the four must be convicted since they killed their colleague. The circumstances which the four killed their friend is unknown and the law only exempts a person who acted in self-defense (Schauer, 2016). In the hard cases, a person who has committed an offense should face the law irrespective of the representative since the law is already clear and the family members should accept it however hard it is for them. This argument is strong on the basis that the four will have to face justice since they did a wrong which they knew would implicate them and cost them their lives once they were rescued.

According to Justice Handy, the four men should be given an opportunity to explain themselves and be excused for the mistake they did. They committed the offense while trying to survive even if it was never mercy killing (Schauer, 2016). Public opinion also counts in this case since what the law is there to protect is humanity and if the public feels they should not be convicted then it is clear the four never did the wrong without a reason so they are not guilty at all.

The least persuasive theory is the argument by Foster which stipulates that the four men acted on demand or lack of an option. It is not clear why one would choose to consume another person citing that there was no alternative for them. A vehicle parking offense is not equitable to killing another person for lack of an option.

The most persuasive theory, in this case, is the argument by Tatting. Both sides of the story by Tatting indicate that a decision should be done from any perspective but mostly on the issue of the four being inhuman and eating another human being (Emeziem, 2015). It is not quite clear on whether the four should be convicted or not according to his argument and therefore leaves the court to decide on the matter. On his part, if the person who ate another person’s bread was convicted then they also need to be convicted since their mistake is worse than eating a loaf of bread.

In the decision, the court should consider the fact that the four men committed this offense as a way to show how unconcerned with their partner. At no particular moment should human life be equated to a meal (Schauer, 2016). If the four will not be convicted then it will encourage much more to think the same way in case they have an argument with someone they do not like.

The court is a supreme body which has power and authority over other courts which are involved in the general jurisdiction while the legislature is mostly involved with making the laws and making sure that they are well explained. Legislature deals with deciding on a particular issue that needs more consideration.

It is morally wrong to consume another human being even the Bible condemns such acts and so the law should apply in any case (Schauer, 2016). No one has the right to take another person’s life even when the situation is worse if the person has not signed on it.

My initial verdict has changed due to the fact that the four men acted on selfishness. They love themselves more than they love their neighbor and therefore a wrong. One cannot use a dice to decide on human life.

Conclusion

In this case, humanity is not valued by some judges who think that one can just act according to the situation. Only when one has faced with life threatening situations should he or she kill as an act of self-defense but murder for survival is inhuman and they need to be convicted at whatever cost (Schauer, 2016). Every law was developed for the control of humanity and if one can murder and run scot free then there is a need for new laws which disregard human life.

 

 

 

 

 

References

Emeziem, C. (2015). A Right to Die? A Comparative Legal Philosophical Enquiry.

Schauer, F. (2016). Fuller's Fairness: The Case of the Speluncean Explorers. U. Queensland LJ, 35, 11.

Van Staden, M. (2015). The Case of the Speluncean Explorers in the South African Constitutional Court. Obiter, 36(1), 1-16.