The hypothetical case of Speluncean explorers, written by Lon Fuller, is the first famous fictional legal case of all times. It describes the story of five explorers trapped underground after the tunnel collapsed. After learning through a radio contact that the rescuers would need at least ten days to arrive, and with no food, the only way to survive is to cannibalize one of their team. Roger Whetmore suggested that they throw a dice fairly to determine who should be sacrificed. But, the dice was cast on his behalf. When the rescuers finally arrived, they found that Whetmore had been killed and eaten by his companions. The four defendants were indicted for the murder of Roger Whetmore.
This classic case demonstrates the opinions of five justices
…show more content…
If a person cannot be forgiven for stealing a loaf of bread how can one be pardoned for killing a person out of starvation. He further asserts, “It is true that a statute should be applied in light of its purpose.” However, the purposive approach that “interpret a statute in the light of its purpose” is difficult when there are many purposes such as retribution and rehabilitation of the wrongdoer.
Therefore, Tatting affirms that there is no doubt that these four defendants committed murder, but he cannot live with himself if he voted against them (Opinions of …,
…show more content…
Keen affirms the four defendants are guilty. He criticizes Chief Justice Truepenny’s decision to formally encourage the executive to provide clemency. Keen asserts that it was not the judge’s role to direct the executive what to do, but to offer their opinion as private citizens. Our roles, as judge, is to apply the statute, which very undoubtedly applies on its own terms to this case and not whether these men’s actions were “right” or “good,” “wicked” or “good, ”or whether the statute is good or bad policy. A judge should not apply the concepts of morality, but the law of the land. Keen argues that it is wrong to assert that defendants were acting in self-defense since Whetmore had not threatened their lives. He insists upon “a separation between law and morality, holding that "the law" required a finding of guilty even though his own morality would lead to a different result” (D’Amato, 2010). He adds, “a hard decision is never a popular decision.” A hard decision in this case is probably good because it forces the legislature to reconsider the statute. He states it is for the people to remind the Legislature of his mistake and not for the judiciary (Jitani,
Your honor, we the jury are here today to give our decision on the punishment in the case before the court titled the state of Texas v. James Broadnax. Your honor, as you and everyone in the court room here today recalls, the defendant was charged of murdering two people in their mid-to-late twenties. For the record purposes sir, let the record show the two victims go by the names of Mr. Stephen Swan and Mr. Matthew Butler. Let the record also further indicate the defendant goes by the name of Mr. James Broadmax.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states that the State shall not deprive any person equal protection of the laws. When equal protection is guaranteed, the outcome must be fair; in other words, substantive justice must be present. Based on this interpretation, McCleskey v. Kemp should be overturned because McCleskey’s death was a racially biased and unfair outcome that was not constitutionally protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Blackmun wrote in his dissenting opinion that in order for McCleskey to prove his innocence and the presence of a racially discriminatory criminal sentencing procedure, he had to meet a three-factor standard. First, he had to prove he was a member of a group that has historically suffered differential treatment. Second, McCleskey had to establish the extent of this treatment. Last, he had to prove that the process by which the death penalty was chosen was open to racial bias. McCleskey met all three prongs of this standard, and even though the Court’s decision denied his claim that he was not guaranteed equal protection, there is enough evidence to prove the selection process was not racially neutral and that a violation of the 14th Amendment was present. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy’s idea of “evolving standards of decency” in Roper v. Simmons (2005) demonstrates that the growing national consensus is against the death penalty and therefore in favor of equal protection for all persons.
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
“…and on the charge that the prisoner did with others to conspire to destroy the lives of soldiers in the military service of the United States in violation of the laws and customs of war-Guilty” were the words that soared out of Wallace’s mouth at the end of the trial. It was then that Henry Wirz was found guilty. Why? Why was he found guilty? This decision was based on the emotional aspect of the witnesses, and not by the actual guilt. Not only my defense, but also the defense of Wirz’s attorney, Baker, the testimony of the defendant, Henry Wirz, shows that Wirz should not have been found guilty.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
' The notion that punishment is needed as an example asserts that the punishment for murder, or the punishment any crime for that matter, should be employed as a deterrent and to inspire fear that will prevent others from fulfilling the said crime in the future. This illustrates a depressing and gloomy view of human nature, as being corrupt at its core and that fear remains the only thing that prevents us from committing evil acts. Rather, I believe that laws and the punishments associated with the infringement of laws are an agreement between a citizen and the society they live in about what is appropriate and agreeable behavior that protects the basic rights of all citizens and holds all citizens as equal in front of the law. Thus, if someone kills another person and the circumstances of the crime are not within the previously established laws, then the person should be held responsible regardless of whether one would kill that person if they could help it or
"One lesson that we might draw from our historical cases and from Billy Budd is that Vere, Shaw, and Parson are corrupt and hypocritical men, employing a rhetoric of strict adherence to the law in order to disguise their conscious manipulation of the law. Or, more generously, we might conclude that they are sincere men who are so concerned with fulfilling their duty that they unconsciously violate the very principles they claim to uphold. A more fruitful line of inquiry is to try to understand what it is about the logic of the legal order they have sworn to defend that causes three well-intentioned men seemingly to contradict their own most sacred principles.
“The trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).
Savannah Lamb in her term paper, “An Eye for an Eye” explains that death is a godly thing, not something to be done by human hands. Lamb supports her claims by explaining the Death Penalty is an act of barbaric murder, and we teach our children that two wrongs do not make a right. So why do we contradict ourselves by sentencing people to the death penalty? The authors purpose is to suggest a better way to punish the criminal without sentencing the accused to death. The Author writes in a formal tone to the reader.
First of all, I’d like to greatly thank the jury for coming and serving on this trial. Today, Mr. James King is being tried of the felony murder of Mr. Nesbitt. Mr. Nesbitt’s death is a sad truth to his family and his community. However, to place Mr. King as the murderer without solid evidence is preposterous. Remember, I’d like to remind the jury that if there is any reasonable doubt in the claim of Mr. King, you must vote not-guilty. I urge you to realise that by placing Mr. King in jail for 25 years to life, you will be compromising this young man’s entire future. I hope you make an informed decision to keep Mr. King out of jail.
The Case of the Speluncean Explorers is a fictionalized account of a dystopian court case consisting of a summary of the events leading up to that case and the Supreme Court’s decision in upholding the conviction. To summarize the case, a group of explorers found themselves stuck deep in a cave for over a month—when resources were well beyond depleted, the leader (Roger Whetmore) decided that one of the men should be killed and eaten in order to save the others’ lives. Whetmore bowed out of the decision at the last minute; the other explorers, however, continued on and Whetmore was killed after being faced with an unlucky dice roll. This is the basis of the case at hand—should these explorers be punished for murder?
The death penalty remains a very controversial and highly criticized topic. Both sides argue vehemently from many different angles about the constitutionality, morality, and justice of the death penalty; but, both sides know that there must be some form of punishment for the violent criminals who commit murder. The conflict arises with the question, “what punishment is fair for a convicted murderer?”
“There are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent", argues the ...
In order to defend my standing in this argument I will reason that the use of capital punishment has many benefits that trump any possible objections. Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary.
What determines whether an action undertaken by any agent is right or wrong? Lon L. Fuller's 1949 article, The Case of the Speluncean Explorers, provides a situation whereby the ethical definitions of right action are evaluated. The ethical study of right action consists of two major moral theories being de-ontological (backward looking/origin) and teleological (forward looking/ends). Both also have religious and non-religious strands. The de-ontological theory consists of the divine-command theory (religious) and Kantianism (non-religious), while the teleological theory is composed of natural-law theory (religious) and utilitarianism (non-religious). In this paper, all four strands of moral theory will be used to evaluate the Fuller article and decipher which moral theory best serves the argument whether the actions of the four defendants were ethically permissible given the situation. At the end of this paper, sufficient proof will be given to prove that the application of Kantian ethical theory regarding right action—the categorical imperative—with Christine Korsgaard's double-level theories is pertinent in bringing about a moral conclusion to the case involved.