Dudley and Stephens

1642 Words7 Pages
1. Dudley and Stephens should be accused of a wrong because; even though they were suffering from intense hunger, there is no legal justification for murder. Also, Richard Parker did not have an equal chance of survival for he was not consented on the matter, and he was weaker. They should have been convicted because despite the circumstances, they had committed—murder—a crime nonetheless. And, there was no proof that the men would not have been able to survive without food until rescue came. I do not agree with their death sentence because although they did commit murder, they were suffering of extreme starvation—causing disorientation and rash behavior. I think that a more minor sentence—3 to 5 years—would have been more appropriate. 2. Brooks should not have been charged with murder or any other crime because he had clearly dissented any motives to kill Richard Parker. On the eighteenth day, Brooks was not in accord with killing Richard Parker—even for survival. On the nineteenth day, he did not agree with drawing lots to decide upon which crewmember was going to be killed, and the lots were never drawn. Finally, on the twentieth day, he did not support Richard Parkers murder or death. It may be argued that because he had participated in feeding on Richard Parkers flesh, that he was guilty, but the only reason he did so was because he was suffering from extreme starvation. In conclusion, Brooks was not charged with accessory to murder considering the fact that he dissented all suggestions to kill the innocent, Richard Parker, and given the circumstances he could not have saved the victim anyways. 3. All four men on this boat either had rights and/or responsibilities that they should have followed. Dudley and Stephens both... ... middle of paper ... ...ncreased. Without food, they would have suffered a slow and painful death due to harsh climate. Lastly, the survivors from the plane crash only ate those who had died from an avalanche; they never committed murder. The fact that the survivors did not kill the people that they ate—like Dudley and Stephens had—means that they did not commit any major crimes. Dudley and Stephens should have waited until one of the crewmembers died before eating his body. If Dudley and Stephens had acted accordingly—only eating a crewmember once they had died, it is almost certain that they would not have been imprisoned. But by killing Richard Parker, they have not only violated the law, but various morals, and human rights as well. In a word, Dudley and Stephens most definitely should have waited for a crewmember to die before disobeying the law, and breaking several moral codes.
Open Document