The four defendants, members of the Speluncean Society, are on trial for the crime of murder. In early May of 4299 the four defendants, in company with Roger Whetmore, entered into the interior of a limestone cavern of the type found in Central Plateau of this landslide occurred. While in the cave heavy boulders fell and completely blocked the only known opening of the cave. While waiting for a rescue team to come they settled themselves near the obstructed opening. The rescue was a difficult one, and as a result of many obstacles, such as landslides, that occurred ten workmen engaged in helping to clear the entrance were killed. It wasn’t until the thirty-second day after the men entered into the cave that the rescue was successful. During the time that the men were trapped in the cave, it was known that there were no animals or vegetable matter in which they could feast on to survive, and anxiety about dying of starvation started to settle in the back of the men’s minds.
On the twentieth day of their imprisonment the men remembered that they had access to a portable wireless machine, which they could send and receive messages from those outside. They were notified by the engineers in charge that it would take ten more days till they could rescue the men. After this notification they asked to talk to medical personnel and informed them of their food predicament and conditions, and asked if they would be able to survive the next ten days on the rations they had taken with them. The medical personnel informed them that there was little possibility of survival. After eight hours of receiving this information Whetmore asked the medical personnel if they would survive for ten days if they consumed the flesh of one of the men trapped ...
... middle of paper ...
...er wish existed and blame it on that they were in a state of nature? Where do we draw the line on the timeline of when it is okay to kill a man to save your own self from hunger pains? Letting one person get away with murder opens up the flood gates for the very thing we are trying to prevent which is the wilful killing of another. “Through words and other actions, we build ourselves in a world that is building us.” Letting these men get away with the action of murder builds into us and the world that it is okay to kill a man in order to save your own life. It teaches us that if we value our life higher than others we can take what we “need” from them and not pay for the consequences of our actions.
If we let these men off with murder we are resorting to the ways of animals. We are a civilized society and have built it upon morals and laws to keep preserving life.
Christopher Columbus is a mythical hero or in other words, not a true hero. The story of Christopher Columbus is part of the many myths of Western civilization. Also the story of Christopher Columbus represents the power of those that are privileged and in most cases white European men that have written this mythical history. Zinn (2009 exposes the truth about Columbus through eyes of the people who were there when he had arrived which were the Native Indians (p.481). Columbus had kept a personal journal for his voyage to describe the people and the journey. What was evident throughout his journal was the Native Americans were very nice, gentle and kind hearted people (Zinn, 2009, 481). As Zinn suggests Columbus spoke of the Native Americans as” they are the best people in the world and
Others weep for the ones lost. They then got prison clothes that were ridiculously fitted. They made exchanges and went to a new barracks in the “gypsies’ camp.” They waited in the mud for a long time. They were permitted to another barracks, with a gypsy in charge of them.
In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue, which started a huge push by European nations to gain power and wealth, mainly in the way of building Empires in the New World. This was called the Age of Exploration and lasted from the late 15th to the early 17th century. Spain, under King Ferdinand II of Aragon, was the first nation to do this. Juan Ponce de León was a conquistador and one of the earlier voyagers to the New World in the European Age of Exploration, he accomplished several notable things in his life, but overall and looking in hindsight he is seen as a failure when compared to other conquistadors.
This sounds very bad but based on the circumstance they were in it doesn’t make sense to give these men the death penalty. The law is not a valid factor in this case because a circumstance like this was not even thought of when the rules were being made. Therefore the law should not even be considered.
Take into consideration that the Constitution states that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can not be taken away without due process. The offenders committing the brutal, heinous crimes have not applied this right to the victims of their crimes. Why should the government take their rights into consideration when the victims rights meant so little to them? People always put forth the idea that killing is wrong in any sense, yet they don’t want to punish the people that commit the crimes. If a person is so uncompassionate for human life and not care what happens; are sick enough to harm someone else, they should also pay the price with their lives.
guilty of murder and sentence them to death; does that not make murderers out of us? Is the
Many people who are against capital punishment are only thinking of the criminal and how cruel it is for them. But, shouldn't we think of the families that are broken apart now because of the merciless acts of these criminals. Think of Susan Smith, how she knowingly drove her car off into a lake with her two children strapped to the seats. Think of how they must have felt as the cold water started to fill the cabin of the car, and then ultimately drown them. Barbaric is exactly the word I would use to describe her actions. But yet, the jury rejected the death penalty and chose a life sentence instead. Mr. Smith, the father of the two children, broken up from the ruling said "Me and my family are disappointed that the death penalty was not the verdict, but it wasn't our choice. They returned a verdict they thought w...
...he right person is being sentenced to their death, unless a confession is presented. Even if a confession is presented, it is not morally right to kill another person because they have once killed. This is not to say that I am totally against killing in society. If one must kill another person in order to protect him/herself, then I feel that killing in self-defense is justified. Killing a criminal because someone decided that they "deserve to die" is not justified. If a criminal is convicted of murder (and would normally be sentenced to death), I believe that they should be locked up in prison for the rest of their natural life. Killing a criminal will only create more violence in
It has been said that there is no greater way to understand the law than to analyze different cases pertaining to legal philosophy and there is no better way to understand legal philosophy than to see how these different theories contradict one another. A famous legal case “the case of the Speluncean Explorers,” Harvard Law Review, 62 (4) (1948- 1949) pp.616-645, written by Lon L. Fuller describes an allegory of a group of spelunkers in the Commonwealth of Newgarth. Fuller uses various opinions written by fictional judges in order to illustrate a combination of various theories about the nature of law and legal reasoning. The purpose of this paper will thus be to critically assess and develop an argument pertaining to one of the judge’s opinions and to further explain why this judge’s decision is most persuasive. Justice Foster is said to illustrate the alter-ego role of Fuller, representing the natural school of jurisprudence. In determining whether the convictions of the murder of Roger Whetmore should be overturned, Justice Foster presents two main aggressive arguments on the basis of natural law. First, the defendants were in a state of nature at the time of the killing, and thus the laws of nature would apply to them. Second, Foster creates a compelling argument stating that although the statute could be applied to the men, the focus of the statute would not be
There are many genres of serial killer, but not one is lesser than the other, they are all dangerous and they are normal everyday people that one could not recognize. “We serial killers are your sons, we are your husbands, we are everywhere. and there will be more of your children dead tomorrow. ” – Ted Bundy. They are many in number and in type. They are creative in their killing ways, whether they admit to knowing what they are doing or not. So whether they kill for mercy, the thrill, or even for religious purposes, they still kill without boundaries and that is why they have fascinated the cultures and plagued them since the beginning of time.
Despite their moral justification for the murder, the act is unethical. The societal belief is that retribution should not be taken outside of the law and the taking of someone 's life for any reason is wrong. It didn 't matter if Mr. Freeman deserved it for what he had done or that the courts had failed to properly make sure he served his time, no violence against him should be
In today’s society, the killing of humans and animals usually means a jail term, and seeing someone die is not something people go and see for fun. Violence was glorified in Rome hundreds of years ago. All the crimes they committed were condoned, accepted and glorified.
“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 ...
Epstein, Edmund L. The Ordeal of Stephen Dedalus. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois U P, 1971.
People believe if you are willing to committed murder then in return you should receive what you give. Its one of the golden rules of life, an eye for an eye If you will. Then on the other side of the argument some think taking a man 's life should never be in the hands of others. No one should lose their lives no matter the crime they have committed even if its as heinous as kill another person. Both sides of the argument have valid points but a decision has to be made on what is just and what isn