Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens

Regina v. Dudley and Stephens There stupefy been many criminal lawsuits in the history, which brought controversy, whether make could be justified under different circumstances. One of the famous cases tells a story of four shipwrecked men, which were muddled in the high oceans. The story was named The Lifeboat fictional char comporter, regarding the sad and behavior-changing decision that was made in extreme circumstance. Four seamen, doubting Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks and seventeen year rare Richard Parker were in high seas and out-of-pocket to the storm that hit them very bad, they had to lay out themselves into an open boat.They did not have any supply of piss and food, except 1 lb. tin of turnips. On the fourth sidereal day of this journey, they caught a small turtle and it lasted them for few days. aft(prenominal) the turtle was totally consumed, they spent eight more days in hunger. On twentieth day of world in the state of prostration, Dudley and S tephens r to Brooks as to what should be d angiotensin-converting enzyme if there will be no divine service. Dudley suggested that whiz of them should sacrifice his life to save the rest and offered to cozy up droves in order to pick one.Since Brooks refused to consent and as three seamen, except the boy spoke about their families, Dudley proposed to kill the Parker, since he had no family and the fact that he would die soon anyway, because he was the weakest and he was insobriety sea water. Although, Brooks dissented from the crime, with the agreement of Stephens and Dudley, the act was done on July 25th. With the prayer to forgive them, Dudley came up to helpless Richard Parker and telling him that his time has come, put the knife on his throat and killed him.After eating Richards clay and drinking his job for four days, the seamen were picked up by a passing ship. The rescuers carried them to the bearing of Falmouth and they were act for trial at Exeter. They spent all the time from that day till the hook in pri parole. Since it was very rare case, involving the law of the sea and extreme necessary, it was hard to pronounce judgment. Nobody knows if they would survive till the rescuers, hadnt they not eaten the boy. They could have died from starvation. And Parker in his weak school would most liable(predicate) die also.Jurors at the trial were ignorant and they would agree with whatever the greets decision will be. However, due to the complication of the case, the court was rescheduled to declination 4th to be argued before a Court consisting of 5 judges. unheeding of an attorney A. Collins objections, saying that it was not a homicide, but a self-preserving act upon the great necessity, prisoner Dudley and Stephens were sentenced to wipeout because, the facts that were presented to the jury, including Parkers left body parts were appal and there is no such necessity that allows one to take another persons life.However, the death sentenc e was commuted by Crown to hexad moth durance. Unfavorable and at the same time tragic story of Dudley and Stephens begs some questions and requires details, which will be comminuted below with the help of some research and articles. While reading the case story, a draw play of details seem to be missing and Andreas Teuber, The Professor of Philosophy of faithfulness at Brandeis University proposed a very thorough research with a lot of necessary information, called The Mignonette, 1884 tabby cat v. Dudley.According to Teuber, the name of the ship was The Mignonette and the owner was a wealthy Australian barrister, who decided to hire a lot to opinion poll his yacht, instead of sending it as a deck cargo since the condition of the ship was not the sturdiest. He hired Thomas Dudley as a captain, and Dudley recruited Edwin Stephens as mate, Edmund Brooks as able seamen, and seventeen year old boy, Richard Parker, as ordinary seamen (people. brandeis. edu). Teuber states in his work. The initial reason for the men being on the high seas was the fact that they were hired as a crew to sail the ship to Sydney, Australia.Even though, they expect a nice weather in May, soon tolerable it turned foul and a heavy flourish hit the ship, crushing it. As the ship started to sink, men barely managed to have got into a lifeboat and by the time they were trying to save their lives, all of supplies of water and food were gone. Professor Teuber clarifies it, saying Unfortunately, the emergency supply of water that they had in haste thrown overboard next to the dinghy was swept away by the waves (people. brandeis. edu). Since Teuber acknowledged that Dudley was the captain of the ship, it might also be the reason of why all decisions were made by Dudley.He might have felt himself trusty for mens life and tried to save as practically as he could, by sacrificing one. One of the details Teuber mentioned was that the rest of seamen were rescue by a German boat, called Montezuma, which was heading business firm from southern America. As soon as they delivered men to Falmouth and started questioning them, it was clear that they have committed a crime. However, Brooks name wasnt mentioned as one of the prisoners throughout the story. And Teuber reveals the reason, sayingThe upright Dudley immediately insisted that he was the ringleader and that Brooks was completely innocent (people. randeis. edu). So thats why Brooks played as a prose knapions witness. The most remarkable topographic point in this case, was the peace between Dudley and the Richards brother Daniel Parker. He even came to court and shook Dudleys hand. By the way, the initials C. J stand for Chief referee Lord Coleridge who refused to recognize the prisoners case as necessity act. Information that seems to be the most curious for everyone is how those three seamen did live their lives after committing such an act of cannibalism.According to Professor Teuber, Brooks went back to th e sea, Stephens supported himself doing odd jobs and Dudley immigrated to Sydney, Australia. He was pickings big amounts of opium in order to relieve himself from painful memories and died from bubonic hassle in 1900. One of the sources, that provide a reliable details regarding the Dudley and Stephens case is a Canadian online Law Press magazine and a sub judice information website www. duhaime. org. One of the founding partners of Duhaime Law Lloyd Duhaime wrote an article called Cannibalism on the eminent Seas the Common Laws Perfect Storm.Duhaime, a attorney with 26 years of experience, reports the exact location where the homicide act happened as he states Suddenly, the four men were crowded in a small dinghy, lost in the middle of the South Atlantic, at latitude 27 degrees 10 south and longitude 9 degrees 50 West 1600 miles for Cape of Good Hope, 2000 from South America (www. duhaime. org). One of the things Duhaime declares is Dudleys harrowing confession words which hol d out like this I then put my knife into the side of the neck.The blood spurted out, and we caught it in the bailer and we drank the blood while it was fond we then stripped the body, cut it open, and took out his liver and heart, and we ate the liver while it was still warm (www. duhaime. org). But besides his confession, existing human flesh under his fingernails was enough evidence. In addition, Duhaime states some information on seamens further life after the trial ended. According to him, Brooks died in 1919 Edwin Stephens buried the Parker social occasion with alcohol and died in 1914.According to A. W. Brian Simpsons A puritanical Yachting cataclysm book, the main role in commuting six month imprisonment was played by young Queen Victoria and Sir William Harcourt, a home secretary at the time. Apparently, strict death sentence was the lone(prenominal) response for murder crimes in 1884. According to the book, Sir William and Queen Victoria had some misunderstandings and a different opinion over previous few cases, but since The Queen was preoccupied with the fate of her idol General Gordon, Mr. Harcourt was responsible for the case.Lewis Harcourt, a son and the private secretary of Sir William, strongly argued about short sentence only and while he was away shooting, Sir William announced the decision which was approved by Queen. As a result, the author of A Victorian Yachting cataclysm, Mr. Simpson grants On December 12 it was decided that the sentence be commuted to six moth imprisonment, not at hard labor, to be attendd from December 4, the date of judgment against them not sentence. (A. W Brian Simpson 247). However, Phillipa Dudley was not happy with the decision and expected her husband home sooner and there were talks later on releasing Thomas earlier.Moreover, Simpson provides an information on missing initials of A. G and Q. C, where A. G stands for Attorney General Sir Henry James and Q. C stands for Queens Counsel. According to book Plutarchs Lives The commentary called Drydens Volume 4, the meaning of phrase Necesse est ut eam, non ut vivam, is There was a necessity to sail, but no necessity to live (Plutarch, John Dryden, Arthur Hugh Clough 561). Meanwhile, So spake the Fiend, and with necessity, The despots plea, excused his devilish deeds was taken from John Miltons poem in Paradise Lost book.It this specific case it does not mean that the act was devilish however, it would appear that necessity was the excuse. Overall, research clarified a lot of things in this controversial case. There were many horrifying detailed accounts, such as Parkers eaten body parts or as amusing and heart-breaking information as peace between Dudley and Parkers brother. Moreover, the fact that in those years murder crimes were punished by death sentence and the court made an exception due to the nature of situation makes it one of the famous criminal law cases.Work Cited 1. Andreas, Teuber. Philosophy of Law Had-Out rogue. Bra ndeis University. 5 Feb. 2004 Web. 18 March, 2013. 2. Lloyd, Duhaime. Cannibalism on the High Seas the Common Laws Perfect Storm. www. duhaime. org. 20 Aug. 2011 Web. 18 March, 2013. 3. A. W. Brian, Simpson. Cannibalism and Common Law A Victorian Yachting Tragedy. The Hambledon Press. 1994. 18 March, 2013 4. Plutarch, John Dryden, Arthur Hugh. Plutarchs Lives The translation called Drydens Volume 4. Little, Brown and Company. Boston. 1884. 18 March, 2013