Regina v. Dudley and Stephens case brief

 

• Regina v. Dudley and Stephens- (may a person justifiably kill an innocent to save others???) Two seamen killed a youth in order to eat his flesh to remain alive. They were prosecuted for the boy’s murder and raised the defense of necessity arguing if they had not killed him they would have all died.
  • “Although preserving one’s life is generally speaking a duty … it may be the plainest and highest duty to sacrifice it.”
  • Morally speaking the court says that you can’t kill an innocent person no matter what
  • Problem was that they caused (malfeasance) the boy to die rather than permitted (nonfeasance) him to die…
  • What if they would have drawn lots?
    • If you are going to kill someone then it should be in a fair way
  • Drawing lots
    • Should they have drawn lots or just killed the cabin boy?
      • They should have just killed him b/c it was easier and he was already dying
        • Kill the person closer to death; sometimes there is one who is “marked for death”
          • Is there someone who needs to go
          • Is there an obvious person whose death would avert more evil?