OPINION RE: THE CASE OF SPELUNCEAN EXPLORERS
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
A group of explorers were trapped in a cave due to a landslide. The remote location made rescue difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. Ten workmen were killed in the rescue. It was only after 32 days that they were rescued.
On the 20th day, the explorers discovered that they had a two-way wireless machine that enabled them to communicate with the people, such as engineers and medical experts, outside. Through said equipment, the engineers informed the explorers that at least 10 more days would be needed to rescue them. Upon further inquiries, a team of medical experts informed the explorers that considering the conditions and rations inside the cave, the chances of survival for a further 10 days were remote. The explorers asked whether they would survive if they resorted to eating one of their number. It was reluctantly confirmed they could. One of the explorers, Roger Whetmore, asked if casting lots as to whom should be eaten was advisable; no physician, judge, government official, minister or priest provided an answer. No further messages were received after that. Whetmore proposed that they derive the necessary sustenance from killing and eating one of their number. Whetmore also proposed casting lots, using a pair of dice he happened to have with him, to determine who is going to be eaten. All the other explorers agreed with Whetmore's idea and thereafter devised a method of using the dice to cast lots. However, before the dice were thrown, Whetmore withdrew from the arrangement, and claimed that he would wait another week. The others charged him with a breach of faith and proceeded to cast the dice. Before throwing the dice on his behalf, the defendants asked Whetmore to declare any objections to the fairness of the throw. He did not object, and the throw went against him. Consequently, the rest of the group killed and ate Whetmore.
After the rescue of the defendants, and after they had completed a stay in a hospital where they underwent a course of treatment for malnutrition and shock, they were indicted for the murder of Roger Whetmore.
The trial judge ruled the defendants guilty of murder and sentenced them to be hanged. The jury joined in a communication to the Chief Executive, requesting the sentence be commuted to imprisonment of six months. The trial judge did similar. The Chief Executive waits for the Supreme Court’s disposition of the petition of error before making a decision regarding clemency.
THEORETICAL POSITION OF EACH JUSTICES
AND WHAT THEY THINK THE ROLE AS A JUDGE DEMANDS:
CHIEF JUSTICE TRUEPENNY not only holds the decision of the trial court to be fair and wise, but also believes that it is the only course to be taken. The Chief Justice acknowledges that no exception to the statutory provision applies, regardless of how sympathetic people may be. The Chief Justice prefers to rely on possible executive clemency, described as ‘mitigating the rigors of the law’, and proposes that the Supreme Court joins in the communication to the Chief Executive, expecting clemency to be granted. He firmly held that justice can be done this way, without disregarding either the letter or spirit of the law. Hence, Chief Justice Truepenny UPHOLDS THE CONVICTION.
JUSTICE FOSTER rules, on the other hand, that the statute is inapplicable for two separate reasons. First, once the explorers were cut off from society, they returned to a state of nature, and society's laws did not apply to them. Second, the statute can be applied to the men but the purpose of the statute would not be served by applying it in this case. The statute must not be taken literally. Justice Foster concludes that CONVICTION MUST BE SET ASIDE.
JUSTICE TATTING believes that the statute clearly applies. However, he could not live with himself if he voted to affirm because the result would be evil. Therefore, he RECUSES.
JUSTICE KEEN bases his decision on the principle that the judge's role is to apply the statute. Their role is not to determine whether the actions were "good" or "bad," or whether the statute is good or bad policy. Also, it is not the role of the judge to tell the executive what to do, other than to offer his/her opinion as a private citizen. He contends that the statute applies on its own terms to this case. Hence, Justice Keen AFFIRMS THE CONVICTION.
JUSTICE HANDY finds that the statute clearly applies, but the judge must exercise common sense. Further, public opinion overwhelmingly supports reversal, and it is clear that the executive will not grant clemency. Therefore, it falls to the court. Justice Handy concludes that the trial court's DECISION MUST BE REVERSED.
WHO IS THE MOST AGREEABLE JUSTICE?
Justice Keen.
Keen's opinion begins by excluding executive clemency and the morality of the defendants' actions as relevant factors to the court's deliberations. Rather, the question before the court is purely one of applying the legislation, and determining whether the defendants willfully took the life of Whetmore. He criticizes the other judges for failing to distinguish the legal from the moral aspects of the case. While he shares their preference that the defendants be spared from death, he respects the obligations of his office to put his "personal predilections" of what constitutes justice out of mind when interpreting and applying the law.
WHO IS THE MOST PERSUASIVE?
Justice Foster.
Through the use of idealistic arguments, readers could be easily persuaded by the conclusion of Justice Foster that the defendants must be acquitted. At first, I was fascinated with Justice Foster's line of reasoning. Considering my sympathy to the defendants, Justice Foster did very good in presenting his arguments. He takes the view that the defendants should be acquitted, putting forward two arguments, to wit: (1) as the explorers were not anymore in a situation in which coexistence of men was possible, not the ‘law of society’ applies, but the law of nature; and (2) A man may break the letter of the law without breaking the law itself. The statute should not be taken literally. According to Justice Foster, self-defense should be considered. Although self-defense cannot be reconciled with the words of the statute it can be reconciled with the purpose of the statute.
WHY I AGREE WITH JUSTICE KEEN &
WHY I DISAGREE WITH JUSTICE FOSTER:
As beautiful as it may seem, Justice Foster's arguments are not applicable in this case. I agree with Justice Keen that the primary role of a judge is to apply the law. When the law is clear, then it leaves no room for interpretation but for application.
The law applies to the explorers. – The explorers were still within the State's jurisdictional area. Hence, the statutes and laws of the same must apply. Natural law must only be applied when there is no applicable law or statute. In such case, judges must resort to equity. However, elementary is the rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear, there is nothing else to be done but to apply it. Based on the findings of the trial court, which is the trier of facts, the defendants willfully murdered Roger Whetmore. The same was upheld by the higher court. Hence, positive law must be applied, rather than equity or natural law.
Self-defense does not apply. – Self-defense cannot be applied in the present case. In self-defense, killing is justified in a way that the defendant kills his aggressor in order to survive. The idea is to eliminate the immediate threat that would cause the defendant to be killed or gravely harmed. This is not the case in the Speluncean explorers. Roger Whetmore was not even a threat; starvation was the immediate threat. Yet, the others chose to kill an innocent man to prevent starvation. With respect to the killing of Roger Whetmore, such act should not be viewed in light of self-defense. Hence, contrary to Justice Foster's belief, the killing was not justified.
Necessity is not a justification. – I am against the idea that the majority is more valuable than the minority. This is one of the reasons why laws exist: to protect the rights and lives of the minority. Hence, it is wrong to kill one person in exchange for four lives. It must be noted that 10 rescuers died in the course of the rescue. But that did not stop the government from trying to rescue the 5 people who are stuck in the cave. If necessity is a justification, then the death of 10 must be enough reason to stop the operation of rescuing 5 lives. It is also erroneous to conclude that because 10 rescuers died for the lives of the 4 then it is only right to kill 1 to save the same. This reasoning does not make sense. The 10 rescuers were not sacrificed. They were put into mission. Unfortunately, they died during the process. But, certainly, they were not killed. Therefore, whether or not the act was done out of necessity is irrelevant, because necessity in this case is not a justified reason to kill.
The agreement was invalid and unlawful. – Even though Whetmore first proposed that cannibalism might make it possible for the members to survive, and he was the one who first proposed the use of method of casting lots, none of these points is enough to bar Whetmore from withdrawing from such agreement. Charging him with a "breach of faith" was unfounded. He withdrew not from a valid contract, but from one that is against the law. Hence, there is nothing unfair and unlawful in Whetmore's act of backing out because he had all the right to withdraw from said invalid agreement. In addition, Whetmore's act of not objecting against the fairness of the throw cannot be held against him. Such silence is not tantamount to an approval.
By including Whetmore, the others wanted only to decrease their chance of being a sacrifice. If there are only four participants, then each man's chance of dying is 25%. If we include Whetmore, each man's chance of dying now becomes 20%. In short, what the defendants did in this case was calculated and willfully done. The motive for murder is clear. They acted out of self-interest, to increase the odds of their individual survival by forcibly including Whetmore.
Conclusion. – To summarize, it has been established that four of the defendants killed a man. It was not done in self-defense. One can argue that it was done out of necessity, but such reason is not a justification. Yet, the explorers willfully committed the felonious act. The law clearly provides penalty for the crime of murder. Therefore, each defendant should suffer the consequence as prescribed by law. This must be done, not to punish the guilty, but to condemn the evil act. It is to prevent the case from becoming a future precedence, and to protect each and every person's right to life, no matter how outnumbered they are.
