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.
