R v. Dudley & Stephens Case of 1884 - Case Analysis

FACTS OF THE CASE

The two defendants shipwrecked by a storm were forced to abandon their ship and were stranded in a small emergency boat with two others including a young cabin boy called Richard Parker. The boat drifted in the ocean and was considered to be more than 1,000 miles from land. After standing in the ocean for 18 days in which they went 7 without food and 5 without water, Stephen suggested that lots be drawn with the loser being put to death to provide food for the remaining to which Dulley agreed but the third man did not and the boy was too weak to voice his opinion. As the third man had not agreed, the defendants decided that it would be the boy they killed as he was close to death and had no family. Dudley and Stephens cut the boys throat with no resistance as he was ill. All three men fed on the boy and were rescued on the 20th day. On their return to England Dudley & Stephens were charged with the boy’s murder to which they argued that they would be dead if they hadn’t killed the boy.

ISSUES

1. Can necessity be claimed as a defense for murder?
2. If killing the boy saved 3 lives, is it self-defense?
3. Is cannibalism legal in UK?

ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES

   1.     Can necessity be claimed as a defense for murder?

 

Necessity means a pressing need for or to do something. Necessity cannot be a defense for directly harming another person. In this case, the two defendants decided that it was necessary to kill the boy to survive. This decision was made based on the fact that the boy was weak, an orphan and that they didn’t know when they would be rescued. Even though at first the defendants had agreed upon drawing lots to see who would die, they did not do that. It can be questioned if they thought that their life was more valuable than that of the boy and thus decided to kill him. It may have been essential to kill one person to survive, it is just immoral or unjust to kill the weakest and unresisting one. By killing the boy, the defendants took away his chances at survival while there was always a possible that they might have been rescued the next day. And there was also the fact that orphan or not he was still a young boy and had the right to see and experience the world just like the other men on the boat had done. Also, the concept of necessity should extend to everyone, not just the boy because he was in a disadvantageous position.

 

    2.     Was killing the boy self-defense?

 

Self-defense means the right to defend one's self against threat or attack by the use of reasonable force. Self-defense would have been applicable in this case only if the boy was posing a life threat, which he was not as he was weak and unresisting. The act of killing the boy was not self-defense. However, when Dulley was about to slit the boys throat, had he resisted and by mistake killed Dulley, that would have been self-defense.

3.      Is cannibalism legal in UK?

Cannibalism is the consumption of another human's body matter, with consent or not. The UK does not have a specific rule for or against cannibalism. On July 23, 1988, Rick Gibson ate the flesh of another person in public, because England does not have a specific law against cannibalism. He legally ate a canapé of donated human tonsils in Walthamstow High Street, London. What a person eats or wants to eat is his or her own wish and on one has the right to judge a person based on that. “There is no offence of cannibalism in our jurisdiction,” said Dr Samantha Pegg. However, cannibalism should not be practiced without the concern of the person who is being fed from.

 

JUDGMENT

The jury, at the instigation of the judge, found a special verdict, setting out the facts and leaving it to the court to decide whether the men were guilty of murder. In 1884, this procedure had long been neglected: it was specially revived for the occasion. By various procedural devices, it was decided to bring the case before a bench of five judges constituting the Queen’s Bench Division in London. It is believed that the special verdict was drafted by Baron Huddleston himself. They were found guilty of murder. They were sentenced to death but later their sentence was reduced to six months’ imprisonment. It was held that necessity is no defence for a crime but at the same time, the special verdict contained no finding as to whether it was "necessary" to sacrifice the life of the young boy.

 

CONCLUSION

Even though the act of killing the young boy and calling it a necessity or self-defense is not justifiable, the final judgment is. The defendants might or might not have been rescued when they were but the only reason they killed the boy was so that they could have a little longer to live with the hope that they might be rescued. Yes, it could have been one of them instead of the boy to die but it wasn’t and later they were saved. No one knows if the boy or anyone on the boat would have lived long enough to be rescued alive nor do they know what would have happened or who would have been killed next if they weren’t rescued. The defendants took a chance to keep them alive and it would have been worth it to them, because at the end of the day, they went back home alive to their family. The judgment gave the defendants 6 months’ jail time and this is acceptable because even though what they did was to keep them alive, they still took away the life of someone else.