Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. Issues:
a. Should the four surviving explorers be found guilty of murder, and face a
c. Should the means of deciding on the case go beyond the letter of the law?
Five Speluncean explorers, one named Roger Whetmore, were trapped in a cave
without food but with communication with the outside, while rescuers were
underway. Medical experts advised that there was only a little possibility for the 5
to survive 10 additional days without food. Roger Whetmore initially suggested that
they should kill and eat one of the members of their group for survival. No rescuer,
asked how to decide who should be killed. They decided on throwing dice.
Whetmore, however, backed out. Despite Whetmores decision, the others still
went with the initial suggestion and threw the dice for him. The diced rolled against
Whetmore's favor. The four explorers killed and ate Roger Whetmore. During the
rescue efforts, 10 rescuers were actually killed by landslides. The four explorers
were rescued on 32nd day and Whetmore was killed on 23rd daynine days earlier.
Eventually, the four explorers were tried and convicted for the murder of Roger
Whetmore. The case brought to the highest court of the land for review of the
The four (4) accused should be found guilty in violating N.C.S.A (N.S.) 12-A.
Since the law is clear and unambiguous regarding the act of willfully killing another
statute beyond the letter of the law in favor of the accused would result to a grave
miscarriage of justice on the part of the victim and would constitute judicial
legislation which is not within the power of the judiciary. Self-preservation and self-
defense are to different identities. The acts of the accused are not considered self-
defense for there is no legitimate threat to their lives from the victim. In addition,
the judiciary has sworn to uphold the law, and as harsh as the law may be, the law
is law. Therefore, common sense and the opinion of the body politic should never
IV. Arguments:
Are the lives of four people valuable enough to justify the killing of one
Utilitarianism- that the locus of right and wrong solely rests on the outcomes
preservation of the lives of the four. This is what was implied by Justice Foster
when he stated that, if the State could sacrifice ten lives to save one, why cannot
one life be sacrificed to save four? However, there are significant flaws to
Benthams theory that hasnt been solved throughout the course of time. To give
person and giving his organs to save 5 others (West, J. at 1986, as referred to in
The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Revisited): the balance of happiness over
harm supports doing this, but we know that it is not right. The end does not justify
the means.
The more appropriate question that we should be asking is, are the lives of
four people more valuable than the law? Newgarth law provides that whoever shall
willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death." N. C. S. A. (N. S.) ?
I2-A. Their conduct falls within the literal language of the statute, and the outcome
If we are to even further consider the purpose of the law as to the fact that
the accused did what they had to do in order to preserve their lives, that can be
interpreted on the contrary; that the purpose of the law is not merely for self-
preservation. Since the beginning of humanitys strife on survival, killing has never
been condoned. There are moral grounds that we have to adhere to other that
In this case, Roger Whetmores right to life has been prejudiced. He was
killed at the expense of preserving the lives of the accused, more so after he
waived his involvement on the initial agreement and opted to wait one more week.
It is therefore the main thrust of our argument that the killing of Roger Whetmore
cannot be justified by the mere contention that the end justifies the means. There
is not only a very clear statutory manifestation but also a very justifiable moral
conviction that the willful act of taking the life of another is inherently wrong.
Justice West in the same case revisited also made a similar point:
saved.
To argue this case based on moral grounds alone would then result to
varying opinions as to what is truly right or wrong, and for the judges to decide
beyond the letter of the law would otherwise be in contradiction to the system of
separation of powers and the duty they are bound to perform. However, this does
not mean that we are completely abandoning the moral basis in defending this
case. We are considering the fact that if we are to indeed interpret the purpose of
the law, the result would still be in favor of finding guilt within the acts of the
accused. To further support our contention than the law should be upheld, we refer
loaf of bread and reasoned out that he did it because he was at the brink of
starvation. The courts decided in favor of the Valjeans conviction. If ones hunger
cannot justify stealing, then how much more the killing of one man? We could say
the same in the case of Regina Vs Dudley and Stephens (a real case from 1884),
wherein the accused sailors who were cast away at sea also resorted to cannibalism
for the sake of self-preservation. Similarly, the defendants were also convicted of
murder and were sentenced to a mandatory death sentence. This proves that the
courts do not tolerate a criminal act even if the means is perceived to be justified.
Does one statement have equal worth with another statement with which
depicts different meaning? Such words or statements do not mirror another on the
limits of what really its purpose. These words or statements may exhibit the same
On the grounds of the case, Self-defense brought up and covers the situation
but it does not enlighten the fact that invoking self-preservation is on the spot for
the survival of the four (4) explorers by giving-up one life to save the other. The
gravity of the action being done here was not to defend their selves but rather to
preserve their own selves through an act of killing one of their members and
Valjean again comes to play, and how the court upheld the rule of law.
as in N.C.S.A (N.S.) 12-A, while other provisions define justifiable homicide, such
Self-preservation does not constitute as self-defense. The mere fact that the
four accused had 10 days to live after they have killed Whetmore proves that there
was no threat to their lives during the commission of the crime. Why should there
be self-defense when there was no unlawful aggression from the victim. Self-
defense may be invoked if Whetmore had a gun and threatened the other four
explorers. However, there was no tool nor medium, even a threat from Whetmore,
that would trigger the others, and the fact that Whetmore withdrew his agreement
before the throwing of the dice constitutes that the person excluded himself the
suggested action.
The point is, if the killing was willful, however necessary to prevent a
wrongdoer from inducing loss of innocent life, a literal approach to the statute
would make the law nonsensical. The law is not vague and therefore, must be taken
Furthermore, is there actually a need to decide the case beyond the letter of
the law? Does public opinion override the judicial system? A closer look at the
Judges duty will tell us otherwise. The Justices of the Supreme Court have sworn to
uphold the law, and only that. There shouldnt be anything higher than the
Supreme Courts decision, not even the collective opinion of the body politic should
be able to sway their decision. As such, the accused must be punished because
there was a clear violation of the law and the Judges ought to uphold the law, no
the rescue of the accused, even the 10 lives lost to rescue them, are sunk costs.
Reprieving the lives of the accused will not bring back the 10 lost lives nor recover
the expenses. To use the wasted lives as argument from sparing them from the
death sentence is wholly irrelevant, considering that the accused are guilty of
committing murder.
Justice Handy may have wrote the most convincing argument about applying
common sense, yet if we go back to the duty that the judiciary has sworn to
uphold, then the Supreme Court cannot just solely consider common sense in
deciding the case. They have to uphold the dictates of the law. If the judiciary
thinks that the law is errant, then it is the job of the legislature to correct it. Using
common sense to try and decide a case is an insult to the legislature. For the
judges to use common sense instead of upholding the law is also judicial activism.
than on existing law. So in letting not just common sense but also the opinion of
the body politic dictate the judiciary on how to decide a case is, in itself, against the
law. In this light, we should all be bound by the law, and thus, the law must be
To conclude, Supreme Court of Newgarth had judged rightly on that fateful day.
The Law is clear and unequivocal; whoever willfully takes the life of another must
be put to death. Despite the unfortunate or even tragic circumstance they were put,
the poor Spelunceans were not removed of the freedom to choose what is
lawful/right and what is not. And they made their choice, they chose murder, and