The
Queen v. Dudley and Stephens
Queen’s
Bench Division, 1884.
14
Q.B.D. 273.
Dressler
p. 47-48, 542-545
Facts: The defendants were stranded
on a ship at sea with two other men with nothing to eat. Under severe duress, the defendants decided
to kill and eat one of the other passengers.
The fourth man objected, but ended up eating as well.
Notes
and Questions
1. There is no
way Dudley and Stephens should have been punished. There is no way that the outcome that would
be encouraged by punishing the defendants would be superior to the outcome that
transpired. If the defendants had been
successfully deterred from eating the victim, all four of the men would have
died. Even if a death sentence were
passed on Dudley and Stephens, the outcome as it was would be superior to the
outcome that society apparently desires if it would pass said sentence. My reasons are basically entirely utilitarian,
but even a retributivist would have to agree that D & S’s actions are hard
to classify as typically criminal.
2. The
legislature could write a statute that says a defendant shall not be found
guilty of murder if in the absence of the killing both the defendant and the
victim would have died of starvation.
3. This note is
tempting us to say that Parker’s life was not worth as much as those of the
other three men. Tricky, tricky!
Issue: Did the killing under the
circumstances constitute murder? Was it necessary
to kill the boy?
Rule:
Analysis: The court says that the
force behind the killing in this case is a sort of “temptation” to do something
that is known to be wrong rather than the necessity of self-preservation.
Conclusion: