UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Lex Law Thor Position Paper LLB 134 (SAT 01.30 – 02.30PM; EH301MC) CONLU | GENERALAO | SENO | SILVERIO | SOLAÑA
[Affirmative] I. Issues: a. Should the four surviving explorers be found guilty of murder, and face a mandatory death sentence? b. Is self-defense a feasible argument to acquit the accused? c. Should the means of deciding on the case go beyond the letter of the law?
II. Statement of Facts: 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, doctor, judge, member of government or priest offered advice when Whetmore asked how to decide who should be killed. They decided on throwing dice. Whetmore, however, backed out. Despite Whetmore’s 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 day—nine days earlier. All could've survived without eating one. 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 decision of the lower court.
III. Summary of Arguments: 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 person, it should be interpreted according to its literal meaning. To interpret the 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 selfdefense are to different identities. The acts of the accused are not considered selfdefense 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 sway not go beyond the letter of the law.
IV. Arguments: Are the lives of four people valuable enough to justify the killing of one person? If the case is to be decided based on “Jeremy Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism”- that the locus of right and wrong solely rests on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one’s action, the more reasonable choice is the 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 Bentham’s theory that hasn’t been solved throughout the course of time. To give one example of the disadvantages of Utilitarianism – Imagine killing one healthy 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 is not so absurd, or so peculiar, as to justify this Court in creating, via interpretation, an exception to that literal language (Sunstein, J.). Justice Sunstein further presented a very well-explained analogy: “Some members of this Court plainly believe that the killing was morally excusable, because it was necessary in order to ensure that more people would live, and because the victim originally designed the plan that led to his death. See, e.g., infra, at i9i6-I7 (Easterbrook, J.). But that moral argument cannot be taken to override the natural meaning of the statutory terms, at least where the outcome is one that reasonable people could regard as justified. A serious underlying concern here is that to allow an exception on the claimed principle would be likely to undermine the statutory prohibition, either in principle or in practice…Cost-benefit analysis has its place, but when a statute forbids ‘willful killing,’ we ought not to allow anything like a cost-benefit exception.” 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 selfpreservation. Since the beginning of humanity’s strife on survival, killing has never been condoned. There are moral grounds that we have to adhere to other that acting by means self-preservation. It doesn't take into account the feelings or happiness of the minority (equal rights regardless of your standing). We cannot
simply put a measure on the value of human life because it would deprive the minority of their own rights. In this case, Roger Whetmore’s 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: “Some such motives are more or less reprehensible than others. But from the perspective of the virtues and values central to the ideal of the rule of law, the defendants' jurisprudential and jurisdictional challenge only raises differences in degrees of moral culpability that are ultimately inconsequential: the violation of the individual's right to equal respect and regard, and accordingly his right to equal protection of the law, is not lessened by the strength of the justification for the killing. That he cannot be so sacrificed is precisely what it means to have a right: a right, virtually by definition, cannot be outweighed by individual
or
group-based
calculations
of
moral
or
economic gain, even when the gain is measurable in lives 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 to the precedent case of Commonwealth Vs Valjean, wherein the accused stole a 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 Valjean’s conviction. If one’s 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 boundaries but distinguishable from the other. Examples of such words or statement are self-defense and self-preservation. 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 prevent the threat of starvation to transpire. The decision of Commonwealth vs Valjean again comes to play, and how the court upheld the rule of law. In a statutory system, the definition of murder is written in categorical terms, as in N.C.S.A (N.S.) § 12-A, while other provisions define justifiable homicide, such as legal authority and self-defense and excusable homicide caused by accident or
misfortune during a lawful activity. The killing is justified if there is a net savings in lives. See infra, at 1915 (Easterbrook, J.). 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. Selfdefense 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 in verba legis. Self-defense is inevitably different from self-preservation and the acts of the accused is nowhere near the definition of self-defense. 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 Judge’s duty will tell us otherwise. The Justices of the Supreme Court have sworn to uphold the law, and only that. There shouldn’t be anything higher than the Supreme Court’s 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 matter how harsh it may be. If we are to discuss things in a different perspective, all the expenses from 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. Judicial activisim, according to Christopher Wolfe, refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal or political considerations, rather 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 upheld for justice to prevail. V. Conclusion/Prayer for Relief: 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 so must face the consequence without exception, a consequence, though heavy to the heart it may be, was fair and just.
