I have a question that I need some help on. Its for my Law class. OK, four explorers go into a cave to explore. Eventually, it caves in, and they are trapped inside for 2 weeks. Around the 2nd week, the man known as Watson decides to play dice: Loser gets killed and eaten. After a while, when they are going to play, Watson starts to back down, but the men say he wanted to to this, he has to. Watson was the loser, so he was killed and eaten. Now, the three men are in court. What is their fate: Hanged, 6 Months of Jail, Free. It would be nice for some nice, detailed answers. Thank you!
2007-09-12 13:49:50 · 7 answers · asked by The_Executioner 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Assuming hanging is the penalty for capital murder, then that is the correct answer. The agreement to play dice for being food is an illegal contract. You cannot enter into a contract for which the penalty for losing a bet is your own death. The fact you may die if you do not eat is not a defense. An individual never ahs the right to take another's life unless the individual or another person's life is in an immediate threat of danger from the person who is killed.
2007-09-12 15:32:56 · answer #1 · answered by mcmufin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would these men you mention started to play dice inside a cave who collapse on them instead of finding an exit or easiest route out of the cave. What a weird imagination you got there. Because in real world, people donot stick around to find out if the cave is solid or not, but the best thing they would do is to survive not necessarily eat those around them, since we are not creatures from the deep or sharks in the water when blood is around that is the time to devour everything.
Since this is just a hypothetical question, the three men is in court because of the tragedy they have to stay there, for the mere facts that the cave collapse, and nobody knows they are there and play dice and eat one another to survive. I think they should be FREED,but the one who kill this so called Mister Watson should be prosecuted and hanged since this is the punishment you wrote here, why? Because they are trap inside a cave for who knows how long if ever they still gonna survive is also a definite question for each one of them. Nobody knows they are there in the first place, even if finding them would entails time and there is no guarantee that each one of the men would still survive the hunger and the agony of waiting for help. Getting weird and crazy down there is not an alibi to kill another person and eat him. Everyone is answerable to the law whatever circumstances it maybe, either you are out in the moon or down in the deepest ocean. Crime is a crime. If Mr. Watson is already dead and nobody killed him down there and he was eaten to survive the remaining 3 persons then I donot see any liability on their part to commit any wrong doing since survival is the highest form of law within the given circumstances. But since he was killed because of the playing of the dice, there are more games to play down there why not hide 'n seek, then the one who killed him for that should answerable to the law of the land.
2007-09-13 05:40:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fate will depend on how good are the lawyers in depending each person.
It could be acquittal for self preservation, 6 months in jail, 20 years in jail, or death.
The evidence is hard to establish and for the case to prosper there must be a star witness which means one will be free.
Even then, everything will depend on how good are the lawyers.
You as the lawyer should study more about the circumstances and the defense of the case.
If you are in the prosecution, you have a lot to prove who among the three killed the person. Others may only be an accessory to the crime but one must be the actual killer.
Lastly, this really depends on the lawyer defense. There may be similar cases but the court ruling precedence is only a guide for a more effective defenses and logic.
2007-09-13 00:03:56 · answer #3 · answered by PJA 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
20 year prison sentence. While cannibalism is seen as an extreme measure for survival, the other three still intended to kill the loser. It does not matter that he suggested the game. There was malice and foresight. Had the man been dead, I would rule them to be free, but since he was still alive it's not possible. It was pre-meditated and the other three knowingly killed Watson.
2007-09-12 20:56:03 · answer #4 · answered by Glen B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your teacher brought up this hypothetical from a real legal case on this exact issue. You could impress your teacher by bringing up Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, Queens Bench Division of England circa 1884. The Regina case was a case where they were on a ship lost at sea and they decided to eat one of the other guys. The Guy who killed the other guy tried to claim self defense because he said if he didn't eat the guy, he would have died. They still found the guy guilty of murder because even though it was a matter of necessity, the guy who died never threatened his life and had no chance to live. If you want more notes on this case that will help you with your assignment, I have attached a wiki article on this famous case. Good luck.
2007-09-12 20:59:12 · answer #5 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would give them six months. They did what they had to do to survive. It's a tragic event and if they didnt do what they did everyone would have died.
2007-09-12 20:58:25 · answer #6 · answered by stuck on level 4 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wow is this for real? i guess its morally wrong and all that so "in the eyes of the law" they should be punished.. but they were hungry shoot..
2007-09-12 20:55:39 · answer #7 · answered by haley 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋