Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens

Regina v. Dudley and Stephens There have been many criminal cases in the history, which brought controversy, whether murder could be justified under different circumstances. One of the famous cases tells a story of four shipwrecked men, which were lost in the high seas. The story was named â€Å"The Lifeboat Case†, regarding the tragic and life-changing decision that was made in extreme circumstance. Four seamen, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks and seventeen year old Richard Parker were in high seas and due to the storm that hit them very bad, they had to put themselves into an open boat.They did not have any supply of water and food, except 1 lb. tin of turnips. On the fourth day of this journey, they caught a small turtle and it lasted them for few days. After the turtle was completely consumed, they spent eight more days in hunger. On twentieth day of being in the state of prostration, Dudley and Stephens spoke to Brooks as to what should be done if there will be no help. Dudley suggested that one of them should sacrifice his life to save the rest and offered to draw lots in order to pick one.Since Brooks refused to consent and as three seamen, except the boy spoke about their families, Dudley proposed to kill the Parker, since he had no family and the fact that he would die soon anyway, because he was the weakest and he was drinking sea water. Although, Brooks dissented from the crime, with the agreement of Stephens and Dudley, the act was done on July 25th. With the prayer to forgive them, Dudley came up to helpless Richard Parker and telling him that his time has come, put the knife on his throat and killed him.After eating Richard’s body and drinking his blood for four days, the seamen were picked up by a passing ship. The rescuers carried them to the port of Falmouth and they were committed for trial at Exeter. They spent all the time from that day till the court in prison. Since it was very rare case, involving the law of the sea a nd extreme necessity, it was hard to pronounce judgment. Nobody knows if they would survive till the rescuers, hadn’t they not eaten the boy. They could have died from starvation. And Parker in his weak condition would most likely die also.Jurors at the trial were ignorant and they would agree with whatever the court’s decision will be. However, due to the complication of the case, the court was rescheduled to December 4th to be argued before a Court consisting of 5 judges. Regardless of an attorney A. Collins’ objections, saying that it was not a homicide, but a self-preserving act upon the great necessity, prisoner Dudley and Stephens were sentenced to death because, the facts that were presented to the jury, including Parker’s left body parts were horrifying and there is no such necessity that allows one to take another person’s life.However, the death sentence was commuted by Crown to six moth imprisonment. Unfavorable and at the same time trag ic story of â€Å"Dudley and Stephens† begs some questions and requires details, which will be clarified below with the help of some research and articles. While reading the case story, a lot of details seem to be missing and Andreas Teuber, The Professor of Philosophy of Law at Brandeis University proposed a very thorough research with a lot of necessary information, called â€Å"The Mignonette, 1884 Queen v. Dudley†.According to Teuber, the name of the ship was â€Å"The Mignonette† and the owner was a wealthy Australian barrister, who decided to hire a crew to sail his yacht, instead of sending it as a deck cargo since the condition of the ship was not the sturdiest. †He hired Thomas Dudley as a captain, and Dudley recruited Edwin Stephens as mate, Edmund Brooks as able seamen, and seventeen year old boy, Richard Parker, as ordinary seamen† (people. brandeis. edu). Teuber states in his work. The initial reason for the men being on the high seas wa s the fact that they were hired as a crew to sail the ship to Sydney, Australia.Even though, they expected a nice weather in May, soon enough it turned foul and a heavy wave hit the ship, crushing it. As the ship started to sink, men barely managed to get into a lifeboat and by the time they were trying to save their lives, all of supplies of water and food were gone. Professor Teuber clarifies it, saying: â€Å"Unfortunately, the emergency supply of water that they had hastily thrown overboard next to the dinghy was swept away by the waves† (people. brandeis. edu). Since Teuber acknowledged that Dudley was the captain of the ship, it might also be the reason of why all decisions were made by Dudley.He might have felt himself responsible for men’s life and tried to save as much as he could, by sacrificing one. One of the details Teuber mentioned was that the rest of seamen were rescued by a German boat, called â€Å"Montezuma†, which was heading home from South America. As soon as they delivered men to Falmouth and started questioning them, it was clear that they have committed a crime. However, Brook’s name wasn’t mentioned as one of the prisoners throughout the story. And Teuber reveals the reason, saying:†The upright Dudley immediately insisted that he was the ringleader and that Brooks was completely innocent† (people. randeis. edu). So that’s why Brooks played as a prosecution’s witness. The most remarkable situation in this case, was the peace between Dudley and the Richard’s brother Daniel Parker. He even came to court and shook Dudley’s hand. By the way, the initials C. J stand for Chief Justice Lord Coleridge who refused to recognize the prisoners’ case as necessity act. Information that seems to be the most curious for everyone is how those three seamen did live their lives after committing such an act of cannibalism.According to Professor Teuber, Brooks went back to th e sea, Stephens supported himself doing odd jobs and Dudley immigrated to Sydney, Australia. He was taking big amounts of opium in order to relieve himself from painful memories and died from bubonic plague in 1900. One of the sources, that provide a reliable details regarding the â€Å"Dudley and Stephens† case is a Canadian online Law Press magazine and a legal information website www. duhaime. org. One of the founding partners of â€Å"Duhaime Law† Lloyd Duhaime wrote an article called â€Å"Cannibalism on the High Seas: the Common Law’s Perfect Storm†.Duhaime, a lawyer with 26 years of experience, reports the exact location where the homicide act happened as he states: â€Å"Suddenly, the four men were crowded in a small dinghy, lost in the middle of the South Atlantic, at latitude 27 degrees 10 south and longitude 9 degrees 50 West: 1600 miles for Cape of Good Hope, 2000 from South America† (www. duhaime. org). One of the things Duhaime declar es is Dudley’s harrowing confession words which sound like this: â€Å"I then put my knife into the side of the neck.The blood spurted out, and we caught it in the bailer and we drank the blood while it was warm; we then stripped the body, cut it open, and took out his liver and heart, and we ate the liver while it was still warm† (www. duhaime. org). But besides his confession, existing human flesh under his fingernails was enough evidence. In addition, Duhaime states some information on seamen’s further life after the trial ended. According to him, â€Å"Brooks died in 1919; Edwin Stephens buried the Parker affair with alcohol and died in 1914†.According to A. W. Brian Simpson’s â€Å"A Victorian Yachting Tragedy† book, the main role in commuting six month imprisonment was played by young Queen Victoria and Sir William Harcourt, a home secretary at the time. Apparently, strict death sentence was the only solution for murder crimes in 1884. According to the book, Sir William and Queen Victoria had some misunderstandings and a different opinion over previous few cases, but since The Queen was preoccupied with the fate of her idol General Gordon, Mr. Harcourt was responsible for the case.Lewis Harcourt, a son and the private secretary of Sir William, strongly argued about short sentence only and while he was away shooting, Sir William announced the decision which was approved by Queen. As a result, the author of â€Å"A Victorian Yachting Tragedy†, Mr. Simpson grants: â€Å"On December 12 it was decided that the sentence be commuted to six moth imprisonment, not at hard labor, to be dated from December 4, the date of judgment against them not sentence. † (A. W Brian Simpson 247). However, Phillipa Dudley was not happy with the decision and expected her husband home sooner and there were talks later on releasing Thomas earlier.Moreover, Simpson provides an information on missing initials of A. G and Q. C, w here A. G stands for Attorney General Sir Henry James and Q. C stands for Queen’s Counsel. According to book â€Å"Plutarch’s Lives: The translation called Dryden’s Volume 4†, the meaning of phrase â€Å"Necesse est ut eam, non ut vivam†, is â€Å"There was a necessity to sail, but no necessity to live† (Plutarch, John Dryden, Arthur Hugh Clough 561). Meanwhile, â€Å"So spake the Fiend, and with necessity, The Tyrant’s plea, excused his devilish deeds† was taken from John Milton’s poem in â€Å"Paradise Lost† book.It this specific case it does not mean that the act was devilish; however, it would appear that necessity was the excuse. Overall, research clarified a lot of things in this controversial case. There were many horrifying detailed accounts, such as Parker’s eaten body parts or as amusing and heart-breaking information as peace between Dudley and Parker’s brother. Moreover, the fact that in those years murder crimes were punished by death sentence and the court made an exception due to the nature of situation makes it one of the famous criminal law cases.Work Cited: 1. Andreas, Teuber. â€Å"Philosophy of Law Had-Out Page†. Brandeis University. 5 Feb. 2004: Web. 18 March, 2013. 2. Lloyd, Duhaime. â€Å"Cannibalism on the High Seas: the Common Law’s Perfect Storm. www. duhaime. org. 20 Aug. 2011: Web. 18 March, 2013. 3. A. W. Brian, Simpson. â€Å"Cannibalism and Common Law: A Victorian Yachting Tragedy†. â€Å"The Hambledon Press†. 1994. 18 March, 2013 4. Plutarch, John Dryden, Arthur Hugh. â€Å"Plutarch’s Lives: The translation called Dryden’s Volume 4†. â€Å"Little, Brown and Company†. Boston. 1884. 18 March, 2013