Laws 310-Week 2

Chapter Four/Question 12

12. (a) In the case of Regina v. Dudley & Stephens, the defense argued that there was a necessity for the two to kill and eat the remains of the fourth sailor on board in an act of self defense since they were on board with no food for days and barely enough water to survive. The court granted that if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived, but would probably had died in the four days of famine. It also agreed that the boy, being in a much weaker condition, was likely to have died before them. With all of this being said, yes, Dudley and Stevens were guilty of murder. Now, had this been a case involving torts, Dudley and Stephens could have used the defense of necessity, but since this clearly had nothing to do with torts, they were definitely guilty of murder.

12. (b) Brooks did play a role in eating the boy’s flesh mentioned above, however, depending upon what country a person is in, they may or may not be charged with a crime if they eat another’s flesh. “In the United States, there are no laws against cannibalism per se, but the act of cannibalism would probably violate laws against murder and against desecration of corpses, and the British formally outlawed cannibalism in the early 1800s,” (Cannibalism, n.d.). So, depending upon where the act is done should depend upon how a person is charged for cannibalism. I do think, however, that although Brooks may not have been charged with cannibalism, he could have faced some charges related to accessory to murder or something of that nature.

Chapter Five/Question 11

11. (a) In the case involving the 99 Cent Store and Lancaster, Lancaster wished to take over 99 Cent’s private store in order to allow Costco to expand. Their reasoning behind this was their desperate want for tax revenue, in my opinion. If I had to rule on this case in 2001 or in any other year, I would have denied Lancaster’s motion to invoke eminent domain...