R v Dudley & Stephens

Criminal law has always been one of my more favourite subjects this semester, if I actually do have one. One of the most appealing cases I have come across thus far was a case that tried to use the defence of necessity in getting an acquital for ...

for what? Give a guess..

...

...

Cannibalism!!!

Of all things.

These four people were cast away on the high seas without food and water for a period of time. Admittedly, it can get very depressing to be isolated for so long without any food and water for such an unspecified period of time... but eating your own people? Like, SERIOUSLY?

Two of the men decided to kill the young boy that was cast along with them. The reason being that he was the youngest (and supposedly, therefore the weakest). They survived on his flesh for a few days before being actually rescued. Talk about coincidence.

When tried in court, they alleged that it was a necessity to kill the boy and eat his flesh so that they can save their own ass.

Obviously, the court could not let them rely on the defence of necessity! It's one thing to steal food to satisfy your hunger pangs, but killing another man??? Public policy, like duh!

Anyway, I was just wondering what the third man did while the other two feasted on the poor (deceased) boy on the boat. Wouldnt it be creepy to be staying on the same boat as someone who is willing to kill your fellow friend just so that they themselves survive? And isnt it gross to eat RAW human flesh? I'ld rather swim in the sea and risk myself being eaten my sharks, or maybe not. hmm..

Fascinating case, I mean the facts.

To everyone, wishing all of you a great year ahead. This will probably be my last post for the year 2011. Would end it with this quote. "The past is an illusion, the future a dream. All we really have is the present."