Regina v. Dudley and Stephens Case Analysis Essay Example

In my own opinion, I believe that in Regina v. Dudley & Stephens Case, the three men Tom Dudley, Edwin Stephens, and Edmond Brooks who were originally aboard the Mignonette did what was necessary in order to survive and better their chances of saving three lives. As stated within the facts of the case, the men unwillingly had to eat the innards and skin of a turtle out of fear their bodies may go into starvation mode. In starvation mode, the body needs nutrients and calories in order to function. Without it, the body will begin to break down and soon after this would make a person lethargic, which is exactly how the shape of Richard Parker’s body was described aboard the dingy. If the act of cannibalism was a decision that absolutely had to be made, I believe the three grown men would have had a better chance of surviving rather than the younger boy who was already showing the most obvious signs of fatigue. Due to this voyage taking place in the middle of summer and the amount of days they were stranded at sea, the likelihood of them experiencing a multitude of symptoms from dehydration, severe sunburns, exhaustion, malnutrition, and mental stress is extremely high. This brings me to believe that the act they carried out was only something one would do out of pure desperation and panic. None of them seemingly wanted to carry out this unethical act, especially Brooks. He appeared to be the only one to have made the ethical decision to refuse to agree with their consensus. Only after the realization that they hadn’t seen a nearby vessel in days, did he reluctantly turn to consuming Parker’s body. From my perspective, I completely understand his decisions and I believe his thought process is what any person would also think in a position like his. This case brings into play the major ethical issue of determining whether one person's life should be given up in order for three other lives to be potentially saved. From my personal standpoint, I think their decision was clearly unethical and no one in their right mind, which they were not, would actually want to consume another person’s body willingly. However, I believe their actions were necessary due to their circumstances and the fact that they did not know when they might be spotted by a vessel and rescued. In my mind, I think another factor to think about is the families of the men. The question that arises is, would it have been worse for all four families to go through the loss and grieving of each crew member had they decided to not go through with their decision and not make it the four extra days? Rather than only the one family to deal with the loss of their son? When recounting what happened, the men faithfully retold their story in hopes the authorities would understand their reasoning and circumstances. Unfortunately the Chief Justice, Lord Coleridge, ultimately made the special verdict that the killing of the boy was unnecessary and there was no reasonable justification for their “profitless act”. The court found Tom Dudley and Edwin Stephens guilty of murder and sentenced them to death, which their sentence was later reduced to six months’ imprisonment. I think judges should have the power to look beyond the letter of the law in making certain decisions with cases such as this one. No two cases are hardly ever the same therefore, as a judge and with their level of authority, they should have the power to follow the spirit of the law and make a well rounded decision based on the factual information and reasonings given.