Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court
EN BANC
1
against his will is clearly a crime. Whatever the reason may be. There
is no justification for killing another person.
The fittest can be the most loving and selfless, not the most
aggressive or violent. Survival of the fittest or originally the natural
selection is simply a description of what happens in the living world. It
does not tell us how we should behave.
SO ORDERED.
I concur: I dissent:
2
CERTIFICATION
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
CONCURRING OPINION
To decide on the facts of the case based on the tenets of the law
is a different matter altogether. Upon all the facts presented, the issue
of the case arises: Whether or Not the accused are guilty of murder?
3
To revisit the case, the trapped explorers was in a quandary as
to how they may survive without food inside the cave when they had
no definite time as to when they may be rescued. It was found out that
Whetmore (the deceased) came up with the idea to choose one among
themselves (the marooned explorers), someone to be eaten so as to
save the rest of the group. Before the dice were cast, he decided to
withdraw from the arrangement. The others charged him with a breach
of faith and proceeded to cast the dice. (Casting the dice was the
chosen mode of selecting as to who should be killed and eaten.) The
throw went against him, and he was then put to death and eaten by his
companions.
Based on the facts, he was unwilling to pursue the idea and that
there was no meeting of the minds and thus no contract has been
forged among them. In this case it is clear that the survivors have
taken the life of Whetmore wilfully and thus committed murder. On the
language of their statute: "Whoever shall wilfully take the life of another
shall be punished by death." N. C. S. A. (N. s.) § 12-A. It is further
added that this statute permits of no exception applicable to this case.
All the elements of murder are present in this case and the defendants
must face their judgement. The Latin maxim “Dura lex, sed lex” (“The
law may be harsh, but it is the law”) is apt in this case. It follows from
the principle of the rule of law that even draconian laws must be
followed and enforced; if one disagrees with the result, one must seek
to change the law.
4
WHEREFORE, I vote that the finding of facts and conclusion of
Law of the Court of general Instance be AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS. Respondents are found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DISSENTING OPINION
5
with such an intention. Even the act of killing is blanketed by
desperation, and most importantly the absence of reasoning due to
malnutrition.
I am not convinced by Dura Lex Sed Lex. The law is harsh, but
it is the law. But we must not hastily interpret the law in its technical
sense in a case as extraordinary as this. Otherwise, we fail to deliver
justice.
6
starvation causes poor judgement and even hysteria. Simply stated,
the explorers are unable to come up with an alternative because they
were driven mad by starvation. This is enough to compel me that the
defendants were without intent when they killed and ate one of their
own.