Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources
Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study
Go to the blog

Analysis of Speluncean Explorer’s Case and the Principle of Utility, Assignments of Law

IMS Unison UniversityLaw

An assignment submitted by Ayushi Saini for the Introduction to Law & Legal Studies course. It analyzes the Speluncean Explorer’s case and the opinions of various judges. The case involves a group of cave explorers who become trapped and resort to cannibalism to survive. a summary of the case and the five judicial opinions presented in Lon L Fuller’s article. It also raises the question of whether the principle of utility is the right approach in similar situations.

Typology: Assignments

2020/2021

Available from 01/15/2022

ayushi-saini-1
ayushi-saini-1 🇮🇳

1 document

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
INTRODUCTION TO LAW & LEGAL STUDIES
ASSIGNMENT
B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
SEMESTER- I
Submitted by: Ayushi Saini
Q. Analyze Speluncean Explorer’s case substantiating opinions of various Judges. Also,
in your opinion whether the principle of utility is the right approach in similar situations.
Comment.
Introduction
The Speluncean Explorer’s case is a fictitious case created in Lon L Fuller, ‘The Case of
the Speluncean Explorers’ (1949) Harvard Law Review. The case takes place in the
equally fictitious ‘Commonwealth of Newgarth’, and Fuller’s article contains five
judicial opinions that explore the facts from different legal perspectives. It is useful as an
illustration of the scope and diversity of legal philosophy in the mid-20th century.
Basic facts
The four defendants and the deceased were part of the ‘Speluncean Society’, an amateur
cave-exploration organization, and became trapped in a cavern as a result of a landslide.
The remote location made rescue difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Ten workmen
were killed in the rescue. In addition to the Society’s funds, it took an additional 800,000
‘Frelars’ (ie, the currency of the Commonwealth of Newgarth) provided by popular
subscription and legislative grant to rescue the explorers. Early on it was recognised that
death by starvation was a possibility. On the 20th day, it was realised that the explorers
had a two-way radio of sorts and oral communication was established. The engineers
informed the explorers that at least 10 more days would be needed to rescue them. Upon
further inquiries, a team of medical experts informed that explorers that considering the
conditions and rations inside the cave, the chances of survival for a further 10 days were
remote. The explorers asked whether they would survive if they resorted to cannibalizing
one of the number. It was reluctantly confirmed they could. Roger Whetmore asked if
casting lots as to whom should be eaten was advisable; no physician, judge, government
official, minister or priest would provide an answer. No further messages were received
from within the cave. When the explorers were released, it was learned that on the 23rd
day after entering the cave, Whetmore had been killed and eaten. After 32 days, they
were rescued. The defendants were treated for malnutrition and shock, and then indicted
for murder.
pf3
pf4

Partial preview of the text

Download Analysis of Speluncean Explorer’s Case and the Principle of Utility and more Assignments Law in PDF only on Docsity!

INTRODUCTION TO LAW & LEGAL STUDIES

ASSIGNMENT

B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) SEMESTER- I Submitted by: Ayushi Saini Q. Analyze Speluncean Explorer’s case substantiating opinions of various Judges. Also, in your opinion whether the principle of utility is the right approach in similar situations. Comment. Introduction The Speluncean Explorer’s case is a fictitious case created in Lon L Fuller, ‘The Case of the Speluncean Explorers’ (1949) Harvard Law Review. The case takes place in the equally fictitious ‘Commonwealth of Newgarth’, and Fuller’s article contains five judicial opinions that explore the facts from different legal perspectives. It is useful as an illustration of the scope and diversity of legal philosophy in the mid-20th century. Basic facts The four defendants and the deceased were part of the ‘Speluncean Society’, an amateur cave-exploration organization, and became trapped in a cavern as a result of a landslide. The remote location made rescue difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Ten workmen were killed in the rescue. In addition to the Society’s funds, it took an additional 800, ‘Frelars’ (ie, the currency of the Commonwealth of Newgarth) provided by popular subscription and legislative grant to rescue the explorers. Early on it was recognised that death by starvation was a possibility. On the 20th day, it was realised that the explorers had a two-way radio of sorts and oral communication was established. The engineers informed the explorers that at least 10 more days would be needed to rescue them. Upon further inquiries, a team of medical experts informed that explorers that considering the conditions and rations inside the cave, the chances of survival for a further 10 days were remote. The explorers asked whether they would survive if they resorted to cannibalizing one of the number. It was reluctantly confirmed they could. Roger Whetmore asked if casting lots as to whom should be eaten was advisable; no physician, judge, government official, minister or priest would provide an answer. No further messages were received from within the cave. When the explorers were released, it was learned that on the 23rd day after entering the cave, Whetmore had been killed and eaten. After 32 days, they were rescued. The defendants were treated for malnutrition and shock, and then indicted for murder.

At trial, the foreman of the jury asked the court whether the jury could find a special verdict that left it to the court to say whether, on the facts as found, the defendants were guilty. Both prosecution and defence accepted this. On the facts as found by the jury, the trial judge ruled the defendants were guilty of murder and sentenced them to be hanged, the mandatory sentence. The defendants brought a petition of error before the court. Post-trial, the jury joined in a communication to the Chief Executive of Newgarth, requesting the sentence be commuted to imprisonment of six months. The trial judge did similar. The Chief Executive waits for the Supreme Court’s disposition of the petition of error before making a decision regarding clemency. The five Judicial Opinions Opinion of Chief Justice Truepenny The first opinion is largely expository; it is used to recount the facts of the case. Truepenny CJ holds the course taken in the first instance to be ‘fair and wise’; and the only course open to be taken. The Chief Justice acknowledges that no exception to the statutory provision applies, regardless of how sympathetic people may be. The Chief Justice prefers to rely on possible executive clemency, described as ‘mitigating the rigors of the law’, and proposes that the Supreme Court joins in the communication to the Chief Executive, expecting clemency to be granted. Justice can be done in this way, without disregarding either the letter or spirit of the law. Thus, Truepenny CJ upholds the conviction. Opinion of Justice Foster The second opinion takes a different approach to the Chief Justice's. In determining that the convictions should be overturned, Justice Foster makes two main points. Firstly, the defendants were in a "state of nature" at the time of the killing, so the laws of nature applied to them. The laws of nature allowed to agree to sacrifice one person for the survival of the rest. Secondly, assuming the laws of Newgarth did apply, the purpose of the statute should be considered when applying it to the facts of the case. Justice Foster considers the main purpose to be deterrence, concluding that just as a conviction involving self-defense would not serve the statute's purpose, neither would a conviction in the present case. Foster J concludes that the conviction should be set aside. Opinion of Justice Tatting In the third opinion, Justice Tatting is emotionally "torn between sympathy for [the defendants] and a feeling of abhorrence and disgust at the monstrous act they committed". He ultimately finds himself unable to decide the case. He states that "almost every consideration that bears on the decision of the case is counterbalanced by an opposing consideration leading in the opposite direction." Concluding with a criticism of the prosecutor for deciding to bring the

My Opinion and the Principle of Utility The key idea with the principle of utility is that every action should aim to produce the most amount of happiness possible. It’s about consequences but it’s more about judging those actions by the consequences, specifically oriented around happiness. So, in my opinion the principle of utility is the right approach in this situation where the question is about surviving and making the most out of a dire situation however possible. Theory of greater good i.e. the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number, thus, the principle of utility or utilitarianism. The best action is that which maximizes the number of persons saved. This theory is followed in almost every case where there is every possibility of people dying in any given option. As in the present case, all five of them could not have survived for 10 days without food and that is when they, on advice of the physician decided to roll the dice to choose who is going to sacrifice his life for others. No one objected that and this is how the lives of four members were saved. This does not amount to murder. Besides the theory of utilitarianism, there are some more points to this to show that they were wrongly convicted:  Act of self defense All five cold not have survived without food for 10 days and all five agreed to the possibility of one of them being eaten by others to save the most possible lives. This in all probability will be constructed as an act of self defense because nobody went with motive to kill one particular person and the act that took place was to save the lives of other persons.  Purpose of criminal laws There are some objectives of the criminal law; one of the objectives is deterrence. The aim is to impose a sufficient penalty to discourage the offender from criminal behavior. General deterrence aims at society at large. By imposing a penalty on those who commit offenses, other individuals are discouraged from committing those offenses. By applying this theory in the facts of the above case, the judges are making it impossible for any other persons in the same situation will not be able to take such decisions which can save the lives of many because he or she will have a fear that when he/she survives, a conviction will be handed over to them and that is why in the present case the conviction has to be set aside. Conclusion: In almost all scenarios, the punishment handed over to four survivors of landslide is wrong. I fully concur with the views of Justice Foster. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the four survivors should be set aside.