The Case of Speluncean Explorers (In a nutshell)
HYPOTHETICAL: THE
CASE OF THE SPELUNCEAN EXPLORERS
FACTS: Five
cave explorers got trapped underground, whilst on an expedition, following the
collapse of a cave wall. Any scope of rescue was at least 10 days away and the
last radio transmission received by them was from a doctor (following which the
radio; their only means of communicating with the outside world ran out of
battery), conveyed to them that the only manner in which they could survive
till the arrival of the rescue team would be if they were to consume one of
their own, given that they had run out of food and water supplies.
One of the explorers, Whetmore, suggested that they throw dice to
determine (i.e. random probability) who amongst them should be the sacrifice.
This was held as reasonable by everyone after which, they all agreed to follow
through with the plan of action. However, just before the dice was thrown,
Whetmore backed out of the agreement. He was outvoted, and a dice was thrown on
his behalf. Whetmore lost.
About ten members of the rescue team also died while trying to remove
the rocks from the opening of the cave and when they finally reached the
explorers, they found that Whetmore had been killed and eaten.
The remaining explorers were put on trial for murder in the Supreme
Court under the jurisdictions statute, "Whoever shall wilfully take the
life of another shall be punished by death."
ISSUE: THW acquit them
all.
ARGUMENTS
FOR:
1.
APPLICABILITY OF LAW
The first
question that we all need to ask ourselves before we start judging this case is
to simply look upon the facts and determine if there is something at all about
this situation that is unique and exceptional and would allow for exemption of
these men to be tried under the jurisdiction of the applicable statute and
man-made laws in general and secondly, to also question whether the actions of
these men, puts them at the same pedestal with the other murderers convicted in
the past under this statute (for example a man raping and killing a five year
old girl).
State of civil
society v. state of nature: All laws
that exist in society are based upon the assumption that man’s coexistence is
possible in the first place, that a society can function as a collective
comprising of individuals that can live and function in a state of civil
society. However when this very co-existence comes in scrutiny, like in this
case where co-existence would have implied a sure death of all explorers, the
law cannot possible apply, for it is the state of nature. State of nature is to
put simply where the law of nature, i.e. survival above all prevails and ought
to prevail as well for the sake of justice.
Even in this situation, the cave explorers were literally cut off from
the world and were out on their own, without any hope of surviving unless they did
the needful. Even maritime laws allow for complete acquittal of crewmen aboard
a ship, in case they commit murder of one of their own if that one person
becomes mentally unstable and consequently a danger to the lives of the
remaining crewmen. In such cases can our statues really judge them? Clearly not.
Man made laws v.
natural laws: One cannot turn a blind eye to the Purpose for which all laws
exist. Clearly the aim of this statute couldn’t have been to pass a blanket
judgement even if it came at the cost of delivering injustice. Positive or
man-made laws are only a subset of natural laws, laws that play a larger role
in situations such as this, for the purpose of these laws is safeguarding the
lives and interests of people, but if their existence or non-existence plays no
part in fulfilling that purpose, then the natural law, self preservation, is
the only course of action to take. It seems highly unfair that these people be
dragged and judged under this statute, given their only folly was to ensure
they somehow survive. (cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex- when
the reason for the law ceases, the law itself ceases).
Lawlessness v. Circumstantial law: Even if, we were
to reject the argument above and consider this solely under the periphery of
man- made laws, then we cannot ignore that all laws aren’t universally applied,
in fact they differ significantly in some cases even giving two polar opposite
results for the same case. This arrangement is made in order to modify and
mould the laws according to the society, people, tradition and most importantly
circumstances prevalent. For eg, religious tolerance is given greater levy in
India than France, in order to facilitate “general circumstances-friendly”
justice delivery. How can we rigidly apply this very statute in this case,
instead of moulding it according to this unique situation? The proposition
isn’t pro-lawlessness but instead pro circumstantially evolved laws.
***The state
ceases to hold jurisdiction over this situation by virtue of its failure to
uphold the social contract within the context. Given that inside the cave, the
five men had access to no state machinery or mechanism that would enable them
to access their rights or any form of justice, they are thereby suspended in a
state of nature whereby the sole vehicle of justice is natural law which is
discussed and explained above. This can be interpreted either as the state
devolving the duty and right to fend for oneself in a situation where the state
is incapable of fulfilling its role as in the case of self-defence or as a
situation where the existence of the state has become a redundancy within the
context, thereby necessitating its replacement by another mechanism to fulfil the
purposes of ensuring the individuals’ survival.
2.
ASSESSING THE VALUE
OF LIFE
If it was proper that these ten
lives should be sacrificed to save the lives of five imprisoned explorers, why
then are we told it was wrong for these explorers to carry out an arrangement
which would save four lives at the cost of one? Every highway, every tunnel,
every building we project involves a risk to human life. Taking these projects
in the aggregate, we can calculate with some precision how many deaths the
construction of them will require; statisticians can tell you the average cost
in human lives of a thousand miles of a four-lane concrete highway. Yet we
deliberately and knowingly incur and pay this cost on the assumption that the
values obtained for those who survive outweigh the loss. If these things can be
said of a society functioning above ground in a normal and ordinary manner,
what shall we say of the supposed absolute value of a human life in the
desperate situation in which these defendants and their companion Whetmore
found themselves?
3. EXTENTION
OF RIGHT TO SELF DEFENCE
The principle of self-defence,
which is an exception to this statute in New Garth applies to this case as
well. Is it not true that had Whetmore been let be, these five explorers
present here today wouldn’t have been alive at all. One of the major components
of murder is also mala fide intent, which is clearly lacking in this case.
Countries go to wars and justify it by tagging it pre-emptive strike for self
defence, then why is that liberty being denied to these explorers?
ARGUMENTS
AGAINST:
1. ABSOLUTE VALUE OF LIFE
Eg. Of government
not taking organs of a living man for utilitarian purposes.
2. SLIPPERY SLOPE
The gist of above arguments may be
stated in the following terms: No statute, whatever its language, should be
applied in a way that contradicts its purpose. One of the purposes of any
criminal statute is to deter. The application of the statute making it a crime
to kill another to the peculiar facts of this case would contradict this
purpose, for it is impossible to believe that the contents of the criminal code
could operate in a deterrent manner on men faced with the alternative of life
or death. The reasoning by which this exception is read into the statute is the
same as that which is applied in order to provide the excuse of self-defence.
This is Commonwealth v. Valjean.
Though the case is somewhat obscurely reported, it appears that the defendant
was indicted for the larceny of a loaf of bread, and offered as a defence that
he was in a condition approaching starvation. The court refused to accept this defence.
If hunger cannot justify the theft of wholesome and natural food, how can it
justify the killing and eating of a man? Again, if we look at the thing in
terms of deterrence, is it likely that a man will starve to death to avoid a
jail sentence for the theft of a loaf of bread?
*** Under Construction
*** Under Construction
*For the complete case: The case of the speluncean explorers.
THINKTANK:
VARIATIONS IN FACTS
Decide the case under one of the what-if
scenarios given below.




-THE BANDIT ADVOCATE -
Comments