The case of Speluncean Explorers

By James Matthew Pranav Vernekar Prasant Singh Pratish Thali Siddarth Patel 2010015 2010032 2010033 2010035 2010047

Case Overview This is a legale case where the four surviving Speluncean explorers were charged with the murder of Roger Whetmore. The explorers had been trapped in a limestone cave by a collapse of rock. On the 23rd day, the dice throw went against Whetmore and he was put to death and eaten by the rest of the party. After the rescue, the four survivors were indicted for the murder of Whetmore. In the case, the jury asked the court for a special verdict i.e. that the court determine guilt or innocence. Various views points Chief Justice He stated that the court should rely upon the Executive to mitigate the rigors of the law. If clemency is exercised justice will be accomplished without impairing either the letter or spirit of the statutes. He thus affirmed the original decision, but left it up to the Executive to resolve the dilemma. Foster J He feels that when the life was ended the defendants were not in a state of civil society but in state if nature . We feel that is a fair argument. It was an attempt save their own life and in desperation that they ended his life. We agree with Justice Foster in presenting the argument that the Law of the Commonwealth is at stake if we try to textually apply the law in this case. It is under these circumstances we can push the textual argument aside, and look towards prudence as a form of influence upon the decision. This is quite a creative judgment, but one gets the feeling that Foster made his decision and is scrabbling about for reasons to justify it. Keen J: He feels that it is not the function of the judiciary to give instructions to the executive. The judiciary is not concerned with morality. The sole question is whether the explorers willfully took the life of Whetmore within the meaning of the section. He states that the legislative branch of government is supreme; therefore judiciary must give effect to that law and not concern itself with issues of morality. However we feel that court should take morality into consideration. That is the reason why we have humans to give the judgment and not computers so that they can exercise their discretion.. Handy J. He notes that public opinion is about 90% in favour of the men being released. The court doesn t operate in a vaccuum, but must take account of its role in human affairs. Concludes that the defendants are innocent. He is very eager for it to be seen as a common sense approach. We feel that this is the best approach. A judge should use his common sense and discretion. It is good to bring in some feeling while giving a judgment.

the act of legislative society has many purposes and each judge may interpret its purpose in the light of what s/he thinks is important. It is also there to provide an orderly outlet for retribution. it is also to for rehabilitation of the wrongdoer and he cites precedents for this. But here. He also looks at the issue of charging the defendants with the appropriate crime. is best as it brings in some amount of feelings. Our view: We feel that the judgment by Handy J. He argues that it is simplistic to state that we must just apply the statute in light of its purpose. That is why we have huma to ns give a judgement and not computers. noting that deterrence is not the only purpose of the statute. It is also the commonsense approach. . As stated before it is important for a judge to use his discretion and common sense and not give judgment based only on the laws stated.Tatting J He rejected arguments regarding the law of nature and also rejects the interpretation of the statute.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful