MAXIMILLIAN, J.

: 1850143
They say the purest of hearts are made of gold, but even
the purest of golds can be dissolved in the most
overwhelming of situations.

When the death of one would serve as a beacon of hope for

the survival of the rest, the questions to be asked are:
Is the conscience of man still intact that he could make a
willful decision in a time when self-preservation is the most
hierarchical of his needs? Does he willfully take the life of
another when that very same life is impliedly being offered?
And why did it have to be Roger Whetmore, and not any of
the other four survivors?

It is to be remembered that Whetmore came up with the

plan to determine who was to be eaten. He was unfortunate
however, as the die was cast against him. It is of no matter
if he initially did not want to proceed, for when one of the
defendants rolled a die in his place, all he did was accede.
Unbeknownst to him, his orchestration of this survivability
plan would set the stage for his or possibly any of the other
survivor’s deaths.

Does this justify however his being subject to cannibalism? I

believe it is not. Whetmore nevertheless freely consented to
the rolling thus making the act not a willful taking of his life,
for it would have been an implication that he offered it for
the survival of the rest. Even granting arguendo that he did
not actually offer his life freely and resisted the advances
made by his fellow explorers, it wouldn’t still constitute a
willful taking of his life. For these men would have been
blinded by uncontrolled feelings caused by the shattering of
that illusion that is the security of survival. Further
augmented by their current situation, where the most prime
desire is that to survive. The actions that they would make
are clothed with that of the natural instinct to survive,
making these actions not their own but one that emanates
from nature.

For when one is shoved in a situation where his only option

is survival, is he really capable of making a conscious and
deliberate decision? When in order to survive his only choice
is to result to cannibalistic means, would it be logical to
assume that he is moved by his will? I stand for the acquittal
of the defendants.