Facts

R v Dudley and Stephens, a well-known case involving the prohibited act of cannibalism, raises the
contentious subject of whether necessity can be used as a defence. The case demonstrates how the
beastly part of human nature is aroused when faced with helplessness and the threat of death. The
issue is that four men from the Mignonette, an English ship, are caught in a storm and are stranded
in a boat thousands of miles from land, without enough food or water. They are left with nothing but
the huge sea and no sight of shore once their meagre food runs out.

Dudley and Stephens, as well as Brooks and Parker (the victim), were stranded at sea for weeks
without food or water. After twenty days, Dudley and Stephens recommended a sacrifice of one
individual to save the others. Brooks dissents, while Dudley and Stephens agree that Parker should
be killed because he is the weakest and youngest. The two guys killed Parker on July 25th, seeing no
rescue in sight, and the three men feasted on his body. They were rescued four days later by a ship,
and Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder.

ISSUES

Whether necessity can be claimed as a defence for murder, and can it make the act permissible?

Held

It is, without a doubt, murder. Stephens and Dudley were sentenced the death penalty.

Both men were tried in Falmouth first, then released on bail, before facing a judge, Baron
Huddleston, and a jury in Exeter in November. The jury returned a special verdict at the judge's
request, laying out the facts and leaving it up to the court to decide whether the men were guilty of
murder.

It was agreed to take the case to the Queen's Bench Division in London, which consisted of five
judges. They were found to be murderers. They were originally sentenced to death, but their
sentence was eventually commuted to life in prison. It was decided that necessity is not an excuse
for committing a crime.

Larceny, let alone murder, is not justified by the need to eat. Stephens and Dudley chose the
weakest and youngest to kill because he was no more needed than any of the other grown men.
Although Stephens and Dudley were tempted to murder Parker, and temptation is not an excuse for
murder. Their sad circumstances do not make the legal definition of murder any more lenient.
Analysis

First, we must consider how to compare the worth of one's life to that of another. The fact that
Richard Parker was picked to be slain, shows that his life was deemed less valuable than the lives of
the others, because Richard was an orphan with no family to care for. Even if killing one person was
necessary to survive, it is immoral or unjust to kill the weakest and most unresisting. If this pattern of
choosing on the weakest people continues until the rescue arrives, then everyone is justified in
murdering and thus will be not guilty of murder.

The second, and most essential, question is whether murder is acceptable when someone wears a
coat of necessity. The justification for homicide is self-defence. However, there was evident murder
in this instance because the temptation to which the defendants succumbed was not what the law
refers to as "necessity." To justify homicide, necessity must be unavoidable. Furthermore,
"necessity" should apply to everyone, not only the youngster because he was in a difficult situation.

Even if the circumstances looked to warrant sacrificing one's life to save the lives of others, this does
not excuse murder. The fact that Dudley and Stephens chose the weakest individual to be the victim
does not rule out the possibility of Parker's survival. Instead, by killing him, it is only making certain
that he had no chance of survival.

Synopsis of Rule of Law

Killing an innocent life to save one’s own does not justify murder even if it under extreme necessity
of hunger.