VIPS TC

VSLLS
The Queen v. RV Dudley and Stephens (Morality)

Submission for PSDA

Submitted by-
Name: Suhavi Saluja
Rank: 2328
Class Serial No.: 42
Section: 1-A

Submitted to-
Dr. Nipun Gupta Jain
Assistant Professor
VSLLS, VIPS-TC
 The Queen v. RV Dudley and Stephens
Facts
Both the defendant, Mr. Brooks, and the plaintiff, Mr. Parker, were seafarers from England. The gang was
forced to board an open boat without food or water after being abandoned in a storm on rough seas. After the
group had endured for seven days with no food and five days sans hydration, the defendants approached Mr.
Brooks about killing the poor victim Mr. Parker in order to spare the others. The victim was unconsulted, and
Mr. Brooks voiced his disagreement. Mr. Dudley advised that they murder the victim the next day if no ship
was sighted. The following day, no vessel was seen, so Mr. Dudley assassinated the victim with Mr. Stephens'
acquiescence. Following four days, the three castaways continued to devour Mr. Parker, the deceased, before
being salvaged by a nearby ship.

Questions Raised
Whether the defense of necessity could be used to justify killing and whether it can legitimize the wrongdoing?
Can murdering the youngster to defend oneself in this circumstance be regarded as an act of self-defense?

Observation of the court

The panel concluded that an accusation of murder had no defense of necessity: neither on the foundation of
previous legal precedent nor on the grounds of ethics and morals. In principle, it is a responsibility to protect
one's life, yet giving one's life for another may be the clearest and noblest obligation. In many situations during
a war, a man must choose death over life. the responsibility of a captain toward his crew in the event of a
shipwreck, of the crew toward the passengers, and of troops toward women and children, as in the admirable
instance of the Birkenhead. If the idea were to be upheld, the justices also queried who was entitled to decide
who really should live and who ought to perish. They said that such a notion may operate as the "legal cloak for
atrocious crime and unbridled passion." It should not be assumed that by not accepting enticement as a
justification for crime, one has disregarded how horrible the desire was, how terrible the pain, and how difficult
it was to maintain moral judgement and behavior under such difficulties. We are frequently forced to establish
expectations that we cannot meet and norms that we are unable to uphold. Although he may have given in to
temptation himself, a man has no right to use this as an explanation, nor can he let sympathy for the offender
diminish or amend the definition of the offence in any way. Despite a plea for leniency, Dudley and Stephens
received the mandatory death sentence.

Ratio
Killing of someone is not a permissible act under necessity for survival.

Case Analysis
First, we have to consider how to compare the worth of each person's life to the lives of others. Given that
Richard Parker was an orphan with no family to take care of, the simple fact that he was picked to be slain
implies that his existence was seen as less essential than the lives of the others. Even if it were necessary to kill
one person in order to live, killing the most helpless and unarmed one is just unethical or unfair. Everybody
would be vindicated in murdering, and so not committing murder, if this pattern of preying on the most
vulnerable persisted until the relief arrived.
The second aspect of the case is the use of self-defense. According to the law, a person can only be justifiable in
killing another person's life if they were defending themselves against the person whose life was taken.
However, in this instance, this rule does not apply because Parker's illness did not constitute a hazard to the
guys. As a result, the guy cannot plead the excuse of self-defense because there was no explicit or implicit
incitement by the non-resisting youngster that may have prompted the men to engage in such a violent manner.
Furthermore, self-defense, which also includes the defense of others, is suitably open-ended to permit the use of
violence in a preventive manner, so long as the person using it feels that doing so is essential and the application
of force is realistically justifiable in in the context. This issue is very different because Parker was not involved
at any stage.
Third, by murdering the kid, which was an evil act in and of itself, the defendants unquestionably robbed him of
any possibility of surviving. If the guys were to be saved the next day, killing the youngster would have been an
"unprofitable" act.
The fourth and most crucial point is: Is murder acceptable when someone puts on the cloak of necessity?
Simply said, necessity is using to prevent oneself from engaging in an illegal conduct by employing violence
that is acceptable, justifiable, and required. The desire that the accused gave in in this case, nevertheless, was
not what law refers to as "necessity," hence there was clearly murder. To justify killing, necessity must be
unavoidable. Furthermore, the idea of "necessity" ought to apply to everyone, not only the youngster since of
his disability.

Conclusion

The court erred in correctly defining reason and excuse. While the contemporary approach describes the defense
of need as a justification, it falls short of capturing the type of justification it is. The classical view views the
defense of necessity as a potent excuse. If the defendant used necessity as an explanation, they would be found
guilty but not punished. Making excuses out of need would progressively undermine the system, allowing
individuals to overestimate the threat they are facing and succumb rapidly to temptation. Furthermore, need only
serves to justify the conduct in terms of morality; it does not guarantee that it is the wisest course of action to take
given the circumstances. Second, the victim's credibility is weakened by the interference with his or her goals. It
is a nice legislation that was established by this case. By preventing individuals from using the law against others,
it helps to improve the judicial system. No crime can ever be justified by necessity. Morality is more than only
doing what is right; it is also a general regard for other people.