On July, 5, 1884, four sailors were cast away from their ship in a storm 1,600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope. Their lifeboat contained neither water nor much food. On the e20th day of their ordeal, Dudley and Stevens, without the assistance or agreement of Brooks, cut the throat of the fourth sailor, a 17 or 18 year old boy. They had not eaten since day 12. Water had been available only occasionally. At the time of the death, the men were probably about 1,000 miles from land. Prior to his death, the boy was lying helplessly in the bottom of the boat. Three surviving sailors ate the boy's remains for four days, at which point they were rescued by a passing boat, they were in a seriously weakened condition.
a. Were Dudley and Stevens guilty or murder? Explain
b. Should Brooks have been charged with a crime for eating the boy's flesh?
a. This was based on the case of Regina v. Dudley & Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC. The defense argued here was the defense of necessity, however, such a defense is only used in tort law and furthermore, it is only used for defense of tort to property. ...