I thought I would get some discussion of Dudley and Stephens going, because I feel a little conflicted about certain issues that the case and Simpson piece bring up and would like to hear what other people think. The major issue for me is that I feel torn between feeling that the act of killing Parker is absolutely not morally justifiable (and let’s assume that the men did not draw straws) and also feeling that I would have done the same thing, and thinking that the defendants should absolutely not be punished for the death. Are these two feelings irreconcilable? I’m not really sure. I suppose (and this is suggested in Simpson’s writing) that there could be some middle ground in which they are found guilty, and thus stamped with moral disapproval (and rightly so), but are not punished. If they are punished, what exactly would be the purpose? They behaved in a not absolutely morally justifiable way, I don’t think, because they (“they” being Dudley and Stephens, who it seems by most accounts were the two who were party to the murder, even though only Dudley did the physical act) chose to end an innocent person’s life for the sake of their own (which, I believe, as a general proposition, is immoral behavior). They did not draw straws and the victim did not consent to giving up his life for theirs. I do not think that there is any way that this behavior can be deemed morally justifiable. That said, I also feel that I can’t blame them for what they did either- they killed someone who was likely going to die anyway, to save three people. I can’t say that I wouldn’t have done the same, and I find it to be, if not innocent, at least excusable and sympathetic. I remember reading this case in the beginning of crim, and the court, in convicting the defendants, noted that there are circumstances in which a crime is committed in which we cannot say that we would not have acted the same way, but conviction was necessary anyway. This strikes me as illogical and hypocritical on the one hand (how can we hold someone culpable when he behaved “reasonably” and in a way we ourselves would have acted?) but it also makes sense on the other (regardless of if we would have acted similarly wrongly, their actions are still, in a moral sense, wrong). I suppose this makes me wonder if their actions were really wrong at all? I don’t think it’s right to take a life to save your own, so I suppose I’m in the camp that it was a wrongful act- yet an understandable one. The court, in finding Dudley and Stephens guilty, sentenced them to a death (which, luckily, they never met)- but is even sending them to this sentence (without absolute certainty that it would not occur) undue punishment? Are they truly morally reprehensible figures to the extent that they owe some kind of retributive desert? I don’t think so. Are they going to be violent people who need to be locked up (or killed)? Again, I don’t think so. I think the only justification that could support a conviction and punishment is that it upholds some kind of moral underpinning or generally accepted societal/cultural belief in what is right and wrong and somehow legitimizes the law itself. But even if this is so, and if this justifies some kind of judicial stamp of disapproval, how can it justify punishment? While ultimately they weren’t sentenced to death, I think this raises an interesting issue- how can we punish people for doing things when we believe that we would have acted the same way, or forgive the wrongdoing as excusable?

This is really a rough start to get the ball rolling- I'd like to hear what others think, and think some discussion around this topic might help me (and maybe others) figure out my own thoughts or organize/clarify the issues and help me think about some important criminal law questions.

-- JessicaHallett - 22 Mar 2010