The Speluncean Explorers

Photo by Bruno van der Kraan on Unsplash

Since I left law school, I've realized that most people view the law as beyond their understanding. Intimidating, even. This is mere perception. Most legal matters can be translated into forms that make them easy to understand.

So I want to share the first article I ever read in law school - The Case of the Speluncean Explorers by Lon L. Fuller. The wiki summary of this (28 page) article can be found here. 

The article was inspired by the infamous case of R vs Dudley and Stephens. Dudley and Stephens were shipwrecked along with two other men. When one of the other men - a cabin boy named Richard Parker - fell into a coma, he was killed and eaten by Dudley and Stephens. They were tried for murder after being rescued, found guilty, and sentenced to death.

Considering that Dudley and Stephens would have died if they hadn't done what they did, public opinion called for mercy. In the end, they got a sentence of imprisonment for six months.

Fuller imagines a similar scenario - five men who went exploring in a cave and became trapped inside. The men realize that they would die of starvation before the rescue team reached them. They drew lots to decide who should die and then killed and ate one person from their group.

The point of this article is to show the different kinds of judicial responses one can have. Five different responses were illustrated:

1. The first one is straightforward. The crime of murder was clearly committed. So the death sentence, the mandatory punishment for murder, should be given. It says the court has no choice in the matter but to apply the law in a straightforward fashion. But this view isn't unsympathetic. The court wants to give mercy, but that mercy doesn't fall within the court's job description. So it (wimps out and) requests the Presidential Pardon for the accused.
   
   
2. The second one is two-fold. The men were in "a state of nature" at the time of the crime, so the "laws of nature" had to apply to them, and not the laws of the state. Even if state law were to apply, a functional approach was needed. The judge concludes that the main function of the law is deterrence. So the exceptional nature of the case meant that it had no relevance as far as deterrence was concerned.
   
3. The third position vacillates. A lot. It is torn between horror at cannibalism and sympathy for the explorers. The law can't be put aside in favour of murder! Deterrence isn't the only function of the law, either. There's retribution. And rehabilitation. And then, Judge Flip Flop abstains, i.e. gives no judgment.
   
4. Mercy is anathema to the fourth judge. Morality isn't even taken into consideration. This judge personally feels that the explorers shouldn't be put to death. Buuuut, his obligation to apply and uphold the law is supreme. The explorers are sentenced to death.
   
5. The final position considers circumstances and public opinion. Because ignoring public opinion will result in loss of confidence in the judicial system. He uses the functional approach as the legal basis for his judgment and acquits them.