Should brooks have been charged with a crime for eating the


Question: 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 20th 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. The 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 of murder? Explain.

b. Should Brooks have been charged with a crime for eating the boy's flesh? Explain. See The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queen's Bench Division 273 (1884).

Request for Solution File

Ask an Expert for Answer!!
Business Law and Ethics: Should brooks have been charged with a crime for eating the
Reference No:- TGS02711818

Expected delivery within 24 Hours