Problem:
Three men and a boy were shipwrecked in a small boat 1500 km at sea in the South Atlantic. What little food they had was exhausted within a few days. For the next six days they had no food whatever and subsisted only on rainwater. All three men were married, with young families. Two of the men suggested that if no relief came someone should be sacrificed to save the rest. The third man dissented and the boy was not consulted. A day later, the two men suggested to the third that they should cast lots to determine who should be put to death to save the rest, but the third refused to consent. The proposal was not put to the boy, who at that time was very much weakened and was lying helpless in the bottom of the boat. The three men spoke of their families and suggested that it would be better to kill the boy so that their lives could be saved. The first man proposed that if there was no vessel in sight by the next morning, the boy should be killed. On the following day, the two men offered a prayer for forgiveness, and proceeded to kill the boy with a knife. The three men fed upon the boy's body for four days until they were picked up by a passing ship. The first two men were charged with murder while the third was not charged with any offence. Would you acquit or convict the two accused? Why or why not. Please argue both sides.
Additional Information:
This question belongs to the Law as well as it discusses regarding a case where three men and boy are the only survivors of shipwreck and 2 out of the 3 men decide to kill boy to survive upon his remains. The arguments for and against this case have been given in solution in detail.
Total Word Limit: 559 Words