Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Louem G.

Garceniego

Cobblepot, J. As Justice Foster did not believe that the law


compels the monstrous conclusion that the defendants were
murderers, I too uphold his opinion on the cannibalism and murder of
Roger Whetmore, where the four accused must be acquitted. The
explorers were cut off from society, they returned to a state of nature
and society's laws did not apply to them. This stems from the
proposition that our law is predicated on the possibility of men's
coexistence in society. Our law functions to facilitate and improve
men's coexistence. On the contrary, he said it declares them to be
innocent of any crime. He rested this conclusion on two independent
grounds. The defendants are not guilty on both of these grounds
independently of each other.
The first of these grounds is that the enacted or positive law of this
Commonwealth, including all of its statutes and precedents, is
governed instead by what ancient writers in Europe
and America called "the law of nature." The laws of nature, according
to Thomas Hobbes, states every person has a natural right or liberty to
do anything one thinks necessary for preserving one's own life; and
life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Leviathan, Chapters
XIIIXIV). Hobbesian view describes this natural condition with the
Latin phrase bellum omnium contra omnes (meaning war of all against
all). Within the state of nature there is neither personal property nor
injustice since there is no law, except for certain natural precepts
discovered by reason ("laws of nature"): "that a man be willing, when
others are so too, as far north as for peace and defense of himself he
shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be
contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow
other men against himself".
When a situation arises in which the coexistence of men becomes
impossible, then a condition that underlies all of judicial precedents
and statutes has ceased to exist. When that condition disappears, then
the force of our positive law disappears with it. It is similar to a
situation in which a crime is committed outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the State. This has the consequences that the law
applicable to them is not the enacted and established law of this
commonwealth, but the law derived from those principles that were
appropriate to their condition. Applying this principle the defendants
were not guilty of any crime.
The other side of the Justices point on the case was the punishment
that curtailed the act of murder and cannibalism of the explorers, and
why the act must be forgiven. Aside from the fact that the laws, have
this supposed fictional power to penetrate five hundred feet of rock
and to impose themselves upon these starving men huddled in their

Louem G. Garceniego
underground prison which refers to its territorial and jurisdictional
application, there is this comparison of the power of the law, with the
act done by the explorers. If the law and its implementers and
promoters have this power to exact capital punishment, incarcerate,
and impose the law in their favor, then how much more the explorers
who only wanted nourishment and salvation from death and hunger?
If we applied their criminal statutes, the act of self - defense may be
inapplicable, but, the self preservation was somewhat justifiable.

The nature of self- defense was somewhat synonymized with the act
of self preservation, there it is also discussed whether self defense
is applicable in this instance. The mention of self defense requires
and aggressor and the victim, where they engage in an altercation, and
one defends himself by killing the other. In this instance, there are no
provocations or aggressors, and the killing was only a specific act of
preservation by which the four others exercised. The act of self
defense is inapplicable, but the self preservative act made it an act of
defense of oneself. Their decision to consume the flesh of one of their
number meant that four lives out of five were saved, and it would be
absurd now to sentence the survivors to death.

In conclusion, when we consider a case which has taken place a mile


beyond territorial limits of a state; no one would pretend that the law
of the state would be applicable to the case. This means that law is not
absolute, and that the positive law is predicated on the possibility of
men's coexistence in society. When a situation arises in which the
coexistence of men becomes impossible, then a condition that
underlies all of our precedents and statutes ceases to exist. When that
condition disappears that the force of our positive law disappears with
it, then the law of nature works. As for the matter regarding self
defense, it is to be read, not on the context of the penal statute, but on
its purpose as a statute. Again, I, with the fair mercy of justice and
equity, I still stand for the acquittal of the four accused.