In rendering judgement in the case of the Speluncean Explorers, a divided Supreme Court of Newgarth

upheld the ruling of the lower court sentencing the defendant-explorers to death by hanging for killing
Roger Whetmore. Such affirmation on itself is disturbing as the judgement is passed upon by mere
technicality for failing to reach the needed votes for acquittal.

As I course through the reasoning of the Justices, I find myself sympathizing with Justice Tatting with
respect to the emotional and intellectual clash that the case brought before the court. I agree with him in
claiming that “If no other charge suited to the facts of this case could be brought against the defendants,
it would have been wiser, I think, not to have indicted them at all. Unfortunately, however, the men have
been indicted and tried, and we have therefore been drawn into this unfortunate affair.”

While Justice Tatting’s position is laudable in some respect, he himself admitted that he is “struck by the
absurdity of directing that these men be put to death when their lives have been saved at the cost of the
lives of ten heroic workmen.” The withdrawal of Justice Tatting resulted to, in my opinion, another
absurdity in the ultimate result – the affirmation of the death sentence.

On the meat of the discussion presented by the Justices in relation to the merits of the case, I am more
inclined to side with Justice Handy. Our laws have evolved through the interpretation of the courts of
justice by filtering out the truth, purpose, and reason of the law in its application in novel cases.

I am one with Justice Handy in pointing out that there are three ways on to escape punishment “These
are: (1) a decision by the Prosecutor not to ask for an indictment; (2) an acquittal by the jury; (3) a pardon
or commutation of sentence by the executive.” Observe that these options are generally heavily dictated
by the people as pardon and indictment are both within the powers of the executive who are elected by
the people at large. The acquittal by jury could have been easily secured were it not for the ambitious jury
foreman who allowed the jury to “dodge its usual responsibilities.”

In interpreting the provision allegedly violated by the defendants, I see merit in both Justice Handy and
Justice Foster’s argument that the purpose of the law should be taken in to consideration and harsh
positivist approach will only lead to a great divide.

If we would interpret "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death." in the
light that it admits no exception as the Chief Justice views it, shouldn’t we also indict the executioner with
murder since he will “willfully” take the lives of the defendants in this case as his acts leading to the
hanging are pre-meditated?.

Justice Foster points out that “The statute before us for interpretation has never been applied literally.
Centuries ago, it was established that a killing in self-defense is excused. There is nothing in the wording
of the statute that suggests this exception. Various attempts have been made to reconcile the legal
treatment of self-defense with the words of the statute, but in my opinion, these are all merely ingenious
sophistries. The truth is that the exception in favor of self-defense cannot be reconciled with the words
of the statute, but only with its purpose.”

However, in my view, the purpose of the law should not be decided solely by justices sitting in the courts
but by the sovereign people who gave the power to the legislative to enact penal laws. By considering the
pulse of the masses, we can therefore know the purpose of the law thereby debunking Justice Tattings
argument on its supposed perplexity.

For these reasons, I am for the acquittal of the defendants.