Dudley & Stephens used the defence of necessity.
The court rejected it on the grounds that it was not more necessary to kill
the boy than one of the two men. I do agree with the ratio decidendi for their
decision but I think that considering the circumstances they should not get
too harsh a sentence.
Dudley & Stephens decided to kill the boy on the basis of his physical
weakness. Even under the circumstances it was not a just means of determining
who would die, even if it was the most efficient. If the men had drawn lots it
would probably have made a difference in the verdict because then the
selection would have been made on a purely random basis without arbitary
reasoning from the stronger individuals.
The judge felt that although law cannot be equated with morality, the law
should try to maintain a high moral conduct or soon it would have very little
to do with morality.
Dudley wanted to draw lots but in the end he decided to simply kill the
weakest person on board.
Stephens did not actually kill the boy but he allowed Dudley to do so.
The judge's decision was based largely upon the morality of taking the life
of another person. However this decision was easier for him to make because
his life was not in jeapordy.
Self defence is the only reason that I feel warrants the taking of
another's life.
