Bank Piece 3: Write up in full an answer to Criminal Law, Tutorial 2, Question 1 (essay on Dudley & Stevens)
(reproduced below)
Read the following scenario. Dudley and Stephens (1884-85) LR 14 QBD 273
The two defendants (Dudley and Stephens). with a thind man (who died before the trial) and
a 17-year-old bay (Richard). were cast away on the high seas in an open boat. (600 miles
from land. They drifted in the boat for 20 days. When they had been seven days without food
and five without water, and fearing they would all die soon without some sustenance, the
defendants killed the boy. who was likely to die first. The men ate his flesh and drank his blood
for four days. A passing vessel then found therm and the defendants were subsequently
charged with murder.
In your view, can criminal punishment be justified in the following case and, if so, how? In your
answer, keep in mind the following questions: On what basis are certain behaviours
criminalized? Who decides? Is saying that something that is "criminal' the same as saying it is
'immoral'? Is saying something is "legal' (not criminal) the same as saying it is 'moral'?