Introduction
This essay examines the legal and ethical complexities surrounding a hypothetical case of survival cannibalism at sea, where two defendants, D and S, killed a boy to sustain themselves after being cast adrift following a storm. The scenario raises profound questions about the defence of necessity in English criminal law, particularly in the context of murder. The essay aims to explore the applicability of necessity as a defence, analyse relevant case law, and evaluate the moral and legal implications of the defendants’ actions. By drawing on established legal principles and precedents, this discussion will consider whether the belief that killing was essential for survival can justify such an act under the law.
The Defence of Necessity in English Law
The defence of necessity in English criminal law is a contentious and narrowly applied principle. It arises when an individual commits an otherwise illegal act to prevent a greater harm, often under extreme circumstances. However, necessity is rarely accepted as a defence to murder. The landmark case of R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) is pivotal here. In this case, two shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive, arguing that their actions were necessary to avoid death by starvation. The court rejected this defence, ruling that necessity could not justify murder, as preserving one’s own life does not supersede another’s right to life (Ormerod, 2011). The judgment emphasised that legal principles must uphold moral standards, even in dire situations. Applying this to the current scenario, D and S’s belief that they would die without killing the boy aligns closely with the circumstances in Dudley and Stephens, suggesting that their defence of necessity is unlikely to succeed.
Belief in Imminent Death and Legal Justification
A key aspect of this case is the defendants’ belief that their survival depended on the boy’s death. While subjective belief in the necessity of an act can be relevant in other defences, such as self-defence, it holds little weight in cases of murder under the necessity doctrine. Indeed, the court in Dudley and Stephens dismissed the sailors’ desperation, prioritising the sanctity of life over individual survival instincts (Williams, 1983). Furthermore, the collusion between D and S to select the boy as the victim, rather than drawing lots as initially suggested, undermines any claim to fairness or impartiality in their decision-making. This premeditated act arguably aggravates their culpability, as it reflects a deliberate choice to value their lives over the boy’s.
Ethical Considerations and Legal Limits
Beyond legal precedent, the ethical implications of this case are profound. While one might sympathise with the defendants’ dire circumstances—adrift for twenty days without sustenance—the law does not typically allow for moral relativism in cases of murder. The principle that one life cannot be sacrificed for another, even under extreme duress, remains a cornerstone of English law. Moreover, allowing necessity as a defence in such cases could set a dangerous precedent, potentially justifying other acts of violence under claims of survival (Ashworth, 2009). Generally, the legal system seeks to balance compassion with accountability, but in this instance, the precedent suggests little room for leniency.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the case of D and S illustrates the severe limitations of the necessity defence in English criminal law, particularly in relation to murder. The precedent set by R v Dudley and Stephens clearly indicates that the defendants’ belief in the need to kill for survival does not provide a legal justification for their actions. Despite the harrowing circumstances, the sanctity of life remains paramount, and the law does not permit exceptions based on subjective desperation. This case thus underscores the tension between legal principles and human survival instincts, highlighting the need for strict boundaries even in the face of extreme adversity. The implications are significant, reinforcing that moral and legal standards must prevail, preventing the erosion of fundamental protections against unlawful killing.
References
- Ashworth, A. (2009) Principles of Criminal Law. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Ormerod, D. (2011) Smith and Hogan’s Criminal Law. 13th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Williams, G. (1983) Textbook of Criminal Law. 2nd ed. London: Stevens & Sons.
[Word count: 514, including references]
