The Facts: Ozzie and three other men were set adrift in a lifeboat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean after a violent storm sank their ship. Despite their situation, the men were hopeful their ship would be missed in port in a couple of days, so search and rescue teams were expected to be combing the sea. The lifeboat the men were in was in good condition. If there were no more storms with large waves, the lifeboat should be seaworthy indefinitely. Supplies were a problem, as the violent waves of the storm had washed the supplies of food and water out of the lifeboat. The men were too busy hanging on tightly to avoid being swept away themselves to hold on to the provisions in the lifeboat. The men had no fresh water, and had to catch rainwater in their hats. Unfortunately it did not rain every day. There was no food on board the lifeboat. So the men had to try to catch fish, turtles, and sea birds, which was easier said than done, as they did not have proper fishing gear on board. One of the men was thoughtful enough to have grabbed a walkie-talkie off the ship before he climbed into the lifeboat. Though the walkie-talkie was not as powerful in terms of broadcasting range as the ship s radio, it could transmit their calls for help over a number of miles. The men succeeded in establishing contact with search and rescue personnel on two occasions. On the first occasion, they described their physical condition to a medical doctor who was a member of the rescue team. It was clear to the doctor that the four men, who had no food and limited fresh water, would likely survive no more than a week in an open lifeboat in the heat and humidity of the vast Pacific Ocean in the middle of summer. The coordinator in charge of the rescue operations following the huge storm was frustrated as he had many ships and sailors to search for over a vast area, with limited resources. The chances of finding Ozzie and the other men diminished with each day that passed. It would only be a matter of luck if they were spotted and rescued. In the second radio conversation with rescuers, the men asked for advice. Speaking on behalf of all four men, Ozzie asked the doctor what their chances were if they ate the flesh of one of their group. The doctor reluctantly confirmed that they could survive for several weeks if they received any type of food. Ozzie asked to speak with a police officer who was aboard the search helicopter. Ozzie asked his legal advice on drawing lots to sacrifice one of the four men to ensure the survival of the other three. The police officer, sensing the urgency of the situation and the desperation of the men, said that he could not offer them advice on what to do, but reassured the men that the search for them was continuing. No further messages were received from the men and it was assumed that the radio had malfunctioned. Four weeks after their ship sank, three men from the lifeboat were rescued by a passing freighter that spotted the boat by chance. The doctor on board the ship that rescued them noted that all three men were in terrible physical condition due to exposure and lack of food and water. He noted that all three would have died in a day or two without food and water. Asked how they survived that long, all three men admitted that they had killed Ozzie and eaten him approximately a week before the freighter rescued them.
They explained that it was Ozzie who had initiated the idea of drawing lots and that he had convinced the rest of them to go along with the plan. At first, in a group interview, they praised Ozzie as a hero, saying he sacrificed himself in order to save the others. However, in separate interviews they admitted that the plan did not go smoothly. At the last minute, Ozzie decided to withdraw from the arrangement. However, since they had become convinced that it was their only hope, and driven by hunger, thirst, and their desperation to survive, they insisted that Ozzie be held to his word. The separate interviews of all three men confirmed that Ozzie refused to draw his lot, so one of the others drew for him. They asked him if he thought the process was fair and he said that it was, although he did not want to be part of it. Unfortunately for Ozzie, the draw went against him. While in a semi-delirious state due to hunger and dehydration, the three men killed Ozzie. They consumed his body over several days. The Issue: The law of the land states that "anyone who wilfully kills another is guilty of murder and shall be executed". Accordingly, the three men are charged with the murder of Ozzie and, if convicted, are subject to the death penalty. Your Task: Seven judges of the Supreme Court are assigned to hear the case. You are the seventh judge. 1. Carefully read the facts regarding this case. 2. Carefully read the judgments of the six judges assigned to the case. 3. Analyze the decisions of the six judges and assign each a philosophical label. Justify your decision with specific evidence. There is no repetition: the judges are ruling from six different philosophical viewpoints. 4. Make direct quotes of specific words or phrases that informed you about each judge s theoretical perspective. 5. Briefly evaluate the decision of each judge. Mention at least two strengths or weaknesses in the theoretical approach of each in rendering a decision in this case. 6. You are the seventh judge in the case. Write your verdict and your ratio decidendi (reasons for your decision). 7. When finished, look over your reasoning and assign yourself a philosophical label (which theory are you speaking from?). Explain why your decision fits in that school of thought. You may blend the various philosophies of law, create your own original philosophy which you must explain, or simply rule according to a single established philosophy. 8. In your final product you must clearly organize your answers with titles, labels, and explanations for each judge. 9. Evaluation is based on clarity of writing, thinking skills, application of legal philosophies and principles, and legal knowledge. (See the assignment rubric for specifics.)
Legal Theories Assignment RUBRIC Categories Level 1 (50-59%) Level 2 (60-69%) Level 3 (70-79%) Level 4 (80-100%) Knowledge -distinction between opinions and arguments in sources sources with limited sources with some sources with sources with Thinking -evaluation of legal theories of law with limited of law with some of law with of law with Communication -expression of ideas, opinions, arguments, and conclusions -use of legal terminology limited limited some some Application -drawing conclusions based on analysis of information and awareness of diverse legal interpretations with limited with some with with Mark/Comments:
The Judges Decisions JUDGE #1: I have sympathy for the three men who are charged with this crime. Numerous character witnesses have testified that they are decent men. As much as I would personally wish that these men could return to their families and put this tragic event behind them, I cannot permit them to do so. I am not free to make the law. As a judge, I have sworn an oath to apply the law that the authorized legislators have enacted. The elected representatives have clearly determined that all those who wilfully take the life of another must be punished. It is not for me to secondguess whether they should have anticipated situations like the one that conf ronts us today. It is with great regret that I find the three men guilty of murder. By law, I am compelled to sentence them to be executed for their crime. JUDGE #2: While it is clear that the law forbids murder, it is not clear that this situation qualifies as murder. While I appreciate that a police officer who shoots a dangerous murderer is most probably justified in his action, I am less certain that these men were justified in their action. The man they killed posed no threat to them; he was an innocent party. It is not clear to me whether or not the law regards killing an innocent person to save your own life as justified killing. The seven of us sitting should not pass judgment in this case on the basis of what we think the law should be. In a democracy, that is for the people to decide, and we have ample evidence, based on public reactions to this event, to ascertain what these feelings are. Most people believe that these men deserve some punishment. After all, our society does not encourage killing or cannibalism. On the other hand, the vast majority of citizens are sympathetic to the plight of these men and their families. Thus, in the eyes of the public, it would be wrong either to convict these men of murder or to let them go completely free. In view of this, I find the men guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter and sentence them to a six-month prison term. JUDGE #3: In deciding what is the just resolution of this case, it is counterproductive to stick to the rules in situations in which the reason for following rules is best served by breaking a rule. The rules of precedent simply do not apply to this unusual, extreme survival situation. Laws are written by governments to regulate behaviour in civil society. No such society existed on board that lifeboat. Governments and legislative lawmakers really do not have situations like this in mind when creating our laws. Their laws are not specific enough to deal with unusual situations like this. Applying a vague law to this situation, which it clearly was not intended to regulate, would lead to injustice. Thus, because laws and precedents do not apply in this situation, it is left up to me to decide on the fate of these men. I feel that the men were restrained in their actions; they waited as long as possible given the specifics of their situation. This was their last resort. Moreover, the survival instinct of humans is strong it overrules our other thoughts. Logic and morality may have become purely philosophical items as hunger and thirst took their toll on the men s bodies and minds. Acting out of necessity created by the adverse conditions thrust upon them by bad luck, these three men, isolated, alone, with virtually no hope of aid or rescue, acted out of true desperation. The law does not apply to this rare and unfortunate situation. I find them not guilty.
JUDGE #4: While, strictly speaking, the law forbids all deliberate killing, the law should not be interpreted literally. If it were, any police officer who used deadly force in the line of duty would be technically guilty of murder. It would even mean that we would be guilty of murder since, if we sentence these men to death, we are wilfully causing their death. Obviously, the legislators cannot have intended that these types of situations be regarded as murder. It should be obvious that the point of our laws against killing is to prevent unjustified killing. Killing someone because you don't like them is unjustified. The actions of these three men, while unfortunate, do not qualify as murder within the intended meaning of the law. I find them not guilty. JUDGE #5: The protection of human life is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the state. While we may sympathize with the men charged with murder under these most unfortunate and unusual circumstances, we must not take lightly the message that our decision will send out to others. We must resolve this case considering the consequences that will likely follow from our decision. The death of one man is not the issue; our decision cannot bring back his life. The importance of our decision is the message it sends to society. The real issue is the lives of other men and women that may be lost if, by allowing these three men to go free, we inadvertently encourage others who might kill an innocent person. The situation is so unusual that I cannot imagine that letting these men go free will encourage others to kill. Its only effect will be in rare, similar situations where the choice is between the lives of all or the life of one. The consequences of our decisions are clear. For this reason, I find the three men not guilty. JUDGE #6: The issues raised by this case are very complex. As can be seen from the opinions offered by my fellow judges, each has a different explanation as to what should be done. It appears to me that we cannot pretend that there is a satisfactory legal resolution to this situation. Nor should we see our ruling as one of calm, detached neutrality. The details of this case are far too emotionally disturbing they evoke natural feelings of pity, sympathy, and sorrow. The law and penalty, as written, are far too rigid. The law was not written for the circumstances these men faced. While I can find little reason in law for deciding that these men did not wilfully kill another person, I cannot bring myself to sentence these men to death, for I understand what motivated their action. It would be wrong, as a matter of personal conscience, to do so. To presume that in such an emotional, heart-wrenching situation that a judge can remain objective and neutral is ridiculous. This unusual case is a prime example of why we need not follow the law exactly as it is written. This case hinges on what we value. As a judge in this case it is my values and choices that will define what is right and wrong in such an unusual situation as this. While I value the sanctity of human life, I am that much more reluctant to take it. According to the law, these men committed murder, and because of that the state should take their lives. I cannot live with that, as that would be an even greater injustice. I believe that the rare and special circumstances of this case do not warrant the death penalty. I find the men guilty of murder, but I sentence them to time they served on the lifeboat. The four weeks the men suffered on that lifeboat is a harsh enough penalty.