Drawing lots. Legal under these circumstances.

[Fiveyearlurker]

I’m reading Nathanial Philbrick’s book In the Heart of the Sea. (very good book, as an aside)

It’s a telling of the sinking of the Nantucket whaleship Essex in 1821. Basically, these guys are at sea, in several small whaleships (glorified sailboats), after their main ship is sank by a whale deep in the Pacific Ocean. They run out of water and food, and will not have enough food to reach the western shores of South America, as they plan.

They eventually decide to draw lots to see who will be killed and eaten. They also draw lots to see who will do the killing. This is a decision that is agreed upon by all, and is carried out.

My question is, would this be punishable as a murder? Does the fact that it happened well out to sea, and outside of national boundries matter?

[Q.N.Jones]

I just read it too. Love the book. I loved Moby Dick too, which is why I picked this up.

The federal courts of the United States have jurisdiction over murders that happen “on the high seas” to a U.S. citizen, or in a U.S. vessel.

[Q.N.Jones]

Duh, I only answered half of your question.

Yes, it’s murder. Under the law, that the victim assents is not a defense to a charge of murder.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Ok, so then for a second question: if it is, by the letter of the law, murder, would the extenuating circumstances be taken into account? Would they actually be prosecuted if this happened today?

[Diceman]

From what I’ve heard, situations like this were not unheard of in the olden days of sailing, and the courts were usually pretty understanding about it. That would be a pretty desperate situation for the sailors involved, after all. If something like that happened today, I’m sure that the killers’ lawyers would plead temporary insanity and/or diminished capacity at the time of the killing.

[Northern_Piper]

Exactly these facts were tried in a real case in England a century ago: R. v. Dudley & Stevens, (1884) 14 QBD 273. Four sailors survived a shipwreck: Dudley, Stevens, a sick cabin boy named Parker, and a fourth sailor whose name escapes me. After about 10 days, Dudley and Stevens, reasoning that Parker was on the way out anyway, killed him. The fourth sailor was opposed to the killing. All three then survived on the corpse until being rescued.

Dudley and Stevens were tried for murder and ultimately convicted. The courts refused to accept their plea of necessity as a defence to murder, a decision which is still good law in most Commonwealth jurisdictions.

I can’t find an on-line link to the case itself, but plenty of sites discuss it, if you google “dudley stevens cabin boy.”

In my first year criminal law class, we took Dudley & Stevens for six weeks. It wasn’t until late October that I briefed my second criminal law case. :rolleyes:

[Campion]

@Northern Piper

In my first year criminal law class, we took Dudley & Stevens for six weeks. It wasn’t until late October that I briefed my second criminal law case. :rolleyes:

We only spent a week on Dudley & Stephens (we spent a lot more time on rape and blackmail). But, yes, the same facts were posited in that case as the OP.

By Lord Coleridge
But nevertheless this is clear, that the prisoners put to death a weak and unoffending boy upon the chance of preserving their own lives by feeding upon his flesh and blood after he was killed, and with the certainty of depriving him of any possible chance of survival. The verdict finds in terms that “if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived,” and that “the boy being in a much weaker condition was likely to have died before them.” They might possibly have been picked up next day by a passing ship; they might possibly not have been picked up at all; in either case it is obvious that the killing of the boy would have been an unnecessary and profitless act.

And therein lies the problem: when they kill the boy to eat him, they deprive him of any chance of survival – before they know whether they will be rescued.

Point is that it’s still murder, even if it “saves” your life.

[LiveOnAPlane]

I heard somewhere, maybe it was here even, that if someone was, say, clinging to a floating log after a shipwreck and someone else pushed the poor guy off it and took it for themselves, leaving the original possessor to drown, that this would not be considered murder.

Am I misremembering this or is it another Urban Legend?