# Write your own opinion in the Speluncean Explorers case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/write-your-own-opinion-in-the-speluncean-explorers-case/303736 "2005-05-13T20:39:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/write-your-own-opinion-in-the-speluncean-explorers-case/303736/21 "2005-05-14T20:14:21Z")
> [@dotchan](#): > > Read further down. > > The justices were divided, so the conviction was upheld. The Spelunkers were executed. No, it just said that they were sentenced to death. I meant did they ever recieve executive pardon or not? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/write-your-own-opinion-in-the-speluncean-explorers-case/303736/22 "2005-05-14T20:59:15Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > “Unlawful” is an element of the crime itself, not an exception to it. It isn’t in the statute. Therefore, you would be reading it into the statute as an exception for lawful killing. > [@](#): > > Actually, I believe a few states may still have common law crimes. What’s certain is that many states have simply codified the common law definitions of various crimes, including murder. Perhaps I overstated the case before. Serves me right for repeating what my crim law professor said 13 years ago. OTOH, while it is clear that some states simply codified the common law definitions, some have used different definitions. Newgarth appears to fall into the latter category. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. The “lawful” element is there to distinguish between homicides that occur under color of law (e.g., executions and warfare) from those that occur outside the bounds of law. It is not merely an affirmative defense, such as self-defense. Got a cite for the reason for the “lawful” element? 😉 Do you see outside the bounds of law and under the color of law as exhausting the possibilities? If Newgarth had a statutory (or common law) necessity defense, and it was found to apply, would the killing be lawful? Under color of law? Within the bounds of the law? What does its status as an affirmative defense have to do with anything? That really just shifts the burdens of raising the defense and proving it to the defendant. How is that procedural change relevant? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2022, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/write-your-own-opinion-in-the-speluncean-explorers-case/303736/23 "2022-12-05T21:34:15Z")
Bumped because the original links no longer work and the case is as topical as ever, especially in light of current debates about on what basis the US Supreme Court ought to rule on many decisions. Open-source link to the full article anyone? > **[The Case of the Speluncean Explorers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_of_the_Speluncean_Explorers)** > > "The Case of the Speluncean Explorers" is an article by legal philosopher Lon L. Fuller first published in the Harvard Law Review in 1949. Largely taking the form of a fictional judgment, it presents a legal philosophy puzzle to the reader and five possible solutions in the form of judicial opinions that are attributed to judges sitting on the fictional "Supreme Court of Newgarth" in the year 4300.\[a\] > The case involves five explorers who are caved in following a landslide. They learn via intermi... ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2022, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/write-your-own-opinion-in-the-speluncean-explorers-case/303736/24 "2022-12-07T07:51:56Z")
Harvard Law Review’s copyright expires in 2044. They currently offer reprints of _The Case of the Speluncean Explorers_ for $10. > **[Order - Harvard Law Review](https://harvardlawreview.org/ordering/)** It’s also on JSTOR [https://doi.org/10.2307/1336025](https://doi.org/10.2307/1336025) ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/write-your-own-opinion-in-the-speluncean-explorers-case/303736.md?page=1)