For those of you doing jurisprudence next year, you will most probably be doing the case of the speluncean explorers.there is a link below to the entire story, complete with facts of the case and judgments. It would be prudent of you to read through and see if you making sense of this.Jurisprudence is a thinking course so take your time.Share and ask questions.
In the remote north eastern region of Russia known as Yakutia investigators believe the two surviving members of a group of 4 friends ate at least one of their friends. The article can be read here.
The story is pretty basic, four men left on a fishing trip and managed to get lost in the wilderness. The two survivors were found 250km from where they were originally fishing…but with out the other two. One corpse was later found not far from where our two survivors are found. The other missing person is still missing or dead.
This puts these two guys in a spelucean explorer situation. You can read Lon Fullers spelucean explorers story here
It makes for a compelling read and a real moral and legal dilemma, do you choose to eat the the weakest link? Do you draw straws? Do you do it at all? Is it still murder when you yourself are starving to death and have no other means to survive? at what point then does it become legal/illegal? these are just some of the questions i asked myself when having to analyse the judgments and facts of the case.
I wish for all fellow law students or anyone else to forward a possible solution, i have been through this countless times and dont see a clear cut solution. It would seem that morals and laws should be intertwined yet separate at certain points….but when and why? what are the rules?
It would seem that common sense and experience should win the day depending on the facts of each case.
whats you view?