1. Wednesday, January 12, 2011

1. Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - PHL271 - Wednesday,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PHL271 - Wednesday, January 12, 2011 The Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens - “necessity” was an “excuse” at the time - after they consumed the turtle they had 8 days with nothing to eat or fresh water to drink - Brookes did not consent - they did not discuss their plan with the cabin boy, and the cabin boy was in a defenseless state and did not consent to his death - the prisoners felt that they were trying to save their own lives for the sake of their family - if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy, they would not be alive in order to be rescued - in fact, the boy could have died before him so they did not need to kill him in order to eat him The Judgement - Does killing under the circumstances amount to murder? - you could only use the defense of necessity if you were being threatened Can they nevertheless use the defense of necessity? Is Lord Coleridge making new law or applying existing law? - he is sticking with traditional definition of necessity
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/18/2011 for the course PHL 271H1 taught by Professor Professormoreau during the Spring '11 term at University of Toronto- Toronto.

Page1 / 2

1. Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - PHL271 - Wednesday,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online