The law leaves no room for the idea of self defense where that the defendant

The law leaves no room for the idea of self defense

This preview shows page 2 - 3 out of 3 pages.

The law leaves no room for the idea of self-defense where that the defendant was faced with a choice of killing or be killed. This law states that in order to be innocent, you need to not kill that person or be killed.As an attorney for the defendants, what arguments could you make for acquittal?The claim I would make is insanity. In this event, it would be impossible to say that they ate him because he died of natural causes. They actively and intentionally killed a fellow sailor by slitting his jugular artery. The only way to get out of this would be to claim insanity as they were out at sea with no water or food which after some time, can cause hallucinations and irrational actions.As an attorney for the prosecution, what arguments could you make for their guilt?The sailors actively murdered their own shipmate. They reasoned that if they kill him before natural causes, they would still have the blood to drink. They did this action willfully and intentionally. It was quoted that Parker actively replied to theirmurder of him by saying “What me?”.What verdict do you and your legal partner feel is a fair one?I would sentence them to the claim of insanity with life in a mental institution. If medical doctors provide evidence that theywouldn t have been under severe hallucinations at the time, then I would charge them with murder in the first degree.ʻWould you give Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks equal sentences? Would you give them different sentences? Why?I would charge Dudley with capital murder because he did the act of slitting the jugular. For Brooks, I would charge with aiding and abetting which also means being an accomplice to a crime. I would let Stephen walk because he didn t have ʻany part in murdering parker.
Background image
Concluding thoughts:Is there a difference between morality and the law in this case? Why or why not?There is a difference because morality would kick in and say what else could they have done? Whereas the law states that all murder is bad. This is really up to the way the jury decides on what to appeal to: morality or lawfulness.
Background image

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 3 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • 1966, 1973, 1983, 1982

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture