R. v. Dudley and Stephens (1884, England) The accused, Dudley and…

R. v. Dudley and Stephens (1884, England) The accused, Dudley and…

R. v. Dudley and Stephens

(1884, England)

The accused, Dudley and Stephens, along with Brooks and a 17-year-old boy, Parker, were shipwrecked some 2500 km from the Cape of Good Hope in an open boat, with no water and only two one-pound tins of turnips. On the fourth day they caught a turtle; then they had no food until the twentieth day. They managed to catch some rainwater in their oilskin caps.

On the eighteenth day, Dudley and Stephens spoke to Brooks about what should be done if no more food was obtained. They suggested that one of them should be sacrificed to save the rest. Brooks disagreed. Parker, the intended sacrifice to whom Dudley and Stephens were understood to refer, was not consulted. The accused said to Brooks that Parker was suffering the most, and that he alone had no family to return to.

On the twentieth day, Dudley told Parker that he had better go and have a sleep, and made signs to Stephens and Brooks that the boy should be killed. Stephens agreed, while Brooks dissented. Dudley offered a prayer, and with the assent of Stephens he went to Parker and put a knife into his throat, killing him. The three men then fed on the remains of the boy for four days, at which time they were picked up by a passing vessel. They were returned to England, where Dudley and Stephens were put on trial for murder.

The accused were found to have committed willful murder, since the facts were found to be no legal justification for murder. However, they were granted Royal Mercy by the Queen, and their death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The legal authorities took further action, and released Dudley and Stephens after six months’ imprisonment.

1. Should Stephens and Dudley have been accused of a wrong?
2. Should Brooks have been accused of a wrong?
3. Are there any circumstances when an exception should be made to a given law?
4. A similar incident occurred here in Canada. A plane crashed in the Arctic and one of the survivors resorted to eating the flesh of a victim of the crash. How does this situation differ from that of Dudley and Stephens? Should Dudley and Stephens have waited for one person to die before eating his remains?