POSC 130g 1st Edition Lecture 1 Current Lecture There is a difference between rights For example Civil and political rights vs Economic culture and racial rights Bread or freedom should people be able to eat or be free right duty of behalf of someone else to guarantee the right Civil and political rights can be costly too right to a jury trial right to a fair trial is expensive freedom of speech is inexpensive Ideal and real debate believe that people should have the right to freedom of speech but in reality the government may not guarantee that right practice vs reality law on the books vs law on action for example if someone wanted to advertise rifles in the newspaper the government would not allow that Relationship between Law and Justice What does justice mean what does it mean to treat people in a fair way Jurisprudents legal philosophy or legal theory legal positivism not relative and national law law and morality must overlap therefore an unjust law doesn t count as a law Must the law always be followed regardless if it is just or not Should there be absolute adherence to the laws Should we expect citizens to disobey the law if it is unjust Should we be law abiding citizens regardless of the justness of the law What is the role of consent If people did not give consent to the legal orders should they be required and held accountable for the laws Sometimes the law deviates between law and justice Case of the Minonet Case of the Queen v Dudley and Stephens Brief Summary from 1884 involved two sailors Captain Dudley and his mate were on a yacht called the Minonet The two men were sentenced to death for the murder of a mate 17 year old man named Richard Parker his first voyage Brooks a fourth man didn t participate in the lottery The two men were charged to murder and Brooks testified against them Facts set sail on July 4 in England and were cast away from the Cape of Good Hope they had to abandon the boat and go on a life boat didn t have water had turnips and a turtle On the 8th day Richard Parker had a sip of the water Dudley said to do the lottery Brooks went to sleep Dudley killed Parker and all of them ate Parker ate him for three days In Court Brooks testified for the prosecution Dudley and Stevens acted out in necessity State concluded that murder is murder One must not kill ones shipmates in order to eat them no matter how hungry they might be Legal precedent starry decisive judges have to follow past decisions idea of law of homicide related to necessity Generated much debate since its time shows peculiarities with legal reasoning authority on the defense of necessity Dudley and Stephens said that had they not eaten the boy they would have died of famine Carper Parker was weaker than them and he wasn t getting better There was no hope and they might not have been rescued There was no chance of saving life unless one of them is killed Prosecution no greater necessity to kill the boy over the other men why the boy Defense had dependence had family Parker Carper did not have family and dependence It was self preservation prompts every man to save his own life while another man may perish Dudley and Stephens were sentenced to death Brooks went free and was given immunity Forces people to question basic decisions on killing and survival It was not obvious that the case would have to be handled by the legal system the Home Secretary said that the men should be committed by the magistrate the legal system decided to go forward with the case it was impossible to stop it once it was set forward Community The public felt sorry for the men read a letter from Dudley to his wife when he thought he was going to die appeals fundraisers for the men Legal community was not so sympathetic lawyers didn t allow their emotions to get in the way of procedure thought the men would be convicted but not given a sentence When the case went to trial the judge manipulated the process took the case away from the jury because the public would be sympathetic the judge Baron Huddlestein handled the case to ensure the men would be convicted case went on appeal instead of precedent First the defense that the men were reduced to the circumstances that they were beyond the law at that certain state of nature necessity knows no law when people are lost at sea or in dire circumstances ethically beyond jurisdiction courts don t have power on a certain reign Secondly when men are in such circumstances their actions are not voluntarily they can t be held responsible because it is not deliberate Third it was more utilitarian greatest goods for the greatest number of people basic idea have a choice between two grim alternatives it is right to take any action even killing that will benefit the majority better that some rather all die That logic was used here but judges have difficulty how should the utilitarian theory decide which individual was best fit why not the Captain The last claim was the desperate circumstances are an excuse for immoral conduct but it was not justified They did that and they were right to do it though what they did was not moral it should be excused The judges withdrew and came back after a few decisions they had decided it and would give it another day Agreed with the lower court that the men should be convicted but the issue was what the sentence would be It was the first time that the death penalty had been announced for over a hundred years in the 1700s the first case was for treason Though the lawyers had once disagreed in favor of the men the lawyers petitioned for a pardoned yet public opinion shifted and started to move against them The two men only had six months in prison because the Home Secretary commuted the sentence no hard labor Even this was a surprise to the families the families used the family savings to pay for the defense In the aftermath Captain Dudley became an exhibit in Madam s Wax Museum Dudley s family moved to Australia and he died of the Bubonic plague If an exception is made in one case it must be made for others Matter of procedure and precedent what if they did draw straws and Dudley chose the smallest straw but they killed Parker would that matter Do moral principles apply to people when they are in these dire circumstances the courts believe that they are held responsible If law and justice are in conflict should the legal system would be punitive in punishing the men Court life is a supreme value right to life is important Would having a procedure