Chisom v. RoemerTani Cantil-Sakauye: a Filipina-American jurist, is the 28th Chief Justice of California. Nominated by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for California's highest judicial office on July 22, 2010, and retained in office by California voters on November 2, 2010, she was sworn in on January 3, 2011. Prior to her current appointment, Cantil-Sakauye had served in judicial offices on California's appellate and trial courts.POSC 130g 1st EditionExam 1 Study GuideDudley Stephens Casefrom 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 turtleOn the 8th day, Richard Parker had a sip of the waterDudley 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 necessityState concluded that murder is murderOne must not kill ones shipmates in order to eat them, no matter how hungry they might beLegal precedent, starry decisive, judges have to follow past decisionsidea of law of homicide, related to necessityGenerated much debate since its time, shows peculiarities with legal reasoning, authority on the defense of necessityDudley 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 killedProsecution: no greater necessity to kill the boy over the other men, why the boyDefense: 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 perishDudley and Stephens were sentenced to death; Brooks went free and was given immunityForces people to question basic decisions on killing and survivalIt 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 togo forward with the case, it was impossible to stop it once it was set forwardCommunity: 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 sentenceWhen 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 precedentFirst, 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 othersMatter of procedure and precedent, what if they did draw straws and Dudley chose the smalleststraw 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 menWould having a procedure or lottery have made a difference?Would there be tension between the public idea of justice and the legal system? The case illustrates the differences between law and justicedoctrine of necessityIt set the tone on the troubled issue of whether the defence of "necessity" should be available in circumstances where life was taken in order to preserve another's life.Court: life is a supreme value, right to life is importantWilliam v. Walker Thomas Furniture CompanyWhen to the United States courts of Appeal from the District of ColombiaDecision made by Judge Shelly RightSummary: Furniture company to recover on certain contracts; Williams had bought a number ofitems and was paying on installments. When she made a payment, the amount was divided up amongst all the items she purchased. The furniture company, Walker Thomas, continued to owneverything until all the payments were made. If the payments were failed to be made, the company could repossess an item.