FREE ESSAY ON SPELUCIAN EXPLORERS

SPELUCIAN EXPLORERS

BRIEF OF THE CASE
Speluncean Explorers v. Court of General Instances of the
County of Stowfield (4300)
Supreme Court of Newgarth
Summary of the Key Facts
A. Five members of the Speluncean Society went into a cave to explore. While they were in
the cave a landslide occurred covering the entrance and trapping them in.
B. Twenty days later after the entrapment messages were sent from the explorers to a
rescue team outside of the cave.
C. The explorers explained their conditions and rations to doctors and asked if they
would be able to survive until the predicted date they would be saved. The doctors said
no.
D. Eight hours later, Roger Whetmore speaking on behalf of the explorers, asked if they
could survive if they ate one of their own. The doctors said yes.
E. Whetmore than asked the doctors if it would be advisable to cast lots to determine who
should be eaten. The doctors didn't answer. He then asked if any judge, official,
minister, or priest was present none of the rescuers said they were.
F. On the twenty third day Whetmore was eaten.
G. Whetmore was the explorer who came up with the idea of killing someone in order for
the others to survive.
H. Whetmore also came up with the idea of rolling dice to decide who would be killed
I. After the rescue of the four remaining explorers on the thirty second day the
survivors were indicted for the murder of Roger Whetmore.
The Issue
Is being trapped in a cave with little chance to live an exception to the statute N.C.S.A
(N.S.)12-A?
The Holding
No. The Supreme Court sentenced the four survivors to death for the murder of Roger
Whetmore.
Summary of Courts Reasoning
The Supreme Court was evenly divided so the original conviction of murder from the Court
of General Instances was affirmed.
Law and morality most definitely share a relationship. Lon L. Fuller, the author of The
Case of the Speluncean Explorers, distinguishes this connection between the morality of
duty and the morality of aspiration, both of which bear on the design and operation of
social institutions. Well in this case, the social institution happens to be the Supreme
court of Newgarth in the year 4300. A group of four members of the Speluncean Society,
which was an organization for amateurs interested in the exploration of caves, are
appealing there sentence handed to them from the Court of General Instances of the county
of Stowfield. A panel of five justices presided over the case, and after extensive
hearings, each justice reached a unique judgement.
The events that took place in the case are a bit extraordinary. Roger Whitmore and the
four defendants, also members of the society, penetrated the interior of a limestone
cavern. While they journeyed further into the cave, a landslide occurred, and jammed the
only means of entrance and exit for the cave. As the men realized they were in a serious
situation, they set camp near the boulders that set them apart from the world to wait on
a rescue party. The task to remove the boulders proved to be a difficult one for the
rescuers, and days went by without success. On the thirty second day, success was finally
achieved, but only four members of the society had survived this tragedy. The explorers
carried into the cave only scant provisions, so the need for food was great in order to
survive. The life of one of the explorers was taken by the others to use as nourishment
for the remaining survivors. The testimony heard in the first case, declared that the
life of Roger Whetmore had been taken, but it was he who initially proposed the killing
of one explorer to feed the remaining. Whetmore proposed the rolling of dice to declare
the victim. The dice toss went against Whetmore, so he was put to death and eaten by his
companions. This is where the courts enter this bizarre case. After the survivors were
treated and released from a stay in the hospital, they were indicted for the murder of
Roger Whetmore. A trial found the defendants guilty of murder and sentenced them to be
hanged. The defendants wanted the case to be sent to a higher court and it was heard
before a panel of five justices.
This is where the philosophy of jurisprudence enters the case. Were the men out of line
by committing murder to prolong their lives? According to the laws of the Commonwealth,
yes. The language of this situation is well known, Whoever shall willfully take the life
of another, shall be punished by death. But if you take the natural law point of view,
which is when a situation arises in which the coexistence of men becomes impossible, then
a condition that underlies all of our precedents and statues has ceased to exist.
(Foster, pp.620). This means that the men in the cave were in such a predicament, that
all common law known to man ceases to exist, and the men are bounded by no known
jurisprudence. The law now rests solely in their hands. The five justices take different
views on the philosophy of jurisprudence.
Justice Truepenny, C.J. admires the decision made by the jury and trial judge. He feels
they complied with the only course that was open to them under the law. Statue N.C.S.A.
(n.c.) Sec. 12-A, The willful taking of another mans life must be punishable by death
permits no exception to this case and our personal sympathies must not overshadow the
strength of this statute. Truepennny feels though as if executive clemency seems suitable
for a case like this. Some sort of pardon or forgiveness should be sent out to the
defendants. If this is done, then some sort of justice will be accomplished without
impairing the soul of our statutes and without offering any encouragement for the
disregard of law.
Justice Foster, J. does not see it as Truepenny does. Foster believes something more is
on trial than the fate of these men. That is the law of our Commonwealth. The law should
not compel that these explorers are murderers. He believes it declares them to be
innocent of any crime at all resting on two independent grounds. One is the
inapplicability of the positive law of this Commonwealth including all its statutes and
precedents. The case should be handled in the manner of what ancient writers in Europe
and America call  the law of nature. This means when man is in so far over his head that
coexistence becomes impossible, the force of positive law should disappear. Exactly as in
this situation where the taking of one life was able to prolong others, the basic
premises underlying our entire legal order must lose their meaning and force.
Jurisdiction rests on a territorial basis. These men were pretty much living in their own
private and secluded world unattainable by any outsiders The law of nature entitles these
men to make their own laws and jurisdictions within the confines of their cave. So the
life of Roger Whetmore was taken in a state of civil society,but rather in a state of
nature. Foster has no difficulty stating that under these principles, the explorers were
guiltless of any crime. What these men did was done on pursuance of an agreement accepted
by all and first proposed by Whetmore himself. Their extraordinary predicament left them
no choice but to leave the usual principles that regulate men's relations and form some
sort of government related to the situation at hand.
Foster's second ground proceeds by rejecting his entire exposition of the first ground.
For purposes of argument, Foster states he is wrong in saying that the situation these
men found themselves in removes them from the effects of our positive law. It is assumed
that the Consolidated Statutes have the power to penetrate five hundred feet of solid
rock. These men without a doubt violated the statute that states he who shall willfully
take the life of another is a murder. An example of taking statutes literal word for word
is in Commonwealth v. Staymore. The defendant here had his vehicle parked in a two hour
parking zone, but due to a political demonstration, was unable to remove his car within
the two hour limit. His conviction was set aside by the court, although his case fell
squarely within the wording of the statute. Statutes are never taken literal. The statute
that holds the fate of the explorers has never been applied literally. Take for example
killing in self defense. The statute mentions nothing about this exception, yet murderers
for centuries have been set free by this plea. The statute at hand was not intended to
apply to self defense cases. A man threatening the life of another would naturally repel
the threatened man. The same reasoning is applicable to the case at hand. If a group of
men ever find themselves in a predicament such as explorers, you can be sure decisions on
whether to live or die will not be controlled by the contents of our law. Therefore, the
statute in question does not at all apply to the case at hand such as the self defense
plea. Foster's conclusions is that the defendants are innocent of the murder of Whetmore,
and the conviction should be set aside.
Justice Tatting finds himself letting his own emotions get the better of him when viewing
this case. He finds himself torn between sympathy for the explorers and disgust in the
brutal act they committed. Tatting finds Justice Foster's opinions on the case shot
through contradictions and fallacies. Tatting is confused in Foster's point that the men
were not in a state of civil society, but rather in a state of nature. When exactly did
this transition from civil to nature take place? That is the question that baffles
Tatting and it is an uncertainty that produces a lot of difficulties. Tatting uses an
example that what if a man in the cave had his twenty first birthday. Is he twenty-one at
the exact time of his birthday, or does the new character of government not make him
twenty-one? Justice Foster and Tatting are appointed judges of a court of the
Commonwealth of Newgarth, sworn and empowered to uphold the laws of that Commonwealth.
Entering a court of nature, what kind of empowerment does a justice hold now? If the
explorers were under a court of nature, what gives the justice's power to enforce.
Nothing at all. We are in a state of positivistic law, not in a state of nature. Another
implication embarked by Foster that Justice Tatting cannot find tolerable is the actual
murder of Whetmore and the fashion in which it took place, by their bargain. Suppose
Whetmore had a handgun and blasted his companions before they attacked him. Whetmore
would naturally be made out the murderer, since the excuse of self defense would have to
be denied to him. You cannot attempt to kill the man who releases the gas in the gas
chamber and call it self defense. The natural law in the cave called for the death of
Whetmore, and the death of him must be upheld. All the considerations brought forth by
Foster make it hard for Tatting to reach a conclusion.
Tatting has a hard time coping with Foster's second opinion which states no statue
whatever its language, should be applied in a way that contradicts its purpose. In
Commonwealth v. Valjean, the defendant was indicted for the larceny of a loaf of bread.
His defense was that he was starving to death and needed that bread to survive. The court
refused to except the defense. If hunger cannot justify the theft of wholesome and tasty
food, how could it justify the killing and eating of a man. Foster's view would have
caused the court to overrule Commonwealth v. Valjean, by reading between the lines of
that particular statute that forbids theft. Tatting concludes Foster's arguments are
intellectually unsound. Yet, he finds it absurd to direct these men to death when the
cost of ten workmen's lives were lost in rescuing the explorers. The confused Tatting
declared his withdrawal from the decision in this case.
Justice Keen would empower executive Clemency to the defendants if the conviction is
affirmed. But that is a question for the Chief Executive, not for the courts to decide.
Due to all the ordeals that explorers have been through and all they have suffered, he
felt they have already paid for their crime, if there was at all a crime that was
committed. The sole question that lies before the panel is whether the defendants did,
within the meaning of statute N.C.S.A.secl2-A, willfully take the life of Roger Whetmore.
Obviously, in every sense of that statute, the defendants are guilty. This is where all
the difficulties of the case take action. All these difficulties trace back to a single
source, and that source is the failure to distinguish the legal from the moral aspect of
this case. Truepenny, Foster, and Tatting do not like the fact that evidence against the
defendants proves them guilty. But unlike them, Keen puts his personal feelings aside and
takes the liberty to uphold the law of his Commonwealth. It is the responsibility of the
judiciary to enforce faithfully the written law, and to interpret the law in accordance
with its plain meaning without reference to our personal desires or our individual
conceptions of justice. The process of judicial reform requires three steps:
1) Divine some single purpose which the statute serve
2) Discover that a mythical being called the legislature, in the 
pursuit of this imagined purpose, over looked something or 
left some gap or imperfection in his work.
3) To fill in the blank thus created, Quod erat faciendum.
This case is a model for all models in cases that illustrate the gap-filling process. If
we do not know the purpose of Sec. 12-A, how can we possibly say there is a gap in it.
Only the draftsmen of that statute actually know the true' meaning of murder. Keen's
decision is a hard decision and that type is never a popular one. Keen concludes that the
conviction should be affirmed.
Justice Handy is the fifth and final justice to preside over this case. Handy is amazed
at his colleague's ability to throw an obscuring curtain of legalisms about every issue
presented to them for decision. Handy's only disappointment was that his fellow Justices
failed to arise the issue of the legal nature of the bargain struck in the cave. Whether
it was unilateral or bilateral, and whether Whetmore could not be considered as having
revoked an offer prior to the murder.
Handy takes the point of view that government is a human affair, and men are ruled by
other men, not words on paper or abstract theories. Of all the branches of government,
the judiciary is the most likely to touch with the common man. The public tends to keep a
tie between the law and man. A newspaper held a poll that said  what do you think the
Supreme Court should do with the Speluncean Explorers? Ninety percent of those who
reported back expressed the belief that the defendants should be pardoned.
Handy's concluding remark has to do with executive Clemency. Due to the Chief Executives
aging years, he feels he is incapable of handing these men pardons. He holds very stiff
notions. The public clamor will not uphold with him for it actually has a reverse affect.
So in return, Justice Handy finds the defendants innocent of the crime charged, and that
the conviction and sentence should be set aside.
The Supreme Court, being evenly divided, the conviction of the court of General Instances
is affirmed. Each defendant is ordered to be hanged around the neck until death. 
In conclusion, I feel this case if it was real would of been very interesting to see
unfold. In today's society I think that the defendants would have been pardon for the
crime they committed. If they were not pardoned I do not think execution would have been
an option. This case was very interesting to read. You can look at what happened as
murder or survival of the fittest. There are so many different opinions and ways you can
look at what happen. If you believe that precedents and statues are what need to be
followed with no exceptions, then yes the four defendants should be found guilty and
sentenced to death. If you think that under the circumstances the actions that were taken
for the four to survive were reasonable, then yes they should be pardoned. If I was in
the cave I don't think I would of just raffled my life away. It is hard for me to even
think of eating a dead body, so it is even harder for me to think of what I would of done
if I was in that situation. As I am sitting in front of the computer typing this paper in
a climate controlled room, with dinner consumed less than two hours ago I would have to
say that what I would of done is not kill or raffle for some ones death. What I would
suggest is no one gets killed, but the first one to die is eaten. This is the only
logical decision I can think of. Why should anyone sacrifice their life for me. It's not
like one persons life is more important than the other. If I was the judge on this case I
would have found them guilty of murder, but sentence them to two years of therapy, and
not death or prison time. I would sentence them to therapy because if you eat a dead
person I pretty sure your going to have some kind of psychological problems.