Fall Term Legal Studies Assignment,
Assignment for Law 51.100V,
Group #3,
Question number 1.
These tragic cases of drowning can not be remedied by law. But law does have a view on these cases. In case one, Jack stays on the plank and does not help Jill and she drowns. Jack can argue that he did not murder Jill because it was necessary for him to live and survive. He could not swim and thus needed the plank.
Judge Lord Coleridge would have looked at his authorities and seen that necessity was a good defence in this case. He could have relied on Bacon who had written on the case of a plank in terms of necessity. He would have found that authority fit the case more than R. v. Dudley and Stephens and would have ruled against a guilty of murder verdict.
But perhaps he would have seen the fact that, Jack was a man and Jill a women, and in looking at policy of those days and to some extent now, it can be seen that men have a duty to sacrifice themselves for those weaker. Judge Lord Coleridge did, in fact, have some consideration of duty in R. v. Dudley and Stephens. This was the reason he thought their actions and decision(that of the sailors Dudley and Stephens) were wrong and should be punished. Even if we never go to sea we are aware that a captain has a duty to sacrifice his life for the passengers and crew. Then extending this to our first case we have too few facts other than gender to allow a finding of wrong doing. Beyond Jack's duty as a man there is no other indication that he had a duty to save Jill.
So Jack lived and did not murder Jill. And we can say that this is a good policy and that we want people to live through disasters. That one survivor is better than none at all in my opinion. We don't want to say that they should both drown because this would set a bad policy. Judge Lord Coleridge realised this when he looked at necessity and his authorities. He knew he could not set a dangerous precedence for cannibalism or survival through murder. He wanted to send another message in his judgment.
I think, judge Lord Coleridge too would find this case tragic but he would not have found Jack guilty of murder. Neither Jack's duty, nor the policy or precedence set by a not guilty verdict would have swayed the judges decision or perhaps that of a jury. Judge Lord Coleridge would have had the view that Jack was not obligated to save Jill's life.
