Your Honour, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

Tonight the affirmative group’s

argument rests upon the peculiarity on the issue of whether or not the defendants should
be convicted. Life is the most precious thing one could ever have in this entire world. It is
for this very reason the law seeks to uphold and promote the people’s welfare. But what
if the existence of life is confronted with a dire situation whereby your only option is to
survive. Can the law be lenient in its application even when the act of killing is a crime
provided that the right to life cannot be impaired? Without further ado, your Honour, we
believe that IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE DEFENDANTS TO BE CONVICTED GUILTY
OF VIOLATING SEC 12-A N.C.S.A OF THE LAW OF NEWGARTH. For this reason
executive clemency should not be extended to them. This is expounded by the following
two points:

First, the Law of Newgarth should be construed accordingly to the rule of statutory
construction of Verba Legis. SEC 12-A of the Consolidated Statutes of Newgarth, N.C.S.A
(N.S.), provides: “Whoever shall willfully take another life shall be punished by death.”
Verbal Legis as we know it means to construe the ordinary and literal meaning of a statute
when the law is clear and free of ambiguity in such a way that there will be no room left
for exception nor interpretation but only its application. Arguments no matter how much
its weight especially if the conditions have been met cannot prevail against the provision
of the law as the law itself have explicitly provided the word “shall” and it is mandatory in
nature. The word ‘willful’ was described by Justice Kozinski as “the killing was not a
result of accident or negligence.” In the words of Chief Justice Truepenny, although he
has shown sympathy toward the survivors, he admittingly said “The statute permits of no
exception applicable to this case”. Correspondingly, in the opinion of Professor Wun he
said, “Suffice it to say that if the statute does allow for exception, ‘necessity’ is not one of
them.” His answer as to why will be explained on the second point. With careful reading
on the statute one can simply translate it in layman’s term that killing another person is
inexcusable in the face of wilful taking of the life of another. Like the case of Regina v
Dudley and Stephens, the defendants therein due to the storm were cast away on the
high seas and starved as they remained afloat on the ship thousands of miles away from
the shore. The defendants chose to kill the victim without his knowledge and consent and
fed on his flesh for their own survival. The Court on that case have indicted and convicted
them of murder and sentenced them to death as it held “no proof of any such necessity
as could justify the prisoners in killing the boy, and that they were guilty of murder”. In the
case-at-bar, the defendants also were faced with similar situation having been trapped
and starved inside the cave for several days and that they have undergone deliberation
and casting of votes where the victim Roger Whetmore ended up being killed and eaten
by his four companions notwithstanding the fact that according to them it was his idea
and his reluctance to not be included when it was time for them to cast their votes. The
Court in this case should likely decide to indict and convict of the crime committed and
impose upon them the penalty of death. What then does necessity as self-defense
constitute? This leads us to the second point.

Second, The Principle of Necessity is not a form of self-defense. Does the life of
the four outweigh the life of one? Self-defense in cases of killing another person can only
be justified when there is a greater harm perceived to befall a person such that there’s no
other means other than what was done to repel or prevent it. In the present case, death
was the greater harm the defendants were hoping to repel or prevent. Indeed, desperate
times call for desperate measures as there were no resources available for them to
consume to prolong their life while awaiting rescue, we can conclude that it is because of
this necessity that drove them to kill the victim. However, in the opinion of Professor Wun
[p468] he said, “But such a conclusion does not mean we should give them a privilege to
act ‘out of necessity’ to harm or kill someone.” He even mentioned that in the case of
Commonwealth v Valjean, the harshness of the result is dictated by the need to deter
others from exploiting such an “excuse” [pg473]. If in the larceny of bread the defendant
was indicted to prevent similar cases that may arise in the future how much more in the
present case when it is a life-for-life case as the taking of one life is the purpose of
obtaining nutriment. As he argued that ‘necessity’ is not of the exceptions since it is a life-
for-life and not property-for-life. Even in the opinion of Professor Thri having disagreed
with his colleague’s analysis that it is a property-for-life as the corpse of the victim
becomes merely a property after the killing he said “they took a life, and they profited from
it; technically they violated the statute.” With all the facts of the case presented, the
affirmative group confers that necessity cannot be invoked as self-defense in justifying
the killing of the deceased Roger Whetmore.

Executive Clemency is a power vested upon the discretion of the President.

However, vested powers are subject to limitation in terms of its application most especially
in this case where it cannot be denied that there actually exists the wilful taking of another
life regardless of whatever compelling circumstances the defendants must have during
the commission of the crime. Hence, the only remedy made available to the four
defendants is none other than the punishment of death. That would be all your Honour.

P.S. Only the victim could have known what truly transpired inside the four corners of that
dark and lonely cave. Whether it was true that he sacrificed his life for the benefit of the
others or was forcibly made to sacrifice his life remains a mystery. What strength does he
have against the other four persons even in the absence of agreement or consent? What
say you? (Don’t mind this part -_-)