PRACTICABILITY

INTERPOLATION (2MINS)

Counsel, do you agree that the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic
matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction and continual change preceding death.-
is life? Yes or no?

No? Do you not agree that animals and plants have lives? No? I urge you to retake elementary
biology then.

Yes? Have you eaten a chicken? Pig? Cow? Yes or no?

No? cite any animal

Yes? Do you agree that the butcher had the intent to kill the animal you ate for economic trade
and food supply?

No? So all the killing was in self-defense? Or probably an accident? A numerous repetitive and
industrious accident?

Yes? Do you not agree that the butcher should not be sentenced to death penalty for the intent
to take the life of another specifically the animal you ate as stated by the statue N.S 12 A? Yes
or no?

So you agree then that the statute is not absolute but should be interpreted with the intent of the
framers which is only applicable to human lives even if it was not stated by the words of the
law?

In another scenario, where the circumstances are exactly the same, but this time, 99% or let’s
say 99millon of the state’s population was in the position of the 4 defenders, would you put to
death 99 million just to uphold the literal meaning of the law?

Yes? Counsel I urge you to consult a psychiatrist, that is a form of genocide, one of the worst if
not the worst crime against humanity.

No? So you agree then that the statute is not absolute but should be interpreted with the intent
of the framers which is only applicable to human lives even if it was not stated by the words of
the law? And that it is not practical to kill 99 million people just to uphold the literal meaning of
an ambiguous law.

REBUTTAL

The affirmative allege that ____

We refute this allegation for__ reasons, first

SPEECH

Your honor, ladies and gentlemen, good day. It has already been established that the statute
“Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death,” is not an absolute
law and gives room for construction as provided by numerous exemptions such as self-
defense, counter-terrorism, and the general police power of the state. (even the Prosecution
agreed with this during our cross examination )

 In Fehler v. Neegas this court refused to accept a literal interpretation of a statute since if it did,
it would give rise to an absurd application of the law. These among many other exemptions
clearly negate the opinion of the affirmative that the statute provides no room for construction.

There is a need to be technical in this case, as it is not only the lives of the 4 defendants that
will be on the line, but the lives of all others who shall encounter similar unfortunate
circumstances as the defendants here today.

The statute as enacted is not absolute, but is broad enough to encompass the general
application of the law, while giving room for mitigating circumstances. In Commonwealth v.
Parry the court justified an exception on the assumption that the purpose of criminal legislation
is to deter.

Which leads me to the issue of practicability; it is an application of practicability on the part of

the legislature to create laws in this design, since if it were to enact absolute laws, it would
need an absurd amount of statutes to cover every circumstance, and the job of the judiciary,
would then cease to have meaning.

10 brave rescuers, more than 800,000 Frelars and an uproar of 90% of our own people in
favor of the acquittal of the defendants that stand here today, who, never had an evil intent to
kill, but only an intent to survive. These are the costs and manifestation of what our people
heed, which is–equitable justice.  The Negative side, firmly asserts the impracticality of
hanging these unfortunate men, under these circumstances. The state has already acquired a
considerable amount of loss both in Frelars and workforce.

Common sense dictates that, instead of killing off more of our own people, we should instead
employ them to deter further deaths, giving a sentence that would not only be economically
practical and beneficial, but  necessary in recuperating the state's losses.

Thus, we the Negative side; urge this court to apply not only practical wisdom and common
sense, but the judgment of the people. As Justice Handy emphatically stated; “the
government is a human affair, and that men are ruled not by words on paper, or by abstract
theories, but by other men. They are ruled well, when their rulers understand the feelings and
conceptions of the masses. They are ruled badly, when that understanding is lacking.”

AFFIRMATIVE QUESTIONS:
Argument: The spelunkers remained entirely under the jurisdiction of the law of Newgarth
(state of civil society). They were not under the “state of nature”. Thus, laws still apply to them.
Their only separation from the society was by a "a solid curtain of rock". They were even able to
formulate a systematic plan with the dice to determine who would be eaten, thus, they were
exhibiting rationality. Also there is this possibility that after the rescue where the obstruction
(rocks) is already cleared, they would rejoin the larger society.
Response: Given that inside the cave, the five men had access to no state machinery or
mechanism that would enable them to access their rights or any form of justice, they are thereby
suspended in a state of nature.
Response: The cave explorers were literally cut off from the world and were out on their own,
without any hope of surviving unless they did the needful. No official of our government even
tried to answer the spelunkers’ question. We would have a very different case if an official had
offered advice that the men followed but that the members of this Court found contrary to the
actual dictates of our law, or if an official had given correct advice but the spelunkers had not
followed it. Since there was no attempt, the spelunkers had a just reason to turn from
Newgarthian (positive, enacted) law to laws of their own creation inside the cave and
throwing the men onto their own resources for coping with their situation.
Response: Even maritime laws allow for complete acquittal of crewmen aboard a ship, in case
they commit murder of one of their own if that one person becomes mentally unstable and
consequently a danger to the lives of the remaining crewmen.

Argument: "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death". This is
clear and not susceptible to any other interpretations nor exceptions. 
Response: If we sentence these defendants to death, are we not willfully killing them also?
Then, what would be the difference between killing Whetmore and killing these defendants by
execution.
Argument: Killing by execution is legal.
Response: We cannot just state that it is the law so everyone must abide when clearly even our
laws are unclear. Even the justices go beyond the meaning of the law and not relying on its
plain meaning. 
Argument: But when justices go beyond the plain meaning of the law, it is only when there is
ambiguity or doubt in the language of the law. In this case, the law is clear. The maxim of dura
lex sed lex should be upheld.
Response: The Dura Lex Sed Lex Principle cannot be applied in this case because it is
absurd. What is the point of keeping a stable and constant law when it is unjust? We should
apply equity in this case because the principle or legal maxim cannot be applicable in this
certain case and that equity is much more suitable in this scenario. Equity follows the law,
meaning the judges should take into consideration the circumstances that have transpired in the
case as well as the chain of events this is that could have another point of view whether they
should really apply the law to the explorers or not this is to avoid the compromise of applying
equity and justice.

Argument: There is a necessity to live and survive but no sufficient case of necessity to kill.
It is clear that the physician stated that there is little possibility to survive; “ little” does not
immediately imply the impossibility of survival- it is therefore, not absolute.
Response: The desperate conditions they were exposed to necessitated the need to look for
means to extend their lives, and consuming the flesh of one person at that very instance was
necessary to allow the four men to survive and be rescued. Their belief in the necessity of
desperate action was reasonable in the circumstances. It was grounded not in self-serving
predictions of their longevity, clouded by weakness and panic; it was grounded in expert
opinion.

Argument: Humans should be treated as an end and not as a means. When you treat someone
as a means, you are using him or her to benefit yourself or to achieve a final goal. Treating
someone as an end in himself or herself means that you are giving them value for the simple
fact that they are human.
Response: Executing the defendants would also mean they are used as means to achieve
“justice” or to deter future crimes of murder. 

Argument: Killing an innocent life to save one’s own does not justify murder even if under
extreme necessity of hunger. (In reference to the case Regina v Dudley and Stephens where
the court  decided that Dudley and Stephens were guilty of murdering a fellow young seaman
named Parker in order to save their own lives from starvation.) Their intention to kill was brought
about by starvation and the need to survive, not enough to justify their act of killing.
Response: The explorers are mere victims of the circumstance that they were forcefully put
into when they were trapped in the cave. The tragic case of these explorers gives us an
example of how the law should be mellowed to accommodate circumstances which are unusual.

Argument: The non-conviction of the survivors of murder would entail a very high cost to legal
doctrine (stretching the scope of the murder state) and to the reputation of the court as a
principled institution guided by law and not popular will. It is contrary to stability which means
that laws could change arbitrarily and randomly with the whim of any judge who ruled on them.
Response: By acquitting the 4 explorers, the Court is not destabilizing the justice system.
The acquittal would also expand the breadth of Newgarth's justice system to cover the gaps
which may have been missed by the legislature in crafting the law being used as the basis of
their conviction.

Argument: Crimes of murder may have limitations or exceptions, but there are also certain sets
of provisions that specify what is to be limited and exempted. To disregard the provision in
order to justify the crime committed is perversive to the law and to the men which abides to this
social contract.
Response: Enacted laws or statutes are not applicable to the circumstances of the spelunkers

Argument: Did the spelunkers willfully kill Whetmore?

Response: No. 
Argument: Do you mean they accidentally kill Whetmore?
Response: No. It is not black and white. They did not wilfully kill Whetmore in the circumstance
they were in.

CASE POOL:

Questions:

1. What are the Elements of murder?

There is a WILLFUL act

2. How do we know that they had intent or did they willfully kill another?

They had no evil intent to kill, they only had an intent to survive

3. Is Dura Lex Sed Lex applicable in this case?

No. he Dura Lex Sed Lex Principle cannot be applied in this case because it is absurd. What is
the point of keeping a stable and constant law when it is unjust? We should apply equity in this
case because the principle or legal maxim cannot be applicable in this certain case and that
equity is much more suitable in this scenario. Equity follows the law, meaning the judges should
take into consideration the circumstances that have transpired in the case as well as the chain
of events this is that could have another point of view whether they should really apply the law
to the explorers or not this is to avoid the compromise of applying equity and justice.

4. Would we be bending the law if we follow the spirit or intent of legislature?

No, it is not bending, it is within the broad scope of an ambiguous law.

5. You conceded that the accused violated the letter of the law? If we apply the literal statute,
they should be criminally liable.

The literal letter of the law would imply an absurd application of the law.

6. Are you saying that Whetmore is an aggressor?

No. He is not

7. What is the aggressor? Imminent danger of death 

8. So there’s no aggression. Don’t you think that aggression is the

9. They killed them intentionally as the result of a plan

The desperate conditions they were exposed to necessitated the need to look for means to
extend their lives, and consuming the flesh of one person at that very instance was
necessary to allow the four men to survive and be rescued. Their belief in the necessity of
desperate action was reasonable in the circumstances. It was grounded not in self-serving
predictions of their longevity, clouded by weakness and panic; it was grounded in expert
opinion.

10. Is it willfulness, intent, or motive?

11. How is ill-will different from willfulness?

Willfulness is the general term, ill-will is the negative subdivision of willfulness

12. What’s your defense? Necessity or self-defense?

necessity

13. Are you going to apply self-defense by analogy?

 Self-defense is applicable in indicating that the law is not absolute- it has exceptions i,e self
defense

14. Do you think that the utilitarian principle (net savings of lives) is applicable to a criminal
statute?

Yes. police power

15. How would you respond on the argument of the defense on the cases (US vs. Holmes and
Regina vs. Dudley)

16. Would it be better that they be criminally liable but we do not apply the mandatory death
sentence considering the extreme facts of the circumstances? If the purpose is just to
punish crimes

Exactly our position your honor

17. What do you think is the purpose of the murder statute of Newgarth?

18. Would it be better that they be criminally liable but we do not apply the mandatory death
sentence considering the extreme facts of the circumstances?

19. How can we say that a person has a criminal intent? 

20. Is it really evil for a person to kill in order to survive the calamity they are in?

21. We have to stick to the plain meaning because intent could not be established

22. Is the numbers game would be relevant in establishing murder?

23. If you are invoking necessity, you have to prove that it is the last resort.

24. How many days will a person survive without food or water? (scientifically speaking)

25. Why would the public opinion matter in deciding this case?

26. Should public opinion be addressed to the Court or the legislators?

27. Should we take into account opinions in deciding cases?

28. Would you accept guilt but mitigate the punishment?