Crafting a thesis on the Speluncean Explorers case presents a formidable challenge to many students.

The intricate legal, ethical, and philosophical issues woven throughout the case demand thorough
analysis and critical thinking. From grappling with the complexities of legal positivism to exploring
the boundaries of moral relativism, the Speluncean Explorers case invites scholars to delve deep into
the heart of jurisprudence.

Navigating through the myriad interpretations and perspectives on the case requires a keen intellect
and a nuanced understanding of legal theory. As students embark on this academic journey, they
often find themselves wrestling with conflicting arguments and struggling to formulate their own
coherent thesis.

Amidst such challenges, seeking expert guidance can make all the difference. ⇒ HelpWriting.net
⇔ offers a lifeline to students embarking on the daunting task of crafting a thesis on the Speluncean
Explorers case. With a team of experienced academics well-versed in legal studies, ethics, and
philosophy, ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔ provides invaluable assistance tailored to the unique needs of
each student.

By entrusting your thesis to ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔, you can rest assured that you will receive
comprehensive support every step of the way. From refining your research question to polishing your
final draft, their experts are dedicated to helping you achieve academic excellence.

Don't let the complexity of the Speluncean Explorers case overwhelm you. Order your thesis from ⇒
HelpWriting.net ⇔ today and embark on your academic journey with confidence.
Roger Whetmore, one of the explorers, spoke to the doctors and asked them if they thought the
trapped men would survive by eating one of their own. I have pointed out weaknesses in the judges
argument and I disagree with: Judge Foster and Judge Handy. He believes that the law must not
conclude that the four explorers were murderers. He offers that these cases suggest that it is futile to
consider the purpose of a statute when applying it. The real question at the heart of this issue is,
“How does one define guilty? ” Whetmore was the one who had initially suggested that they resort
to cannibalism in order to bring about the group’s survival. An additional difference is the
circumstances, and the state of mind that the explorers were in when they committed the killing. The
applicable statute here does not apply to self-defense cases. The original five opinions are pretty
obsolete and unidimensional (except for Tatting) but the nine exceptionally detailed updated opinions
run the entire gamut of arguments that one can come up with, and then some. The creation of the
law is actually to safeguard the interests of the majority. It’s also one of the more interesting
hypothetical legal tangles available to us non-lawyers to puzzle out - - the questions posed are moral
and ethical rather than statutory, and as such there is something here for any reader. Therefore, this
leads me to conclude that the only real reason that they so suddenly changed their minds about
killing one for the good of the majority is the fear that one of them would end up being the
unfortunate one to have the unlucky roll of the dice. On that basis, the case should at very least be
remanded for re-trial. The first time you encounter a point of view, each opinion is pursasive- how to
choose. Its absurdity defrays any deterrent value, as the facts of the case might be dismissed as a
fancy belonging more appropriately in a novel by Victor Hugo, or the like. Such a man did not have
to resort to stealing; at least, it was not his last option. Aims to embarrass them and make the reader
scoff at how humorous it sounds for someone to be. It's a great read to a law layman like me, as
intellectually interesting as Godel's incompleteness theorem in the philosophy of law. I thought Judge
Foster’s argument was very weak I did not agree with him and found some weaknesses in his
argument. He then examines the events in terms of what he styles “the realm of common sense”, and
what I would term “natural law” as understood in the Enlightenment writings of Thomas Hobbes and
John Locke. We use cookies to create the best experience for you. The Queen versus Dudley case is
almost identical to the Speluncean explorers case; the primary difference is that in the Queen versus
Dudley case, the cabin boy murdered for the sustenance of the majority was completely and entirely
innocent. Ao recorrerem a Suprema Corte, tem seu caso julgado. We call that which is manifestly
wrong an “injustice”, and as an integral part of the justice system, our duty is to redress such
“injustices”. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies. This
implies that statutes need not always be taken literally. Trip organizers, outfitters, tour guides, and
health care providers must understand the medicolegal liabilities involved in and the legal protection
and immunity available when rendering care in austere and challenging settings to mitigate risks and
prepare for the level of medical care that may be required. The facts of the case are set out, followed
by an analysis of the different views and methodologies of the various judges who heard the case.
From the evidence presented, Whetmore was the brainchild behind the idea and provided effective
ways of determining the one to eat given their grim situation. But I'm really glad that I finally got
around to it.
Concept of prudence in accounting and financial reporting. It is the nature of man to try to survive if
survival is at stake. Lon Fuller, born 1902 in Hereford, Texas, US, died in 1978. When rescued, the
four survivors are tried for murder. These men had surely violated the statute that prohibits the
willful taking of another person’s life. Even if we go out on a limb and assume that this poll
accurately reflects the will of the people, such a determination is irrelevant to our considerations. It
tells the story of a famous legal case that Lon Fuller invented in 1949. Changing his mind, when he
had previously been so adamant about his first argument made the rest of the party question his trust.
Justice Tatting’s rebuttal is flawed for several reasons. His murder, as unfortunate as it was, can be
justified when all of the circumstances are taken into account. The explorers were living in an
isolated world not experienced by the outsiders. Then, backing out of this choice for selfish reasons,
he put the safety of the entire group in jeopardy. It’s also one of the more interesting hypothetical
legal tangles available to us non-lawyers to puzzle out - - the questions posed are moral and ethical
rather than statutory, and as such there is something here for any reader. The case involves five cave
explorers who become trapped after a landslide. The Court in that case had no problem judging his
intentions in light of his acts. From the evidence presented, Whetmore was the brainchild behind the
idea and provided effective ways of determining the one to eat given their grim situation. In the
normal world, we often want to avoid rushing into a conclusion based on superficial judge-mentality,
while in the world of law, the judges think through all lawful reasonings and are still able to reach a
conclusion, not because they rushed to conclusions, but because they have to judge. This cowardly
behavior shows that Whetmore breached trust. Aims to embarrass them and make the reader scoff at
how humorous it sounds for someone to be. In responding to an appealed petition of error, the
Supreme Court of Newgarth has issued a lengthy series of opinions, the result of which is a
deadlocked conclusion to the primary issues at hand. I think this is a completely different world
from mine, and I'm curious about it. To compose a law consisting of only twelve words to regulate
the conduct of the Court, Jury, and Executioner in the event of such a complicated nature as murder
is irresponsible. We use cookies to create the best experience for you. The men turn off their radio,
and some time later held a lottery, killed the loser, and ate him. However, those opinions were also
inescapably dated and left out some key positions. I felt like it showed that there are very few
objective facts and even fewer when it comes to law. This is strong evidence that disproves the
opposing theory that Whetmore and the woman pulled out of the initial agreement because of any
moral opposition to cannibalism. Staymore in which the defendant, by extraordinary circumstances
was unable to remove his vehicle from an illegal location in conformity with the statute. Upload Read
for free FAQ and support Language (EN) Sign in Skip carousel Carousel Previous Carousel Next
What is Scribd. He believes that the law must not conclude that the four explorers were murderers.
The men turn off their radio, and some time later held a lottery, killed the loser, and ate him. Write a
short essay, in which you explain your position. For different reasons than my own, he comes to the
same conclusion of rejecting that recourse. Thus, the law of nature is in force, allowing the
Speluncean explorers to make and implement their own laws, exercising their jurisdiction in the
confinement of the cave. He is a senior fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society,
director of the Harvard Office of Academic Exchange, and director of the Harvard Open Access
Project (HOAP). It doesn't tell you what to think, but illustrates the contending positions and lets
you think for yourself. Does carrying on with the initial plan truly make the defendants guilty. He is a
philosopher specializing in legal philosophy and open access to knowledge. The men described their
physical condition to physicians and asked whether they could survive another 10 days without food.
However, even within the framework of this poor piece of legislation, sufficient room exists for
justice to prevail. The case portrayed the woman and Whetmore as if they would agree on every
issue and almost as if they acted as one unit. Court of General Instances of the County of Stowfield
(4300) is about five Speluncean explorers. Another word for justice is Fairness but I don’t think it’s
fair that Roger Whetmore was killed so that the defendants could live therefore in a way the
Commonwealth does incorporate justice. In this, he made a verbal contract with his fellow explorers,
and through his idea, gave them hope of survival. Aims to embarrass them and make the reader scoff
at how humorous it sounds for someone to be. These opinions include perspectives from
communitarian, feminist, multicultural, postmodern and economic theories of law, updating Fuller's
original case and bringing contemporary theories of law to bear on the five original opinions. Fuller
wrote five Supreme Court opinions on the case, exploring facts from different perspectives. Another
good example is the killing of a person or persons in self-defense. Maximilien robespierre great man
or master of terror history essay. He points to public opinion polls that break 90-10 in favor of
clemency for the defendants, and cites this as evidence of public opinions regarding the issue. How
does Stevenson explore the theme of duality in the novella The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr
Hyde and how does this reflect the time in which it was written? It was the author’s masterpiece and
sold around 40,000 copies in six months in England and became a popular. Published twenty-seven
years subsequent to Darwin's influential piece, 'The. In the Speluncean explorers case, on the other
hand, it had been quite a few weeks since the group had last eaten and, at that time, one might start
to look at everything in animalistic terms. The court set aside the conviction of Staymore, even as his
case fell totally within the statute. If you look at the question as simply and literally, “Did they
willfully take the life. His caveats are well taken, but I believe that the historical example does not
preclude our taking proactive measures in this case. I would argue that given the previous actions of
the court, such consideration is not only permissible, but also an integral part of the decision process.
Show how Stevenson, through the themes, language and setting, has created a world of double
standards and hypocrisy in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Duality can be seen in the
portrayal of the characters.
And for writing that consists entirely of talking heads, I am now very invested in the history and
social structure of Newgarth. It is better that the four men were able to survive a grueling ordeal,
waiting in the cave for more than thirty days. This might not be an obvious choice for someone who
isn’t already interested in criminal justice and appeals courts in the United States, or in legal theory
in general, but it is written in plain language and is quite accessible. Like Comment Weiping 17
reviews 1 follower June 22, 2021 Readers with little understanding of common law will find it hard
to follow. A huge temporary camp of workmen, engineers, geologists, and other experts was
established. Financial statements accruals prudence and going concern concepts. This analogy is
strong and scholarly, but it presents a myriad of problems. First, the analogy in itself is not consistent
with this case since the dynamics behind a free man, with a number of available resources and placed
outside in the world, is fundamentally different from that of men who are trapped and have no
options. I further reject the argument that in reversing the ruling this case, the Court indulges in a
form of dangerous Judicial activism. Assim foi feito. Foram presos ao sair da caverna e sentenciados
em primeira instancia. It was the author’s masterpiece and sold around 40,000 copies in six months in
England and became a popular. It recounts the horrific tale of a scientist whose experiment backfires
and leads him to his own end. The first time you encounter a point of view, each opinion is
pursasive- how to choose. Foster’s Judgment Foster begins by asserting that something more
significant than the fate of four men is on trial, namely, the law of our Commonwealth. Concept of
prudence in accounting and financial reporting. Foster (just for the purposes of argument) states that
he may be wrong in arguing that the predicament facing the four explorers excluded them from the
force of our positive law. Prior to the radio running out of battery life, Whetmore suggested the idea
cannibalism to the physicians, along with everyone else listening on the other side of the radio. He
had no prior knowledge or warning of the situation and had no idea that he could be killed; in other
words, he was completely unaware of his impending doom and by no means brought about his own
death. Brother Foster also points to a case where a typographical error in the text of a law provided
for the opposite of what the law intended. Fehler v. Neegas had the court ruling entirely on the basis
of what could reasonably be extrapolated from the text as to the intent of the author, rather than
what was actually written. They asked for a medical opinion as to the effectiveness of their plan, and
were denied answer. They were eventually rescued and prosecuted for murder, which in Newgarth
carries a mandatory death penalty. I strongly urge the Legislature to take this case as an incentive to
rewrite the homicide laws to reflect realities such as degree of culpability and possible affirmative
defenses. Use of 'plucked' makes the explorers seem useless and helpless. I can easily see ways how
this one doesn't go deep enough or falls apart. The occasion for the justices to hear the case and
write their opinions is the crisis of survival faced by the entrapped men. Incarcerating an individual
for nineteen years over a theft of property valued at less than three dollars is excessive in the
extreme. Supreme court of the united states and self-defense essay sample. Roger Whetmore acting,
essentially, as leader of the group, made a decision that was to lead to the survival of the rest of the
explorers. Although it is a book about law, it enlightened me to think differently about the things
happening around me. A lawyer friend recommended this to me and this is simply brilliant. As a
Judge on the Highest Court of the land, I would be required to give the defendants a completely fair
trial.