Text/Lin Hai
"Many people have seen 'The Fantasy Drift of the Young Pi'. The tiger's name in the movie is 'Richard Parker'. The name was certainly not made up. He was the victim of a sensational case. To this day, in Pear Shu Ping Church, on the eastern outskirts of Southampton, near his birthplace, there is still a tombstone engraved with a sentence from the Book of Job: 'Although he killed me, I still believe in him.' And a quote from acts: 'Lord, do not attribute this sin to them.' ’”
<h1>A lawyer bought a boat</h1>
In 1883, Australian lawyer John Vant purchased a yacht called the Wood Hornbill. However, the yacht needs to be transported to Australia over a 24,000-kilometer voyage. On 19 May 1884, the Wood Hornbill departed southampton for Sydney, with a crew including Captain Dudley, crew members Stephens, Brooks, and Parker. Parker was only 17 years old and had no sailing experience. On 5 July, the Wood Hornbill was shipwrecked, and the entire crew fled to a lifeboat, hastily carrying only a few means of navigation and two cans of radish, with no fresh water.
Shortages of food and fresh water left the entire crew in the balance. They are about 1100 km from the nearest land and are difficult to reach. After eating the canned radish, capturing a turtle and drinking meat and blood, there was no other food. After 15 days at sea, Parker began to get sick. At this point, the crew began to discuss whether to select a victim by drawing lots to keep the others alive. A few days later, Parker fell into a coma. At this point, Captain Dadley and crew Stephens decided to sacrifice Parker to save everyone's lives. Crew member Brooks refused.
July 24, the 19th day after the shipwreck. Dudley and Stephens killed Parker, and Brooks did not object again. The three men fed on Parker's corpse and held out for another five days, and finally, on July 29, they were rescued by the German Munzuma. After recovering from their health, they truthfully confessed to the "ship damage" and believed they would be protected by the Maritime Customary Law. However, customs officials and port police arrested Dudley and three others on charges of "murder on the high seas."
Neither the local police nor the sheriff could give a clear opinion as to whether they were guilty. A local lawyer, Harry Tilly, appeared in court on behalf of Dudley and others and asked for bail, but after the mayor consulted with the sheriff, they were escorted back to the police station. When the case was reported to the Attorney General, Sir James, and the Deputy Attorney General, Sir Herschel, they decided to file a complaint. While public opinion is not very supportive of punishing survivors again — citizens say their conscience condemns them for life. But prosecutors still decided to file a lawsuit.
However, the Prosecution is also aware of the difficulty of prosecuting the three accused and bringing them all to justice owing to shipwreck practice and lack of evidence. Because no other witnesses were present except themselves. Under procedural law, the testimony of Defendant A cannot be used to prove the guilt of Defendant B, but only to prove his own crime. As a result, prosecutors decided to drop the charges against Brooks— because there was no evidence that he had been persuaded by the other two — and instead used him as a witness in order to use his testimony to hold the other two accountable. Thus began the trials of Dudley and Stephens.
On 3 November 1884, Sir John Heddleston presided over the trial. Royal Counsel Charles is responsible for the charges, Royal Counsel Collins is in charge of the defence, and the costs of defence are paid by a defence fund established by a public donation. However, after the first trial, the jury failed to reach a guilty verdict, but also was unable to rule not guilty. The court said: "It is entirely possible that these three men will not survive the day they are rescued. Boys may also die in front of them without waiting for them to do something. If they did not survive, or if the boy died of infirmity, there was no need for the case to be tried again. However, since this is the current situation, the jury cannot determine whether their killing constitutes murder. Hope is up to the higher courts. ”
As a result, the case was moved to the Royal Court in London for a retrial, which was then referred to the Court of Throne Chambers, and the retrial was postponed until 4 December. Prosecution counsel still insists that no state of crisis can be used as a justification for the murder of a companion. Defence counsel argues that this is not a murder, but a self-preservation in an emergency. After listening to the words and swords of the two sides, the judges withdrew from the court to discuss. Subsequently, they returned to court, declared guilty, and were sentenced to six months in prison each. However, the court was not able to explain the guilt in court, but only said, "The reasons will not be published in writing until the weekend of the following week".
<h1>"This is not called emergency risk avoidance."</h1>
The Court of Throne Chambers made the reasons for the decision public on 9 December. They need to sort through some of the jurisprudence that existed before, such as the St. Christopher case. In this case, in the early 17th century, seven Britons set out from St Christopher and drifted at sea for 17 days due to shipwrecks. Because of hunger, they decided to sacrifice a man by drawing lots. Bad luck fell on the man who proposed the plan, and he agreed to be killed. His body kept the others alive until they were rescued. They were tried on charges of murder. However, the judge pardoned them.
Another example is the Holmes case of 1841. The Brown ship sank after hitting an iceberg. The crew, named Holmes, thought the overloaded lifeboat would eventually sink, pushed more than a dozen passengers outboard. The court also did not convict him of murder, but found that he constituted manslaughter. The presiding judge sorted out the conditions under which a state of necessity could constitute a ground for immunity: there must be a state of necessity, the perpetrator must be at fault, and must have no obligation to the victim. As a crew member, Holmes did not meet this condition. As a result, the jury found Holmes guilty.
Each of these jurisprudence has its own merits. In the end, the judges delivered a sensational verdict. Dudley and Stephens' killing of Parker is well established and need not be discussed. What needs to be discussed is whether this act can legally be exempted from legal liability on the grounds of "emergency risk avoidance". In its judgment, the Court wrote: "The real question to be considered in this case is whether the killing constitutes murder in the circumstances identified in the decision ... If it is not considered to constitute murder, then let's look at the rationale for this opinion? However, we do not accept the statement in any way: 'In order to save your own life, you can legally deprive others of their lives, even if they do not attack, do not threaten your life, and there is no criminal act against you or others.' In any case, this Court does not accept such a statement. ”
The court cited Blackton's argument about emergency risk avoidance. Blackton said that if emergency avoidance is "avoidable and can be escaped without harm", then killing people for the sake of avoidance constitutes murder and is no longer justified. Whether it is legitimate defense or emergency risk avoidance, it is necessary to consider the "suddenness" and "no other choice" of the behavior. The suddenness of the incident made it natural to have no choice. However, if you have a calm time to judge and consider, then you may choose other methods to avoid risks. Or you can try other ideas to find a way to get it both ways.
For example, in emergency shelter, there are often such cases, when running outside in a house on fire, they found that the door was blocked by a ladder, and they were too anxious to push down the ladder and ran out of the fire. On the ladder stood a worker who was working, and the ladder was pushed down, causing him to fall. This act, if there is no premise of fire, obviously constitutes an unreasonable violation, because you should maintain sufficient care to avoid pushing down the ladder and causing the worker on the ladder to fall. Or in less urgent and hasty situations, alternative exits should be chosen to avoid injuring others.
Judging from the "Wood Rhinoceros" incident, the four people drifted at sea for a full 19 days. If, at a certain point in time, a shark attack occurs, the lifeboat is about to sink, and in a hurry, Dudley pushes Parker down to "divert the shark's attention so that others can escape", such an act is somewhat "urgent" in nature. But for 19 days at sea, the crisis of hunger did not "happen suddenly" but persisted. In this case, it is doubtful whether it can still be called a "state of emergency".
The Court went on to cite Lord Hale's criteria for emergency avoidance. Lord Hale argues that "in all cases of homicide that are urgently hedged, such as the pursuit of felons, the killing of violent robbers, the killing of criminals who attempt to burn down houses or break down doors, do not in themselves constitute crimes. At the same time, however, he pointed out that whether it is an emergency risk avoidance related to the nature of private interests or an emergency risk avoidance related to public justice and safety, it must be the only optimal option that can be chosen at that time; in order to justify it. If there is a better way, or if there is a more relaxed alternative, this act cannot be called emergency avoidance – and certainly does not necessarily have to be tried on the basis of homicide.
<h1>The devil will always make excuses for evil</h1>
The judges had an in-depth discussion about whether the defendants' conduct constituted emergency risk avoidance. Ultimately, they argued that, despite the defendant's predicament at the time, they still had a chance to find other solutions rather than kill and eat some companion. In fact, they did capture turtles and collect some rainwater. In its judgment, the court wrote: "We must be vigilant that the principle of emergency avoidance becomes a 'lawful cloak for concealing indulgent passion and brutal crimes'. Therefore, no amount of caution may be taken with regard to this defence. ”
The court went on to refer to Justice Bacon's statement on emergency avoidance: "There are three types of situations that constitute emergency avoidance: to protect life, to obey orders, or to be forced by the actions of gods or others. The first thing is to protect life, and if a person steals food out of hunger, it constitutes neither a felony nor a theft. He gave an example: If a small boat or lifeboat capsizes and two people grab the same plank, but the plank is too small to hold two people. At this time, one person pushed the other person away and survived the plank, but the other person drowned. Then this act constitutes an emergency hedge to protect one's own life. However, the court that tried the case did not accept Justice Bacon's claim. The Court held that none of us had the right to judge that it was justified to kill another innocent person to save our own lives.
"In this case, the trigger for homicide may be a dilemma, but we do not believe that it is the inevitable cause of the killing. Therefore, it does not constitute a so-called emergency risk avoidance. If it is insisted upon as a defence, it will lead to the separation of law from morality. The court wrote in its judgment, "Although law is not synonymous with morality, many immoral things are not illegal." But if the law is completely separated from morality, the consequences will be terrible. "In particular, killing one's own kind to save oneself is actually a comparison of the values of life." Who has the right to judge which life is more valuable to live? Is it to see physical strength? Or do you look at intelligence? If people are allowed to make this judgment, it will only benefit the 'decider', because he cannot possibly make himself unsustainable. ”
"The parties in this case chose the victims of Richard Parker, the weakest, the youngest and least able to resist. But is it more legitimate to kill him than to kill any of the other adults? The answer must be 'No!' After making this judgment, the court's biased opinion has become clear. Although this is not to say that the actions in this case were evil. However, once such emergency avoidance is confirmed, it may become a reasonable excuse to indulge crimes of passion and malicious intent. The court used this sentence to describe their final opinion on the case: "When necessary, the devil will always help evil find some plausible excuse." ”
However, the courts do not intend to sentence the murderer to death. The judgment reads: "Judges can only do their best to ascertain the law and uphold justice in their own judgment, and there is no definite path beyond that." If, in some case, the law is too harsh on these men, it can only be presented to His Majesty the King, exempting him from this punishment in accordance with the constitutional right of forgiveness. While we refuse to admit that some kind of inducement can be used as an excuse for committing a crime, we should not forget that the circumstances faced by the parties in this case are so harsh, how unbearable the pain is, and how difficult it is to maintain proper judgment and good behavior. In the end, the court convicted Dudley and Stephens of murder in accordance with the law, and should have been sentenced to death according to law, but after comprehensive consideration, it was recommended that they be pardoned and sentenced to six months in prison, which drew an unsatisfactory end to this "high seas cannibalism case" that shocked the world.