Speluncean explorers and cave systems

Business Law

In the annals of business law, and the areas where it often overlaps criminal law, one of the landmark cases in recent history, without a doubt, is the Speluncean Society Murder Case, which was ultimately argued in the Supreme Court of Newgarth, dividing the Justices involved and discussing several key areas of the law. In this paper, these opinions and facts from the case will be combined to better draw conclusions about the topic.

Justice Truepenny's Reasoning

In the ruling on the Speluncean case, Justice Truepenny held that murder charges, and death by hanging, were appropriate for the club members who drew lots and ultimately chose which one of the trapped climbers would be killed and eaten to sustain the others. However, the judge and jury in the case later wrote to the Chief Executive, asking that the death sentence be suspended, and Truepenny reinforced that request by giving it merit, further arguing that the man whose life was ended had originally agreed to participating in the lottery to see who would be killed, and therefore, the element of pre-meditated murder is absent in this unique situation.

Justice Foster's Reasoning

Justice Foster put forth a not guilty verdict in this case based on an assertion and a citation from case law. The absence of the element of murder was argued by Foster based on the fact that this was a case of a violation of the laws of nature, not the laws of the legal system. Far from murder, this was the expression of a natural instinct to survive. Furthermore, Foster cited the Staymore case, making the point that escape from the cave, which would have made the cannibalism unnecessary, was impossible due to uncontrolled circumstances. Simply put, lack of the murder element and unavoidable circumstances leads to a not guilty view by Foster.

Justice Tatting's Reasoning

Justice Tatting not only refused to vote on the guilt or innocence question, but he also attacked Foster's ruling, saying that the law of nature is absurd, and countering the citation of the Staymore case with the Valjean case, which held a man criminally responsible for stealing bread, even though he claimed the crime was necessary because he was starving to death. Essentially, what Tatting was saying was that the circumstances of the cave entrapment do not justify the killing of an innocent human being, no matter what the situation might be.

Justice Keen's Reasoning

Seemingly going against the rulings of both Foster and Tatting, Justice Keen gave a resounding guilty verdict for a very simple reason- the law of the land is the law of the land, murder is murder, and no grey areas in regard to this should be allowed to exist. Either the defendants are guilty or not guilty, and in the viewpoint of Keen, the defendants are guilty without question.

Justice Handy's Reasoning

Justice Handy's rendering of a not guilty verdict is based on a rather simple set of criteria- the polls of public opinion. Using public opinion polls about the guilt or innocence of the defendants as a benchmark, Handy decided that because the polls overwhelmingly ruled that the defendants were not guilty, so too Justice Handy would rule in the same way. Coming to be known as the Public Poll Theory, Handy let the voice of the common people be heard in the case.

The Most and Least Convincing Reasoning in the Case

Obviously, the Justices took opposing views on the question of guilt or innocence, and likewise for many unique reasoning systems. Because of this, there is reasoning in the case that is most convincing as there is reasoning that is least convincing, both for specific reasons.

The most convincing reasoning in the case is clearly that of Justice Keen; rather than being influenced by popular opinion, an overwhelming amount of case law on both sides, and the strange nature of the case itself, Keen used the law of the land and his judicial power as the guide to swiftly and confidently deliver the guilty verdict.