The Speluncers

Spelunkian Explorer

The case of the spelunkian explorer: Burnham and Springham

In the case of the spelunkian explorer, Justices Burnham and Justice Springham deal with the ghastly scenario of a cave-explorer who, along with several other lost explorers, ate one of his companions to survive. Justice Burnham rejects outright the man's claim that he killed his friend out of necessity and thus should not be convicted of murder. The Justice makes an odd comparison with a man who kills another for an article of clothing he 'needs' at that moment stating that necessity in and of itself is not a defense for murder. Justice Burnham suggests that the trapped cave explorers had other recourses, including waiting for one of their number to die of starvation (given that their argument was they had to consume another human being or die below the earth) or (!) eating their own extremities, which Burnham argues is a preferable alternative to murder.

Justice Burnham also notes that as explorers, they assumed some degree of risk in their efforts, that they knew that there was a risk, and yet they brought few provisions with them for the exploration. The argument that when the men drew lots to decide which man to eat, that they gave their consent to die, was likewise faulty, given that the eventual victim withdrew his consent saying that consuming one of the party not strictly necessary -- yet. According to Burnham, self-defense and lawful execution are the only excuses for murder, not human instinct. Burnham says his argument is in accord with a strict constructionalist philosophy of interpreting of the law.

Justice Springham's decision in favor of finding the men innocent revolves around a question of what constitutes willfulness. Granted, the explorers did kill the victim willfully, and with premeditation, but not specifically with the malicious desire to kill him and him alone through the lottery they devised. The spelunkian explorers lacked criminal intent, he states, because they lacked the desire to commit a crime, and merely proceeded from the impulse of necessity. Springham notes that the spelunkers had been trapped for twenty days beneath the earth, and according to expert opinion, could not be freed in another ten, and were not given any guidance from anyone about how much longer they could survive, or about the ethical implications of eating a member of their party. They reasonably came to the conclusion, according to Springham, that they could not survive without starving to death, and he calls the suggestion of cutting off and eating their extremities like eating "ladies fingers" or snacks that would not sustain them, particularly given they had no absolute assurance that they could be rescued even after ten days. Proportionality is thus a key aspect of both justices' arguments. To respond to starvation by cutting off extremities, according to Justice Springham is not a proportional response to the terrible fate of starvation, while Justice Burnham believes that maiming one's self in response to starvation is a more proportionate response than taking the life of a friend.