Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens; opening statement

Before I begin, I want to re theme you that this is the address of law. In this country, the law states that any person who deliberately takes the life of other is guilty of murder. There is no question as to who took the life of stick out, a man with families and loved ones waiting for him to return from sea. The murderers mount in the seating room of the defendants today. Thomas Dudley and Edward Stephens had deliberately took the life of Mr.. stomach in his most au naturel(p) state, therefore breaking the law and deserve their rightful punishment.Here they be today, onerous to excuse themselves from this devilish act. On July 5th, 1 884, a day no different others, Brooks, Dudley and Stephens was caught in a storm on the high seas 1600 miles from land. This bought them onto an discriminate island with only two tins of turnip and no tools. They were trapped on the island for a total of thirty days. In the first 12 days, the turnips was consumed, along with a turtle they c aught. For the next eight days, they had no nourishment except for rainwater water and urine. By the 25th day, everyone was starving and weak.It was hold upon that they impart put one over straws and the loser allow be eaten. At this point, is crucial to remember that this tighten does non work in court for several reasons. One of which is that a oral contract cannot be used as evidence in court because it is not concrete evidence. Another reason is that any contract, oral or written, based on an illegal purpose, in this case, homicide, does not and pass on not work In court. The next day, Brooks lost the drawing, further refuses to be eaten, Like any other normal human beings would.Hearing this, Dudley and Stephens agreed to protrude and eat Brooks because he would die anyways. Using this repulsive reason, they murdered him and fed on him. Five days later, they were rescued. And here they sit before us today, pleading to be excused. Their defense attorney will tell you a story coated with loaded what-ifs. What if you were Dudley and Stephens? , what if you were as sharp-set as they were? , what if eating Brooks was your only choice? . I lose a what-elf of my own, too. What If you were Brooks?Would you agree to the awful fate of Ewing killed and eaten? The biggest fear In human Is death, no one In their right minds would want to die, peculiarly in a way as gruesome as this. let us stop and think about the question what if eating Brooks was your only choicer. In the English Law, the defense of indispensability only applies when the abuse the defendant sought to empty outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with or if there Is no reasonable alternative. Lets re-examine the story. Dudley and Stephens killed Brooks to alleviate themselves.One way to look at this Is that two lives are save for the sacrifice of one, but there was no way to be sealed that theyd still starve after eating Brooks. So the starvation they are tryin g to avoid by killing Brooks would only make full for the time being. In other words, the harm they are trying to avoid does not out-weight the crime of murder because murdering Brooks does not ensure that they will not face the threat of starvation again. Next, there was Cannibalism is frowned upon but it is not illegal like homicide.Also, while there was mom degree of necessity arising from the threat of starvation, a ship could have sailed over the horizon to save them any moment. As, indeed, the two were rescued. Since they could never be sure that the killing was in truth necessary from one minute to the next, this defense does not work. Finally, theres the question of insanity. To be insane is to something without the knowledge of right and wrong and not being in control of ones body and mind. Wrong in this case stands for legally wrong, and not morally wrong.They obviously new what they did was wrong or they wouldnt have matt-up guilty enough to admit to it. They knew they w ould starve to death if they didnt eat Brooks, which is a sign of thinking and reasoning and according to their statements, they made an agreement to kill Brooks and eat him, which meant they were in total control of their body and mind prior to and during murdering Brooks. Their actions were morally and lawfully wrong. I am here today to request that they be hanged for their actions in the name of Justice. Thank you.