Introduction
The case of Speluncean Explorers is a fictitious legal case created by Lon L Fuller. It has gained popularity within the corridors of law largely due to the complexity of facts and philosophical twists of judgments evident in the case. In this 1949 case, Fuller presents five different fictitious judgments delivered by five presiding judges. Each of the five jurists had a unique philosophical approach in arriving at the final complex judgment.
The complexity of circumstances surrounding the case made each of the judges explore how to precisely interpret the case according to provisions in the commonwealth law. In the long run, the judges arrived at different judgmental conclusions with each offering variety of reasons behind their decisions. In this case, Fuller presented the expected conflict in accordance with principles of legal philosophy. His ideas have been profusely debated in several case studies on legal matters.
This case report will examine the main reasons that led to disagreement among presiding jurists. Besides, elements of natural and positive law presented in the case will also be explored. In addition, the nature of the contract made in the case will be analyzed since it forms the basis for the disposition of the case that has been presented in this paper.
Summary of the facts
The accused survivors in this case had embarked on a mission to explore deserted caves when fate compelled them to cannibalize one of their partners. Within the jurisdiction of carrying out their duties, a tunnel collapsed thereby trapping them underground. After realizing that they could not help themselves, they used radio calls to contact rescue teams. The latter informed them that it would take a minimum of ten days to reach the accident scene.
Their chance of survival for ten days without food was extremely minimal and following a discussion on the options available to them, they agreed that they could be saved only if one of them was turned into a meal. Upon reaching an agreement, they radioed rescuers to seek their opinion on the legal and moral aspects of the act they were just about to commit. When they did not get any feedback from rescuers, they opted to go ahead with the earlier plan.
In spite of having arrived at a solution, they were still in dilemma over who was to be eaten to save the rest from the risk of starvation. Nonetheless, Whetmore proposed that they cast a dice. They unanimously agreed with the option. However, moments before they could throw the dice, Whetmore retreated from the agreement and suggested it as the last option after being pretty sure that they would die of starvation. The other men would hear none of it, and they decided to cast the dice on his behalf.
The die was cast fairly but unfortunately, it was Whetmore who lost and they went ahead to cannibalize him. Eventually, after 23 days, the explorers were rescued and the four were immediately put on trial for the murder of their colleague.
The statute that informed this judgment for this case is the assertion that it is unlawful to take a person’s life and if convicted the accused, the offence is punishable by death (Fuller, 1949). The above commonwealth law statute did not permit an exception despite the odd circumstances that surrounded the Speluncean explorer’s case. Upon hearing of their case, a positive conviction was arrived at, and the verdict of the trial was that they would be hanged (Fuller, 1949).
Evaluating the Judgments
Fuller presents an appeal situation for the case whereby opinions of five different judges are provided. A brief summary of the philosophies presented by the five judges is essential to understand how each arrived at their respective judgments.
Justice Truepenny
To begin with, Truepenny was the Chief Judge in the Supreme Court that was to hear the appeal. Following the hearing and summarization of facts, Truepenny recommended that the law be applied meticulously and to the letter. He affirmed that the Commonwealth murder statute was applicable in judging the conduct of the four defendants.
On the principle of separation between the executive and judiciary, he stated that the former was free to offer clemency without impairing provisions of the Commonwealth law. Although the lower courts had been given the mandate to deliver judgment on the matter, he felt that it was better if the executive would also be given the chance to offer a solution to the matter. Truepenny’s decision of abandoning the case and leaving the executive to decide is a clear demonstration of strict adherence to separate entity thesis (Hart, 1958).
Justice Foster
The first judgment decision was by Foster who introduced the argument to substitute natural law with commonwealth laws. To justify his decision for substitution, Foster asserted that any law ought to contain both the elements of justice and common sense. His argument on common sense was that elements of commonwealth laws could not be effectively applied to the case since the explorers were exposed to an entirely different structure of society. The fact that they existed outside the jurisdiction of civil society meant they operated under laws of nature and were ignorant to the laws of men applied as applied in civil societies.
Foster exemplifies that commonwealth laws came into play when three humans in Speluncean Penumbra coexisted together. The conditions in the cave do not fulfill the requirements necessary in the application of Commonwealth laws. The above maxims assert that for the law to become binding statute, it must uphold the rationale behind its very existence. As a result, commonwealth law ceases to be fully binding in this case (Harris, 1997). His claim is in agreement with Aquinas’s elements of natural law cited by Hart (1958). According to Dimock (2001), adherence to common sense and justice asserts that judgment should be based on standards higher than the law in question.
Foster’s philosophy is that the conduct of the men in question should be viewed from the most basic practice in society. The fact Whetmore was the one who coined the idea of cannibalism shows that these men were upholding the law they formed amongst themselves. The intentions of the survivors were clear as evidenced by the fact that they confessed that Whetmore had taken back his consent. Following the above argument, Justice Foster argued for the reverse of the conviction verdict.
Justice Tatting
On the other hand, Justice Tatting raised two significant suggestions to oppose Foster’s argument. His argument was an objection to the method Foster had used to apply natural laws. He emphasized that natural law requires that what is decided upon to be directed towards the achievement of the good and steer away from evil. Under the circumstances, the explorers decided to apply natural law whereby a contract prevailed over the murder.
Tatting saw Foster’s call for substitution of commonwealth law with natural law as a justification of evil rather than good. This is because the natural law agreement arrived at under the circumstances might have resulted in violence if Whetmore resisted the verdict since the agreements are irrevocable. In addition, he argues that the natural law as proposed by Foster has no room for self-defense and that is why the survivors cast the die against us ill. He also points out that if the explorers were not too eager to commit a crime, there was a chance that all of them could have been rescued.
The second objection is rather personal as he accuses Justice Foster of disregarding the commonwealth law, yet he was an official mandated to enforce the above statute. Based on the above objections he opted for a rescue judgment.
Justice Keen
Justice Keen arguments are partly in agreement with Tattling’s objection that commonwealth laws should be cast away in this case and therefore not be used at all when delivering this nature of judgment. He tries to bring out the picture of separate entities between executive supremacy and judiciary mandate to enforce the laws. His arguments are in line with what is stated by Harris (1997) that the power of making laws purely rests with the sovereign powers, and the judges as agents of law enforcement should not override the sovereign decision, but they are permitted to offer advice. His suggestion is in agreement with judge Truepenny’s decision to leave the decision of clemency to the executive.
Justice Keen’s conclusion was based on the idea that a judges’ role is to effectively apply statutes in the process of enforcing the law. Therefore, he affirmed the decision to convict because as exemplified above the accused had indeed murdered Whetmore, and the statute was abundantly clear on the punishment for such a crime.
Justice Handy
Justice Handy’s opinions deviate from the main discussion since his criticism is directed towards inquiring about the conduct of the whole process of judgment. He was of their opinion that they should all agree on one decision that satisfies all the possible philosophies of law. He advises his colleagues to consider public opinion polls to arrive at an acquittal resolution as 90% of the public favored this decision. He clearly states that the statute should be considered in delivering judgments, but it should go hand in hand with common sense. He also claims that the justices should not shy away from their duty by putting their hopes that the executive will grant clemency, and in this case, the possibility that clemency would be granted was extremely minimal. He concludes by calling for a reversal of the judgment.
Possible disposition
Following a critical analysis of the five possible judgments that were delivered to the offenders, this paper takes a stand by supporting Justice Foster’s opinion. Foster is able to see beyond provisions in the statute by emphasizing the need of applying common sense in effecting judgment of this nature. It is vital to mention that Commonwealth law, just like any other legal framework, is prone to error in terms of interpretation. This can be confirmed from Mcleod’s (1999) assertion that law is written for fallible men, by fallible men.
The discussion on whether they should be pardoned should not override the question of whether they should be convicted In the first place. In theory, the laws should be set in stone. On a practical basis though, laws should leave room for exceptions since lawmakers are men who are not without limitations in their insight (Mcleod, 1999). Therefore, Justice Keen argument to convict the explorers simply because it is the role of the judge to execute the statute is far-fetched, and cannot be used to judge such a complex case. The fact that the statute was violated is not enough to rule for conviction without considering the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the explorers.
According to Dimock (2001), the main objective of any criminal statute is to implement justice rather than act as a mere tool of issuing punishment for a particular crime. The role of the murder statute, in this case, is to offer state protection to potential murder victims, but it does not mean that Whestmore’s death must be avenged. It is clear the statute was violated, but the judges should not see the enforcement of the punishment as a penalty game where rules are clearly defined, and thus breaking the rules leads to an automatic punishment. In this case, the likes of Keen and the others who agree with him should not enforce the statute without considering the facts. Furthermore, the punishment will involve taking a person’s life, and it would not be fair if a conviction is ruled in a similar way a penalty in a game is enforced.
Life should not be treated like a game where human beings are viewed as pawns. Such a view would give those in power authority to control the lesser being by enforcing law statutes without consideration to the human circumstances that contributed to the crime in question (Mcleod,1999). As a result, law enforcement would not be based on upholding justice, but on exercising dominance.
The current legal systems grant supreme powers to law enforcers a situation that sometimes leads to miscarriage of justice when the enforcer’s decisions are a flawed following misinterpretation of facts and other hindrances (Mcleod, 1999). As exemplified above, lawmakers are men who are not infallible as they do not have the ability to anticipate every possible situation a certain statute might encounter.
Conclusion
To recap it all, it is vital to note that laws should not be treated as absolute elements of perfection bearing in mind that they are subject to inaccuracy and misinterpretation. It is against this backdrop that offenses at hand should be handled with an open mind for the sake of shrewd interpretation depending on prevailing circumstances.
As Foster claims, common sense coupled with justified ruling should go hand in hand when making rulings of this nature. The circumstances surrounding the explorer’s case called for desperate measures. In addition, they formed their own law to control their coexistence and the fact that they entered into contractual agreement rules out any conspiracy to commit a crime. The decision to use the dice guaranteed fairness and each of the five men could have fallen victim.
The question I pose to the justice who ruled for conviction is that would they change their judgment if the victim was not Whetmore but any other of the four surviving explorers?
References
Dimock, S. (2001). The natural law theory of St. Thomas Aquinas. In S. Dimock (Ed.), Classic readings and Canadian cases in the philosophy of law. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.
Fuller, L.L. (1949). The Case of the Speluncean Explorers.: Harvard Law Review, 62(4), 616-645.
Harris, J.W. (1997). Legal Philosophies (2nd ed.). London: Butterworths.
Hart (1958). Positivism and the separation of law and morals. In S. Dimock (Ed.), Classic readings and Canadian cases in the philosophy of law. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.
McLeod, l. (1999). Legal Theory. London: Macmillan Press.