The Hypothetical Case Of Speluncean Explorers, By Lon Fuller

The hypothetical case of Speluncean explorers, written by Lon Fuller, is the first famous fictional legal case of all times. It describes the story of five explorers trapped underground after the tunnel collapsed. After learning through a radio contact that the rescuers would need at least ten days to arrive, and with no food, the only way to survive is to cannibalize one of their team. Roger Whetmore suggested that they throw a dice fairly to determine who should be sacrificed. But, the dice was cast on his behalf. When the rescuers finally arrived, they found that Whetmore had been killed and eaten by his companions. The four defendants were indicted for the murder of Roger Whetmore.

This classic case demonstrates the opinions of five justices

If a person cannot be forgiven for stealing a loaf of bread how can one be pardoned for killing a person out of starvation. He further asserts, “It is true that a statute should be applied in light of its purpose.” However, the purposive approach that “interpret a statute in the light of its purpose” is difficult when there are many purposes such as retribution and rehabilitation of the wrongdoer.

Therefore, Tatting affirms that there is no doubt that these four defendants committed murder, but he cannot live with himself if he voted against them (Opinions of …,

Keen affirms the four defendants are guilty. He criticizes Chief Justice Truepenny’s decision to formally encourage the executive to provide clemency. Keen asserts that it was not the judge’s role to direct the executive what to do, but to offer their opinion as private citizens. Our roles, as judge, is to apply the statute, which very undoubtedly applies on its own terms to this case and not whether these men’s actions were “right” or “good,” “wicked” or “good, ”or whether the statute is good or bad policy. A judge should not apply the concepts of morality, but the law of the land. Keen argues that it is wrong to assert that defendants were acting in self-defense since Whetmore had not threatened their lives. He insists upon “a separation between law and morality, holding that "the law" required a finding of guilty even though his own morality would lead to a different result” (D’Amato, 2010). He adds, “a hard decision is never a popular decision.” A hard decision in this case is probably good because it forces the legislature to reconsider the statute. He states it is for the people to remind the Legislature of his mistake and not for the judiciary (Jitani,