The Queen V Dudley And Stephen Case Analysis

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

Opening arguments by the prosecution

Your Honors, we bring to you today a grotesque case of an incident on the high seas. You have read the facts, four men: Mr. Brooks, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Dudley, and Mr. Parker were stranded on an open boat. The first three were able-bodied seamen and the last, Mr. Parker, was a boy not yet eighteen. After being stranded for twenty days and being without food for the past eight days, two of the men, Dudley and Stevens, contrived to kill the boy, Parker, so that they might sate their hunger on his flesh. The next day Dudley with the support of Stephens killed the boy, Parker, while he lay resting on the floor of the boat. It should be noted that the third man, Brooks, had three times dissented from participating in Dudley and Parker’s vile scheme.

It is important to examine the power structures at play on this boat. Richard Parker, the deceased, was younger, weaker, and

A re-emphasis of the role Brooks played in this sordid affair may clarify to the Judges the guilt of Dudley and Stephens. Brooks was neither killed, nor did he take part in the killing. It is documented that he “dissented” from the murderous scheme three times before Dudley and Stephens committed the killing. Brooks is representative of a citizen of upstanding morals, a status which Dudley and Stephens in comparison fall well short of. Our opposition may argue of extenuating circumstances of delirium or crazed starvation which forced the hand of Dudley and Stephens in a situation where there wasn’t “any reasonable prospect of relief.” But Your Honors, we are fortunate enough to have testimony of a citizen, Brooks, who was in the exact same situation as Dudley and Stephens and was able to choose the moral and lawful