This is a hypothetical case solved by American jurist Fuller published in Harvard Law Review in the 20th century. Fuller further fabricated the verdict of five justices of the Supreme Court's Court of Appeal in this case. This famous case has become a compulsory course for students of western law schools in the future, and more cases have been deduced on this basis. 1998, the jurist Saber continued Fuller's game, assuming that fifty years later, the case had a chance to be overturned, and the sixth man who escaped by eating people appeared that year. The other nine justices also issued their own judgments on this case.
Fourteen judges, some think guilty, some think innocent, some abstain, but the specific reasons are different, but the argument is equally powerful. This is an open topic, as stated in the introduction recommended at the beginning: I look forward to the fifteenth point of view. Everyone has his own opinion. I wonder what your opinion is.
The main entanglements I understand are as follows.
There is a provision in the law: "Anyone who intentionally deprives others of their lives will be put to death", and the defendant is considered guilty. Life is equal, and the right to life cannot be abandoned. Even if the person who is eaten agrees in advance, the crime of intentional homicide is established.
Does it constitute justifiable defense? In this case, the person who was eaten did not threaten the life safety of others, and justifiable defense did not exist. However, some judges believe that self-defense is established.
Is it an emergency? The so-called "emergency asylum", that is, people who have to kill people, is also considered invalid. If emergency asylum is established, all criminals will argue that they commit crimes only when they have to, which will damage the rule of law. He who steals because of hunger cannot forgive the crime of stealing, and he who kills because of hunger cannot forgive the crime of murder. And there are other ways to alleviate hunger, such as waiting for the weakest to die first, or eating your own limbs. The judge who thinks it is an emergency hedge thinks that the defendant's intentional homicide is not malicious and meets the conditions of emergency hedge.
Some judges think that the legislature must consider morality, and it is because of morality that murder is considered guilty.
Some judges think that the defendant is innocent and the law must serve people. According to opinion polls, 90% people think that the defendant should be pardoned or given symbolic punishment before being released, and the law cannot be a minority. This is no different from tyranny. People should judge according to people's common sense, which involves practice, not abstract theory. On the contrary, the law cannot be changed because of personal moral preference, and the duty of a judge is to safeguard the law and not to be selfish.
This is a fictional case, but it is adapted from real cases, such as the Holmes case of 1842 and the Dudley case of 1884. In both cases, the lifeboat was overloaded or the food was insufficient after the sinking, killing people to satisfy their hunger or throwing away passengers. Among them, the key words are: desperate situation, lottery, cannibalism, public sympathy, political prosecution, emergency asylum defense, jury verdict, pardon, etc. The grotesque cave case is called the biggest legal fiction case in history. From fuller to cyber, it shows us the philosophical schools of law, which is worth studying again and again.