1On July 5th, 884, Captain Dudley, Stephens' assistant, Brooks' crew and Parker, a boy of 17 years old, escaped to a lifeboat because of the storm, which was more than 1000 miles from the land.
Parker, the boy on the boat, is an orphan with no parents and no friends. On the contrary, the other three people on board are all people with their own families in Britain.
There is no water on the lifeboat (but it rains occasionally). There was nothing to eat for the first three days except a little radish (which was quickly eaten up). I ate a turtle on the fourth day and persisted for several days. By the 20th, they had been without food for 7 days and water for 5 days.
At this time, the boy Parker drank the sea water because he didn't listen to advice, so that his body became very weak. At this time, Captain Dudley called all the people to discuss whether to kill the man who was drawn by lot and use his flesh and blood to satisfy his hunger, so that others could live.
On 24th, three adults (the boy was too weak to participate) discussed again, and everyone voted to kill one person and let others live. But it was just a discussion, not a vote.
When it comes to their families, they all want to live again. Dudley and Stephens suggested killing the boy instead of voting, but Brooks still opposed it. Dudley and Stephens suggested killing the boy if the rescue boat was not seen tomorrow.
The next day, Dudley prayed for God's forgiveness and killed the defenseless boy.
The three of them live on Parker's body. Four days later, they were rescued by the passing French sailboat Montezuma.
By the time they were rescued, they had eaten the body for four days in a row and ate most of it. On the way back, the Montezuma made a short stop in falmouth, England. Dudley, Stephen and Brooks were arrested and imprisoned for murder. The jury sympathized with the defendant, but in order to avoid the result of acquittal, the judge asked the jury to make a special ruling and only find the facts.
At a time when everyone admitted the situation:
1. They were all extremely hungry and almost died.
2. There is no boat passing by.
Without the insistence of human flesh, they will never insist on being rescued for another four days.
4. Before the murder, there was no collective vote to decide who should die, but without the participation of boys, the three adults were unwilling to die considering their families.
5.？ That boy is the weakest. He has no family and no resistance. The defendant proposed to kill the boy!
After consulting the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and royal officials, Sir harcourt, the British Home Secretary, approved the prosecution of three crew members for murder, but the public in falmouth supported the defendants. Worried about the result of acquittal, the judge asked the jury to make a special verdict. This means that the jury only finds the facts without making a final decision on whether the facts constitute murder (this arrangement makes it possible for the court to convict the defendant even if the jury sympathizes with him). According to the facts ascertained by the jury, the judge declared the defendants guilty of murder and rejected their request for emergency asylum. The defendant was sentenced to hang and was later pardoned by Queen Victoria. It was Sir Hackett who supported the prosecution for pardon.
Let's talk about why there is such public sympathy for "forced cannibalism" and go back to the historical environment at that time.
In the modern history of western society, for a long time, specific forms of cannibalism were recognized by society and law. Usually, survivors of shipwrecks and air crashes eat the victims' meat to gain the strength to survive. Sometimes, under extreme conditions, they have to sacrifice their own lives to alleviate the hunger of others. In the early modern times, during the dangerous long-distance voyage, the surviving cannibals called it "recognized behavior among seafarers" and "navigation code" 19 For example, in 17 10, the survivors of the wrecked Nottingham Canyon became "violent and barbaric" after eating the body of the carpenter on board. /kloc-in the 0/9th century, more reports came from time to time. When describing the most famous shipwreck in history, the sinking of the Medusa, Jellick described cannibalism in his book.
1884, because of the Dudley case, the navigation code finally failed, and the survivors of the yacht "mignonette" starved and drifted at sea for 24 days, killing and eating a sailor on board.
Navigation law has similar provisions on land, although traditional morality has never been accepted. ? For example, in 1752, a group of deserters from the colonial self-defense forces set out from new york and fled to the French border; They got lost halfway and ate all the food, and four or five of them were eaten by others. 23? 1823, Tasmanian criminal, Alexander? Pierce admitted eating an accomplice. He didn't want to live, but to satisfy a wish he made when he escaped last time. At that time, he was the only one of the eight criminals who survived in the jungle. Except Alfred? In a degenerate case like Parker's, lost miners and coachmen often eat people to death on the North American border in the19th century. At mark? In Twain's satirical novels, a group of tourists of noble birth are described. On the journey between St. Louis and Chicago, they missed the train and detoured into a cannibal tribe. In this regard, the latest report happened in 1972. The plane of Uruguay's old Christian football team crashed in the Andes, and the survivors survived by eating dead human flesh.
For a more detailed understanding of the above cases, please refer to Simpson (A.W.Brian? Simpson) in the book Cannibalism and Common Law (University of Chicago Press, 1984 edition). A more concise and dramatic story retelling can be found in Katz (Leo? Katz) is a very good criminal law book-bad behavior and criminal psychology (University of Chicago Press, 1987 edition). Summaries of judicial opinions can often be found in case books used by Anglo-American law schools.