Cannibalism

EdgarAllenPoo

Just a quick question, I'm doing an assignment on Dudley v Stevens and while I know it was and is illegal to kill someone and then eat them, I can't remember if it was/is legal to eat someone after they're dead.

I'm trying to remember from my old crimnal law lectures and I think it is but can someone clarify it for me?

cycleoin

I'm not sure, I know you can't steal a corpse because it is impossible to own a corpse (I can't remember the authority but there is an old one!). I doubt very much there is any statute on the area. the argument at the heart of Dudley was whether or not they were entitled to kill the cabin boy out of necessity. Because the drawing of lots was not used the killing was illegal. Jaysus, now that I think of it, I could be completely wrong, its been so long. I think I may be getting confused between Dudley and the case of the Speluncean Explorers!

However, if you are going to go for it I'd recommend it with a nice chianti.

besty

That rings a bell cycleoin. AFAIK, necessity was the defence raised when the crewman killed and ate one of the crew but it failed.

EdgarAllenPoo

cycleoin wrote:

However, if you are going to go for it I'd recommend it with a nice chianti.

You do know I'm not asking because I've run out of food right?;)

The arguement was that they never gave the cabin boy a say and that they arbitrarily decided it should be the cabin boy that got the chop.

I'm not really interested in the necessity aspect just if they could have gotten away with waiting for him to die and then chowing down?

cycleoin

I think they would have ultimately gotten away with it if they had all drawn lots (as in straws) and where only those who were party to the drawing of lots would have been allowed to take part in the feast. It follows, therefore, that if they had left the boy to die (and I think they claimed he was the weakest with the worst prospect of survival) then they would not have been prosecuted.

I think in the end they were sentenced to death but that there sentence was commuted by the crown having regard to the desperate situation they were in.

Jo King

It was common practice at the time to eat cabin boys in those circumstances. There would be no point in waiting for the cabin boy to die of starvation because he would hardly be worth eating by that time. The drawing of lots may not have saved them as the court held there was no rule of human jettison. ideally they would have to draw lots with the loser committing suicide. The loser could then be eaten with impunity.

NoQuarter

looking at my notes here and they say they were convicted on man-slaughter, judge said there was no defence of necessity and that the only noble thing would be self sacrifice!

i think the drawing of lots was from U.S V Holmes where there was the same situation but 16 people on a liferaft and the crew took it upon themselves to throw people overboard!

Rhonda9000

Jo King wrote:

The loser could then be eaten with impunity.

Mmmmmmmmmmm, loser

Tom Young

On appeal the result was that necessity was allowed with respect to the Dudley and Stephens case. There are more recent cases in re. conjoined twins which are more relevants to the issue.

As criminal law is a technical subject, I believe that the matter in question is that of necessity versus that of actual intent.

There is a discrete difference.

Anyone read the case of the Speluncean Explorers?

EdgarAllenPoo

If they were clever they would have thrown the body overboard, it's always polite to clean up after you've eaten.

People seem to have missed the point.

If they had waited until the boy died and then had a bit of nosh would they have had a case to answer (in other words would it have been illegal to consume to blood and body of the boy after he died on his own).