Legal Cases of All Time

The case of the Speluncean Explorers is one of the first famous factious legal cases of all time. It involved men trapped in a cave who are forced to cannibalize one of their own men. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court argued that the men are guilty of murder because they took on the risk of any possible harm that could come their way when they decided to pursue their hobby of cave exploring. He argues that they cannot claim to have acted from necessity when the situation they found themselves in was not one they pursed in the first place because of necessity. The judge that I agreed with in the case is Justice Handy, that the men are innocent of the murder of Roger Whetmore. The reasons why I agree with Justice Handy is that his opinions takes into account what actually happened and made his decision based not on law but what should be the right thing to do based on the circumstances. To me, Justice Handy made a great point when he talked about 'self defense' and how back in the day this is how our ancestors had to survive. This is the same for the men trapped in the cave and that is was for survival reasons. I believe that the men went into the cave knowing that anything could happen, but I do not think it even crossed their minds that something bad might happen. No one can predict what can happen and the men needed to do for survival purposes.

This case shows us how judges with different moral and political beliefs interpret written law and how they use precedents to form their opinions. This case can also been seen as a way to visualize the role of judges and how they defend their judicial practices against criticism. I would view this case as a relationship between law and morality. This is a case of many opinions and many people who disagree with the Chief Justices ruling on the case. I do not feel that the law should compel that the cave explorers be convicted as murderers. Theoretically, laws are put in place for a reason, but realistically the limitations of human insight dictate that there must be exceptions to the rule. This is the second reason why I agree with Justice Handy, because he does not decide everything that is based on fact and the law. Justice Handy states, "I never cease to wonder at my colleagues' ability to throw an obscuring curtain of legalisms about every issue presented to them for decision." (Fuller1949, 637) So many judges, especially in this case look at the legal system and nothing else to make their rulings. I agree with Justice Handy when he states, "...I become more and more perplexed at men's refusal to apply their common sense to problems with the law and government." (Fuller 1949, 643) I cannot believe that some of these judges cannot even look further into this situation and know that they men did not kill Roger Whetmore because they wanted him dead. They did it because they had to survive and nothing more. In the end, I believe that this case teaches