The Case of the Speluncean Explorers – Lon Fuller
Notes
- Speluncean Explorers
o Hypothetical case set in SC of Newgarth in the year 4300
o Involves a group of cave explorers trapped in a cave facing death and starvation
Case examines how the rescued survivors, who killed and ate one person in order to survive,
should be treated by the law
o Deals in statutory construction
Legal philosophies/theories
- Truepenny and Keen’s Opinions
o Textual; verba legis; literal
- Foster’s Opinion
o Natural Law
There are principles that are inherent in human nature
Laws must conform to this
Legal validity and moral value are inseparable
o Positive Law
Concept of law is distinct from concept of morality
Law as social constructs
- Tatting’s Opinion
o Withdraws from deciding
Unable to reach a conclusion due to conflict between his emotions and reasoning
- Handy’s Opinion
o Acknowledges that taking the law literally is important; however
o Public will must prevail
To prevent SC from looking foolish and antagonistic
Facts: The defendants were convicted for murder and sentenced to death by hanging by the Court of General Instances
of Stowfield. They bring a petition of error before SC of Newgarth
The 4 defendants are members of the Speluncean Society – a group of spelunkers. In May 4299 they, along with fellow
member Roger Whetmore, went to explore a limestone cavern. The cave collapsed and trapped them inside with no
means of communication other than waiting for rescue. The men didn’t have provisions with them either; they had no
food or water to stay alive long enough to wait for rescue.
After 20 days, the rescuers managed to make contact with the explorers. The explorers asked how long it would take to
rescue them; the rescuers said at least 10 days. Roger asked the rescuers if he and the others would last longer if one of
them was to be eaten, but no answer was given. After 32 days, the men were rescued.
It was found out that on the 23rd day, Roger was killed and eaten by the explorers. In court, the explorers claimed Roger
proposed that the one to be eaten was to be chosen by casting lots; after a while, the party determined the one who
should be eaten would be determined by the roll of the dice. The results of the roll chose Roger and so he was eaten.
The jury and the trial judge found the defendants guilty and sentenced them to hang. However, the jury asked the Chief
Executive to order that the sentence be changed to 6 months imprisonment; the Chief Executive decided to wait on SC’s
decision.
The statute applicable is as follows: “Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.”
CJ Truepenny’s Decision: The statute permits no exception and the trial judge’s decision was just as it merely follows the
law to the letter. However, CJ encourages the other Justices to join him in asking the Chief Executive for executive
clemency.
Foster, J: Dissenting – he presents 2 arguments based on Natural Law
1. The cave is not in SC’s jurisdiction and the defendants were in a “state of nature.” Statutes cannot apply to them.
2. Concedes that the cave is in SC’s jurisdiction. However, asserts that the purpose of the statute is to deter crime;
the defendants merely ate one person to save the lives of 4; it would be absurd to sentence the survivors to death.
Main argument: No statute, whatever its language, should be applied in a way that contradicts its purpose.
Tatting, J: Withdraws from deciding – unable to reach a conclusion; he is unable to separate his emotions from reason.
Tatting’s emotions and reasoning conflicts on whether the defendants should die.
Keen, J: Concurring – A judge should simply apply the words that the legislature enacted into law.
Handy, J: Dissenting – Legal Realism: If SC convicts the defendants, the President won’t pardon them. The public also
supports the acquittance of the defendants. Since, realistically speaking, that the pardon won’t be given, a decision that
would best satisfy the public should be made; hence, public will prevails in this case
