Ahren Bailey blogs about the infamous case of R V Dudley and Stephens

R V Dudley and Stephens

The world-renowned infamous case of R V Dudley and Stephens is still considered to be one of the most striking and controversial, yet prominent cases in history. The case proposes the arguable question of whether necessity is an excuse for murder and in this case cannibalism.

The scene was set on July 5th 1884, when Dudley, Stephens, Brooks and Parker were stranded out at sea, lacking adequate amounts of food and water, with the exception of some turnips and a turtle that the foursome rapidly devoured. As the days passed, the men grew increasingly hungry and Captain Thomas Dudley suggested that the foursome should draw lots in order to decide who they should kill and ultimately eat, as it was necessary for the other three’s survival. The idea was proposed to Stephens and Brooks, however the cabin boy, Richard Parker was excluded from the discussion. Brooks decided that he didn’t want to kill the cabin boy, however, Stephens agreed to Dudley’s motion. The pair decided to slaughter Parker, aged 17-18, as he was the weakest out of the four. Parker was later stabbed to death by Dudley and his raw flesh and blood were feasted on by the trio of men for a lengthy period of four days until they were eventually rescued. Upon arrival, back to England Dudley and Stephens were immediately accused of murder, however, Brooks appeared to escape punishment. When consulted, the jury came to the conclusion that if someone wasn’t murdered and eaten, the rest of the men would have perished as a result of starvation. The jury, therefore, couldn’t determine whether the pair were guilty of murder or not. Lord Coleridge subsequently found the duo guilty of murder and were sentenced to life. Lord Coleridge landed on this statement as he found that necessity was not a viable excuse for murder, as he believed that if murder could be excused by necessity, it “might be made the legal cloak for unbridled passion and atrocious crime”. Dudley and Stephens only served 6 months of this sentence, due to public outrage.

I find this case very interesting as it concerns itself with some important issues that need to be considered in order for a conclusion to be reached. Firstly, Dudley and Stephens had no possible idea of knowing when they would be rescued. Theoretically, the tree men could have been rescued in the next hour, after the killing, therefore rendering the act, immoral, as killing the boy wouldn’t have benefitted them in any way. If however, the boy died as a result of natural causes, the case would have played out very differently, as murder wouldn’t have been commited. Secondly, the only reason why Richard Parker was killed was because he was “the weakest link” in a physical sense of the phrase. By this logic, it seems as though Dudley and Stephens believed that their lives were more valuable and therefore, the murder was excusable. Killing the boy only guaranteed that he wouldn’t survive. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham would disagree with this however, as he believed that the morally correct thing to do in any situation, philosophical or not, is the decision that would maximise utility. He was a strong believer in the “greatest good for the greatest number”. Bentham concerned himself with weighing up the costs of benefits of a decision and then making the decision that would be likely to “maximise utility”. This can be applied in this situation as Bentham would have been likely to defend Stephens and Dudley. Immanuel Kant, on the other hand would be likely to disagree with Bentham. He believed that people should be respected and not be used as a means to achieve the “greater good” that Bentham strongly believed in. Thirdly, the question of self-defence must be considered. The law states that a person can legally murder someone, only in the case of self-defence, directly against the person that was causing a threat. However, it can be seen that this law is not applicable in this case as Richard Parker didn’t present a threat to any of the men. Finally, and arguably most importantly, the question that the entire case rests on; can murder be excused on the ground of necessity? The murder, as a result of temptation, that occurred in this case cannot be considered necessary by law and therefore, Dudley and Stephens can be considered to be guilty.