R v Dudley and Stephens

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mignonette , sketch by Tom Dudley

The 1884 R v Dudley and Stephens criminal case , file number 14 QBD 273 DC, is considered one of the preeminent British criminal cases. The reasoning for the judgment set a precedent that had an impact on global case law . In essence, it was established that the existence of a state of emergency can not be asserted in defense of murder .

The case concerned ensuring survival through cannibalism after a shipwreck and the justification of this behavior on the basis of the so-called "Customs of the Sea", the "customs of the sea". This was an alleged code of conduct based on customary law in the British-speaking world, which, however, was not fixed in writing. The negotiations and the verdict marked the culmination of a long history of legal attempts to strip this alleged right from any legal basis. Such a rule change was previously difficult because the castaways received great support in public opinion . The case can be considered a “ cause célèbre ” of Victorian Great Britain .

Well-known facts

The Australian lawyer John Henry Want bought the yacht Mignonette in 1883 , a 52-foot sailing cruiser (approx. 16 m) built in 1867 with a net tonnage of 19.43 t . Due to its size, the only way to bring it to its new owner was a so-called " Verholtörn ", in this case a sailing trip over several oceans over around 13,000  nm (approx. 24,100  km ). The attempt to hire a suitably trained crew was obviously difficult; only on May 19, 1884 did the ship leave Southampton with the following crew : Captain Tom Dudley and his crew consisting of Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks and the cabin boy Richard Parker. Parker was 17 years old and an inexperienced seaman.

On July 5, the yacht got into a strong wind zone around 1,400 km (approx. 800 nm) northwest of the Cape of Good Hope . In this situation, Dudley gave the order to turn down so the crew could sleep that night. Upon completion of the maneuver, Parker was sent below deck to make tea. At that moment a wave tore away the entire bulwark lying in the leeward position . Dudley immediately realized that the ship was doomed and ordered the only lifeboat on board to be launched. The approximately 4 m long lifeboat was built very lightly, the 16 mm planks leaked in the rush of action . The Mignonette sank within five minutes of the accident. The crew managed to get into the boat, although they only managed to take nautical instruments and two cans of beets with them. There was no fresh water.

Richard Parker's tombstone

Dudley was able to improvise a sea anchor to give the boat stability in the waves. In parallel with this work, the crew had to fend off a shark with their oars. Dudley opened the first can of beets on July 7th, the five pieces were divided among the men so that they would last for two days. Around July 9th, Brooks spotted a turtle that Stephens pulled on board. During the entire time, the team strictly avoided the consumption of seawater , as it was then generally assumed that it was fatal. Although they ate the turtle, they refrained from drinking its blood because there was a fear that it might be contaminated with seawater. The turtle offered each of the people about three pounds of meat. This food, along with the bones that were also eaten and the second can of beets, lasted until July 15th or 17th. Failing to collect rainwater , the castaways began drinking their own urine on July 13th . Presumably on July 20th, Parker fell ill from consuming seawater . Stephens was uncomfortable too, possibly after experimenting with seawater as well.

Probably the first discussion on July 16 or 17 was the first time that tickets were drawn to determine a person who would die to serve as food for the rest. The debate then appears to have intensified on July 21, without a decision being taken. On July 23rd or 24th, Parker was probably already unconscious by then, Dudley told the others that it was better that only one of them died and the others could survive. He suggested that they draw lots. Brooks refused. The following night Dudley brought the matter up to Stephens again. In that conversation, he pointed out that he and Stephen had wives and families, and also that Parker was likely to die. They agreed to let the matter rest until morning. The following day, still with no prospect of rescue, Dudley and Stephens signaled to each other that Parker should be killed. The perpetrators assumed that Parker's blood would be more palatable if he did not die of natural causes, but was killed. Brooks, who was not involved in the earlier discussion, later stated that he had not signaled approval or protest. Dudley, on the other hand, always insisted that Brooks agreed. After deciding Dudley said a prayer and stabbed with his pocket knife in Parker's jugular vein , which this killing. Stephens was ready to fix the boy's legs in case he should defend himself.

In some later accounts of the killing process, it is rumored that Parker muttered, “What, me?” When he was murdered. The three remaining shipwrecked ate Parker's body, with Dudley and Brooks consuming the most and Stephens consuming very little. At that time, the rest of the crew finally managed to catch some rainwater. Dudley later described the scene:

“I can assure you I shall never forget the sight of my two unfortunate companions over that ghastly meal we all was like mad wolfs who should get the most and for men fathers of children to commit such a deed we could not have our right reason. ”

“I can assure you that I will never forget the sight of my two unfortunate companions over this horrific meal. We were all like crazy wolves fighting over most of the things. As human fathers of children, we would have found no justification to commit such an act. "

Rescue and prosecution

Photograph of the lifeboat exhibited at Falmouth in 1884

On July 29, the survivors sighted the sails of the German barque Montezuma , which was on its way back to Hamburg . Dudley, Stephens and Brooks were taken on board and dropped off in Falmouth (Cornwall) on Saturday 6th September as this port was on the route. The survivors immediately went to the local customs house, where Dudley and Stephens provided the information required by law under the Merchant Shipping Acts, which was required in the event of a loss of the ship. All three were open in their willingness to give evidence, as Dudley and Stephens believed they were protected by the "customs of the sea". The nearby customs officer and sergeant of the Port Police, James Laverty, subsequently questioned Dudley about the objects with which he had killed Parker. He took the crime knife into safekeeping, promising to return it. The findings thus obtained were sent by telegram to both the Department of Commerce and the Central Shipping Register on Bassinghall Street in London. While the castaways tried to return to their families, "Bassinghall Street" advised that the men be arrested in Falmouth. The Ministry of Commerce advised against taking no action, but tried to inform the Ministry of Interior , which was closed at the weekend . The officer Laverty himself, however, asked for arrest warrants against the men for murder on the high seas. He received it on the same day from the Mayor of Falmouth, Henry Liddicoat.

The three men were then arrested and initially detained in the city police station and then brought before the judge on Monday, September 8th. Dudley is said to have been confident that the court would drop the charges. Mayor Liddicoat also appeared on site to apologize to the detainees for their inconvenience. In fact, shortly before this case, all magistrates of the British Crown had been instructed to seek advice from the Treasury Solicitor , the chairman of the Treasury , which also includes comprehensive legal advice in all homicide cases . For this reason, Laverty said to have been prompted by the assessor clerk, the men initially in custody to take so that the session could be postponed until the arrival of instructions. The local attorney Harry Tilly, who was also present , stood up for the men and demanded that they be dismissed. However, after the court had given advice, including the liddicoat, the men remained detained.

The following Wednesday, Home Secretary Sir William Harcourt first became aware of the incident. Harcourt held consultations with Attorney General Sir Henry James and Attorney General for England and Wales Sir Farrer Herschell that same day . Harcourt then made the decision to pursue the case. The James Archer case from 1874 is said to have played a role here, in which due to disputes over jurisdiction there was no negotiation and thus the chance for legal processing was wasted.

After the accused appeared before the magistrate on September 11th, the public fully supported them. The appearance of Parker's brother Daniel, who, also a seaman, shook the hands of the three, must have made a special impression. The case itself was adjourned to September 18, but attorney Tilly was able to obtain a bail release after the Home Office indicated that such an approach was appropriate. The three men then returned to their homes.

In the meantime, the case began to become known worldwide. It quickly became clear that the entire public was on the side of the accused. Harcourt himself was outraged by this mood and the intention to cling to the concept of "customs of the sea".

The attorney William Otto Adolph Julius Danckwerts was commissioned by the prosecutor to work out the indictment. Although he had only been admitted to the bar for six years, one of the reasons why he was selected was because he already had considerable experience with investigations in the field of shipwrecks. During the drafting, he recognized early on that both public opinion and the lack of evidence presented considerable difficulties. The only witnesses were the accused themselves, who thus had the right to refuse to testify . In addition, a confession could only be used against the person who made it, but not against the co-defendants. It is further assumed that the statements of the accused themselves were not sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict.

In a preliminary hearing on September 18, Danckwerts stated that he intended to offer the suspect Brooks to plead "not guilty". The intention here was that Brooks could then be called as a witness in the Dudley and Stephens trial , since his own case was closed. The court agreed with this procedure. After the trial against Brooks was over, Danckwerts brought charges against the two remaining accused and named those who had heard the accused's accounts and Brooks himself as witnesses. The court allowed the trial. It was to be held at the Cornwall and Devon jury in Exeter the following winter .

Legal proceedings

Baron Huddleston

The trial opened in Exeter on November 3, under the direction of Judge John Walter Huddleston . Originally Sir William Robert Grove was intended for this, the reason for the change is not known. There are suspicions, however, that Grove was replaced because they wanted to be sure that the judge could guide a jury accordingly. Huddleston was known for this. The prosecutor was Crown Attorney (QC) Arthur Charles, while Crown Attorney Arthur JH Collins represented the defense. This was paid for from a foundation that came about through a public collection. Judge Huddleston was apparently aware of the mood in the local jury, possibly adding knowledge of the Euxine case and the failure of the judiciary in the James Archer case. He was convinced that this case should not fail and that the question of the applicability of the “state of emergency” absolutely had to be clarified. The jury was then appointed and sworn in . The men were already known to each other, so this jury had already decided the previous day in a trial under Huddleston in the case of murder on the death penalty .

Dudley and Stephens pleaded "not guilty". In the indictment, the legal background was first explained and it was stated that there was no state of emergency. In particular, Charles also refused a defense with the objection of incapacity for guilt due to nonsense or the like. To this end, he cited the statements of the accused, which they had given under oath. In addition, he referred to Dudley's prayer. Charles did not ignore the overall desperate circumstances the men were in, however, and appealed one last time for mercy. This was followed by a discussion between Huddleston and the defense, where it became clear that Judge Huddleston had already decided on the legal provisions to be observed and no longer wanted the defense to speak. Obviously, Huddleston had already planned how to guarantee a guilty verdict and end the state of emergency defense once and for all. His plan was to only get the jury to issue a so-called "special verdict" (special verdict). With this legal construct, the jury only evaluates the facts at hand, but leaves the decision on guilt and sentence to the judge. The decision as to whether the jury only performs this limited task is incumbent on itself. In the times before 1785 this procedure was much more common, but since that year no jury had allowed itself to be deprived of its full rights. Huddleston also planned to have the question of compliance and guilt decided by a judicial panel in order to give it the appropriate authority. Furthermore, he planned to interrupt the hearing after the announcement of the Special Verdict in order to formulate a guilty verdict together with his fellow judges.

The prosecutor presented the various representations and affidavits of the accused. He also stated that the Mignonette was registered in Great Britain, which gave the court jurisdiction according to s.267 of the "Merchant Shipping Act" of 1854 (Merchant Shipping Act). Prosecutor Charles then called up statements from those witnesses who spoke to the defendants after they arrived in Falmouth. Brooks then stated how Dudley and Stephens had behaved without his special intervention. In the subsequent cross-examination , Collins did not question these statements. But he let Brooks confirm the appalling overall circumstances, his own cannibalism, the belief that Parker would have died anyway, and the inevitable death of everyone involved if they hadn't eaten Parker.

The defense informed the jury in detail about the "state of emergency" in his closing argument, but Huddleston presented the jury with a narrow selection: Either it followed his opinion that the men were guilty or it simply issued a "Special Verdict". Without waiting for the decision, Huddleston then presented a preconceived “Special Verdict”, which he had written down the night before. He then asked the jury for confirmation after reading out one section at a time. Silence is sufficient here. At the end of this procedure the jury tried to include some additional facts, but Huddleston decided, possibly not truthfully, that their findings were reflected in the presented paper. The last words of the saying were "Whether the prisoners were and are guilty of the murder, however, the jury is ignorant and refers [the decision] to the court." Huddleston then resuscitated the bail and adjourned the meeting in his rooms in the Royal Courts of Justice in London on November 25th.

Between the negotiation and the creation of the copy of the "Special Verdict" for London, Huddleston discovered that he had made a fatal error. In the first draft he called the Mignonette an “English merchant ship”, but later changed this term to the simple word “yacht”. Furthermore, he had only referred to the Mignonette's lifeboat as "an open boat" and not made any connection to the mother ship. As a result of these changes, it was no longer clear where the local jurisdiction of the jurisdiction lay. Huddleston's solution was to change these entries in the verdict.

On November 25th the Chamber of Jury for Devon and Cornwall met in the 2nd court of the “Royal Courts of Justice” in London. Attorney General Sir Henry James appeared as the prosecutor and immediately pointed out a problem. The Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division had the power to decide when a case was submitted by a lower court. The statutes provided for this only after a guilty verdict, and there had not been such a verdict. James proposed that the case be heard in the capacity of the Devon and Cornwall jury, but that all High Court judges be attached to the Chamber . This was possible because the judges were authorized to accompany jury trials. As a result of this decision, Huddleston expressed his doubts that judges could be retrospectively assigned to a chamber when the hearing had already started. At this point, the Collins-form defense became suspicious of the falsifications Huddleston had made on the verdict and requested access to the shorthand notes from the first hearing. Because of these obstacles, the further hearing was postponed until December 4th. The accused were summoned to London for the day.

At another hearing on December 2nd, Attorney General James reversed his proposal regarding the composite court and now advocates hearing in the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. Only two or three judges would be required for this, while up to five would have been allowed in the first variant. Collins does not appear to have questioned this decision. Possibly there was already an understanding between the defense and the prosecution, possibly even a promise of mercy.

Proceedings before the Queen's Bench Division

Lord Coleridge

On December 4th, the “Queen's Bench Division” met under the direction of Lord Chief Justice Lord Coleridge . Sir James represented the public prosecutor, Charles and Danckwerts were his associates. At the beginning of the meeting, the report of the Exeter trial was presented in full. This allowed defense attorney Collins to point out that the "Special Verdict" had been changed. After deliberation, the court agreed that this should be changed back to the version that had been presented to the jury in Exeter. The subsequent attempt by Collins to question the local jurisdiction of the court, however, failed. Collins went on to say that the court now in session was still not empowered to pass a verdict because the Exeter jury had not given a full verdict and the current hearing did not comply with applicable procedural rules. This caused concern among the judges, but was then rejected as a non-relevant formal requirement .

Sir James then stated that there was no common law in force that would allow the state of emergency to justify murder. The so-called "Saint Christopher case" was rejected as a precedent because there were no records that corresponded to the necessary forms. Before Collins began his remarks, Lord Coleridge advised him that he should limit this to the facts of the murder. Even before the plea, he rejected the entirely plausible alternative that the emergency situation - by using what is known as provocation in the Anglican legal system - partially excuses the behavior and the act would only be rated as homicide . Collins responded by referring to the case “United States v. Holmes ”quoted. Furthermore, he presented various legal theoretical and ethical arguments in order to be able to use the state of emergency as a defense. After this the court withdrew briefly, only to then explain through Lord Coleridge: "We are all of the opinion that the verdict should be confirmed, but we will put our reasons in writing and carry out this Saturday." Admitted to Holloway Prison until the verdict was announced on December 9th .

In their verdict, the judges found that there was no common law by which a state of emergency could be invoked in defense of murder. This is not possible on the basis of precedents, nor on the basis of ethics and morals .

“To preserve one's life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it. War is full of instances in which it is a man's duty not to live, but to die. The duty, in case of shipwreck, of a captain to his crew, of the crew to the passengers, of soldiers to women and children, as in the noble case of the Birkenhead ; these duties impose on men the moral necessity, not of the preservation, but of the sacrifice of their lives for others, from which in no country, least of all, it is to be hoped, in England, will men ever shrink, as indeed , they have not shrunk. "

“Generally speaking, it is a duty to preserve your life, but it can be the clearest and highest duty to sacrifice it. The war is full of examples where it is not a man's duty to live but to die. The duty of the captain towards his crew in the event of a shipwreck, that of the crew towards the passengers, that of the soldiers towards women and children, as in the noble case of the Birkenhead ; These duties force people into a moral emergency, but not that of preservation, but rather the sacrifice of their own life for others, before which in no country, it is to be hoped in England, a person will ever shrink and not shrink back. "

“It would be a very easy and cheap display of commonplace learning to quote from Greek and Latin authors, from Horace, from Juvenal, from Cicero, from Euripides, passage after passage, in which the duty of dying for others has been laid down in glowing and emphatic language as resulting from the principles of heathen ethics; it is enough in a Christian country to remind ourselves of the Great Example Jesus Christ whom we profess to follow. "

“It would be a very simple and cheap representation of learned general places to quote the Greek and Latin authors, Horace , Juvenal , Cicero , Euripides , in which, passage after passage, the duty to die for others, represented by the principles of pagan ethics, is ardent and compassionate language is described; it is enough to remember the great example Jesus Christ in a Christian country , whom we profess to follow. "

The judges also questioned who should be qualified to decide who should live and who should die in the event of a principle of legitimation. In addition, such legitimation could be a “legal cloak for unbridled passions and horrific crimes”.

“It must not be supposed that in refusing to admit temptation to be an excuse for crime it is forgotten how terrible the temptation was; how awful the suffering; how hard in such trials to keep the judgment straight and the conduct pure. We are often compelled to set up standards we cannot reach ourselves, and to lay down rules which we could not satisfy ourselves. But a man has no right to declare temptation to be an excuse, though he might himself have yielded to it, nor allow compassion for the criminal to change or weaken in any manner the legal definition of the crime. "

“One must not assume that in denying that temptation can be an excuse for crime, one has forgotten how terrible temptation was, how cruel the suffering; how difficult it is in such proceedings to keep the judgment straight and the actions pure. We are often forced to set standards we cannot achieve ourselves and rules we could never adhere to. However, a man has no right to use temptation as an excuse, even if he himself could sink into it, and compassion for the accused must not lead in any way to change or soften the legal definition of the act. "

Dudley and Stephens were sentenced to the death penalty provided by law for murder, but their pardon was recommended.

judgment

Sir William Harcourt

After the end of the proceedings, Collins still had the option of an appeal due to the judicially questionable jurisdiction of the court with regard to location and composition. He was aware, however, that a verdict in such an important case had already been decided and that Dudley and Stephens were looking forward to an immediate release. There was no evidence of this until December 11, and it appeared that by now public opinion was turning against the convicts. A pardon by Queen Victoria could only take place on the advice of the "Home Secretary", this too obviously failed to materialize.

Although Sir Harcourt was in favor of the abolition of the death penalty, he was conscientious in his official duties. He took seriously the chamber's decision that the men were guilty of murder, and feared that converting the sentence to anything other than life imprisonment would mock the law. Attorney General Henry James, however, feared that such detention would not stand up to public opinion. He also noted that the board had withheld the jury from deciding on manslaughter. Otherwise the jury would probably have decided on manslaughter. In such a case "no judge would have decided on more than three months imprisonment". Advocate General Sir Herschell agreed. On December 12th, Harcourt was sentenced to six months in prison. This was communicated to Dudley and Stephens the next day, which after such a long period of surveillance was an obvious disappointment for the convicts. Dudley did not accept until his death that his conviction should have been just.

reception

The case is well known among British lawyers and their counterparts in many of the former colonies and is regularly studied in legal training. Simpson himself states that although many murderers are known by name to the British public, this case is surprisingly unknown to the public. Even today it is used when considering ethical problems regarding the offsetting of human lives.

It was not until 1974, he was known as Arthur Koestler in " The Sunday Times wrote out" a contest about the "incredible coincidences" that were known to the readers. The winner submitted that Edgar Allan Poe, in his story The Report of Arthur Gordon Pym , described a shipwreck in 1838, years before the sinking of the Mignonette , in which four men on a capsized lifeboat cast their lot over who to eat the other should be sacrificed. The loser was the figure who suggested this procedure, the figure's name was Richard Parker.

The claim that Richard Parker is the name of many real and fictional castaways, some of them allegedly victims of cannibalism, was taken up by the author Yann Martel in his book Shipwreck with Tiger in 2001 , when he also named the character of the shipwrecked tiger Richard Parker.

According to German law, the perpetrators would be unpunished, as they acted in an apologetic state of emergency (then Section 54, since 1975 Section 35 of the Criminal Code ).

literature

  • RF Clarke: 'The Mignonette' case as a question of moral theology . In: The Month . 53rd edition. 1885, p. 17 .
  • Neil Hanson: The Custom of the Sea: The Story that Changed British Law . Ed .: Doubleday. 1999, ISBN 0-385-60083-6 .
  • MG Mallin: In warm blood: Some historical and procedural aspects of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens . In: The University of Chicago Law Review (Ed.): University of Chicago Law Review . 34th edition. tape 2 , 1967, p. 387-407 , doi : 10.2307 / 1598938 , JSTOR : 1598938 .
  • AW Brian Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: The Story of the Tragic last Voyage of the Mignonette and the Strange Legal Proceedings to Which It Gave Rise . Ed .: University of Chicago Press. Chicago 1984, ISBN 0-226-75942-3 .
  • G. Williams: A commentary on R v. Dudley and Stephens . In: Cambrian Law Review . 8th edition. 1977, p. 94 .
  • Allen Boyer: Crime, Cannibalism and Joseph Conrad: The Influence of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens on Lord Jim . In: Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review . tape 20 , p. 6-34 ( online ).
  • Pavlína Hojecká: Theory of Jurisprudence: Regina v Dudley and Stephens. theoryofjurisprudence.blogspot.de, June 30, 2006, accessed June 8, 2015 .
  • Michael G. Mallin: In Warm Blood: Some Historical and Procedural Aspects of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens. In: The University of Chicago Law Review. Volume 34, No. 2 (Winter 1967), pp. 387-407, doi: 10.2307 / 1598938 .
  • Glanville Williams: A Commentary on R. v. Dudley and Stephens. In: Cambrian Law Review. Volume 94, 1977, 8.
  • Sascha Ziemann: morals overboard? About the emergency law of castaways and the lot of the cabin boys. The criminal case Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (Mignonette case). In: Journal for International Criminal Law Doctrine. (ZIS) 2014, issue 10, pp. 479–488.

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ [...] But whether upon the whole matter, the prisoners were and are guilty of murder, the jury are ignorant and refer to the Court. [...]
  2. ↑ The act carried out through “provocation” is an act of affect in which the circumstances have, exceptionally, provoked uncontrolled action.
  3. ↑ Compare with this cf. United States v. Holmes. Circuit Court, ED Pennsylvania. 26 F.Cas. 360, 1842 ( Memento of the original from April 18, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . The case concerns a sinking after colliding with an iceberg. One of the two dinghies was heavily overloaded that threatened to capsize , whereupon parts of the crew pushed 16 passengers off board in order to save the rest. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / wings.buffalo.edu
  4. ↑ [...] We are all of the opinion that the conviction should be affirmed but we will put our reasons in writing and give them on Saturday next. [...]
  5. ↑ [...] legal cloak for unbridled passion and atrocious crime [...]
  6. ↑ […] no judge would have inflicted more than three months' imprisonment. [...]

Bibliography

  1. ^ Walker, Andrew: Is Eating People Wrong ?: Great Legal Cases and How They Shaped the World . Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011 ISBN 978-1-107-00037-7 pg. 22nd
  2. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, p. 18.
  3. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 37-40.
  4. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 50-53.
  5. ^ A b Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 57-60.
  6. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, p. 67.
  7. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, p. 68.
  8. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, p. 69.
  9. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 69-70.
  10. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 3-11.
  11. ^ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 73-76.
  12. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, p. 77.
  13. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 78-80.
  14. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 81-83.
  15. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, p. 89.
  16. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 89-92.
  17. ^ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 195-198.
  18. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 205-206.
  19. ^ A b Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 206-210.
  20. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 212-217.
  21. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, p. 218.
  22. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 218-221.
  23. ^ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 221-223.
  24. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 229-237.
  25. ↑ a b c d e Judgment in the matter of R v. Dudley and Stephens [1884] 14 QBD 273 DC. online ( Memento of the original from February 28, 2005 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.justis.com
  26. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, pp. 239-247.
  27. ↑ Simpson: Cannibalism and the Common Law: ... 1984, p. 306.
  28. ↑ Ferdinand von Schirach : CIVIL RIGHTS The dignity can be touched . In: Der Spiegel . No. 38 , 2013, p. 138-141 ( online ).
  29. ↑ Eric Hilgendorf : “Tragic Cases: Extreme Situations and Criminal Emergency” In: Ulrich Blaschke u. a. (Ed.): “Security instead of freedom ?: State scope for action in extreme risk situations”, Publications on Public Law, Volume 1002 , Berlin 2005, ISBN 978-3-428-11872-4 , pp. 107-132, p. 110.
  30. ↑ law student: The Board of Carneades