Analyzing Regina V. Dudley and Stephens

Natural law is a system of principles to guide human conduct independent of, and sometimes contrary to, enacted law and discovered by man’s rational intelligence.  On the basis of natural law I would have to convict Dudley of murder and Stephens and Brooks as accomplices.  Murder is defined as immoral and a clear violation of natural law.

• Analyzing Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D./273 (1884) using positive law.  Positive law is law enacted and codified by governmental authority.  Based on positive law this is an open and shut case.  The men committed murder, which is a violation of a written law, and are therefore guilty.
• Analyzing Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D./273 (1884) using legal realism.  Legal realism is the belief which states that judges make decisions based on personal convictions and not the way of the law.  If I were a judge hearing this case, I would not convict the men of murder at all.  The men acted on an inner instinct of which all human beings possess.  The basic will to survive outweighs the act of murder.  The boy was the sickest and was more than likely going to die anyway.  The men acted out of the necessity to survive.

Image via Wikipedia