R v. Dudley and Stephens
murder/homicide, defence of necessity
What does the R stand for?
Regina  Victoria
Civil or Criminal?
Can you give a brief account of what happened?
Sink
cannibalism
In what year did the event giving rise to the criminal case take place?
1884 England  Australia
How many people were aboard the Mignonette?
Crew of 4 Tom Dudley, the captain; Edwin Stephens; Edmund Brooks; and Richard Parker, the cabin
boy. Parker was 17 years old and an inexperienced seaman
What happened to the Mignonette?
a storm on the high seas 1600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope
What were they able to take aboard the small boat after the ship sank?
Two tins of turnips
How long did they stay on the boat before they made the decision? How did they survive?
rainwater turtle
What was the attitude at the time of the events towards cannibalism by sailors?
Custom of the sea: maritime custom according to which castaways drew lots to see who would be killed
and eaten
Why did they choose Parker?
He was in a coma . Why?
They had families he was single
 they didn’t draw lots  chose the victim
Who chose Parker?
Dudley and Stephens. Brooks was against the idea. He nevertheless fed on Parker's body
Where did the trial first take place? What was the verdict of the jury?
Exeter
Jury was sympathetic( fishermen community)  Even Parker’s family testified that the defendants were
probably justified in their action. But because they had chosen Parker , the jury couldn’t decide if it was a
case, and what type of homicide it was.
What type of homicide? Legal definition : homicide: 3 major types:
Murder: when one person kills another person on purpose.
Manslaughter: word used to describe killing someone unlawfully but without meaning to do so
Justifiable / Legal Homicide: no criminal intention : action was necessary for their survival
The question was sent to London for Review by judges. What was their verdict? What was the specific
argument they used?
if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived," and that "the
boy being in a much weaker condition was likely to have died before them."
They stated that there was insufficient necessity to justify the killing. They used a specific legal argument
to show this: slippery slope argument: allowing an exception to murder could set dangerous precedents
for the future. Other courts could use the decision to acquit other forms of killing.
A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step
inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some
significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of
a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. ( pente savonneuse)
What are some other ways of describing the same type of argument? What other metaphors are used?
The thin end of the wedge. The camel’s nose?
What were the consequences for Dudley and Stephens?
They were found guilty and sentenced to death. But the sentence was later commuted to six months in
prison.
Vocabulary:
You should be able to give a definition:
Prosecute/ prosecution
Defend/defendant
Convict/ conviction
Guilt/guilty
Murder
Homicide
Verdict ( to reach a)
Threat/threaten
Reliable/unreliable
To weigh/weight
To know what they mean
Indicted
To be tried
Able-bodied
Seamen
Dissent
Vessel
Weakened
Rash
Harrowing
Appalling
Victuals
To be picked up
Remains
unresisting
Mercy
Unbridled
devilish
Things you should know by the end of the session:
define the slippery slope arguments
give the facts of the case
the different steps
the different types of homicide
explain the difference between what happened and the custom of the sea
explain the notion of necessity
Grammar
temps:

conditionnel

plus que parfait had+ pp

irregular verbs : feed , sink
there is there are
modals
comparative/ superlative
négation
questions