Place 10g of salt into the water and put second on top, creating a seal.…
18. Who recommends that Sam apply to a magnet program at University High School? Why?…
Should Brooks have been charged with a crime for eating the boy’s flesh? Explain. See The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queen’s Bench Division 273 (1884).…
First of all, the actions committed by Dudley and Stephens were quite obviously illegal. Though not on the mainland, this court's jurisdiction falls in the area of the crime at hand. Laws are still laws in our waters. Secondly, the men decided to kill Brooks with the justification that he "was going to die soon anyway" and they should "get it over with". This type of euthanasia was completely unjustified, based on the fact that Brooks rejected the idea of having the men kill and eat him when his lot was drawn. Though Brooks may have been on his death bed, Dudley and Stephens committed murder by taking his life. Also, the discussion of drawing the lots was in no way contractual, thus making in no way a binding agreement on the obscene act.…
When looking at the case of The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens and the punishment that the two men face after conviction is one that requires a lot of thought (Brody and Acker, 2010). These two men were faced with a difficult situation that due to their being in a position of making life threating decisions that would determine if they all lived or if they all died with the sacrifice of one saving the other three men. These two men’s fate, after their criminal conviction, should be evaluated with the circumstances of the crime of murder with the intent of the two men to survive while stuck in the middle of the ocean with no way out (Gollwitzer and Keller, 2010).…
1.3 Explain how supporting individuals to take risks can enable them to have choice over their lives to:…
This court case was about three men and a boy were left stranded at sea on a boat after they were forced to abandon their ship because of a storm. Two men notice that a boy was sick and didn’t have nothing to lose, so they decided it will be more practical to kill the boy for food to survive. Dudley basically told the boy it was his time and stabbed him in his throat and the men fed on the little guy for four days. The fourth day they got rescued and brought back to trial and was convicted of murder but got six months of labor work instead of years in prison. The other man didn’t agree on killing the boy but he help fed in eating of the boy. I don’t agree with the decision because what the guys did was illegal and wrong in so many ways nobody…
A bill which allows same-sex weddings to take place in Scotland has been passed by MSPs in the Scottish Parliament.…
In the case of the Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, there were several moral and ethical issues. I will explain them in this section using facts from Prof Michael Sandel’s video, the cited case, and a book titled “Cannibalism and common law: a Victorian yachting tragedy” by Alfred Bryan William Simpson.…
There are as many views on the mens rea of murder as there are cases. The last 40 years has witnessed a said inability of the courts to sort it out coherently and precisely.…
The Summoner is some one that works for a medieval church; they call people before the ecclesiastical court for their spiritual crimes, like adultery or heresy, the punishment for which can be excommunication (expulsion from the church). The Summoner’s appearance isn’t one of his best traits. He has sores/boils all over his face; narrow eyes like an ostrich; thick eye brows. He doesn’t dress well, drinks too excess. Many suspected the Summoners of taking bribes, seducing young innocent girls. Not only does he have there confidence, but "ful prively a finch eek coude he pul"( Gen Pro line 654). That versus means “ a expression that can mean to trick, but also to suduce a young girl.…
In the case of Dudley and Stephens, the murder of Richard Parker cannot be justified as being morally permissible. Our society functions on certain base principles, one of them being that there are some things which are forbidden, that particular actions or measures can never be correct due to their nature. Murder is an action which qualifies as being fundamentally wrong, it can never be said that murder is the right thing to do, because no matter the context, murder is in no way a morally permissible course of action.…
• Inter-dependent decision-making: Inter-dependence means that firms must take into account the likely reactions of their rivals to any change in price, output or forms of non-price competition.…
In the case of the Shipwrecked sailors; Dudley and Stephens are faced with charges of murder. In my opinion it is fair that they get tried, for what they did because it clearly states that:” Brooks objected refused to consent However Dudley and Stephan’s decide Brooks would die soon anyway ….After agreeing they killed and ate Brooks”. It’s clear how Brooks from the evidence says that he refused. Even though it says he agreed with them all drawing lots. That is something that they could use against Brooks. They should be convicted for their crime because they did commit a crime of the murder of Brooks and should receive the punishment for murder. To murder is: “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another” because after all they did plan Brooks to die even if he was weak.…
To kill someone is selfish and will never be right. Of course, there are exceptions such as self-defense. However, killing for self-defense should be a person’s last option. Killing someone is also against the law; it is a serious crime in which the suspect is punished for. In a life or death situation like what happened to Dudley, Stephens, Brooks, and the boy, the same laws and rules still apply. Dudley and Stephens believed that if they had not fed upon the boy, they would not survive. This does not justify the act. If they were all to die, then that was their destiny. They disobeyed the law; whether they were on land or on the sea. They were still on the…