Speluncean Case
The Speluncean Explorers Case is Lon L fuller’s, it was first published in the Harvard Law review in 1949, the focus of this theoretical case that I have gathered is to elucidate the opinions and theories of different judges. Taking into account these sagacious views, I have been able to come up with an evaluation of my own.
The main question we’re dealing with out here is that of executive clemency, i.e. mercy or leniency; especially, the power of the President or a governor to pardon a criminal or commute a criminal sentence (Black’s Law Dictionary). According to Justice Truepenny, the trial judge had followed an equitable course of action, wherein he awarded them the death sentence. According to Justice Truepenny and Justice Keen, and this is a point I concur with is that the law is not ambiguous and must be exempted from interpretation and subjectivity.
The Statute states that, “Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death,” according to the facts of the case Whetmore and the survivors deliberated for hours on the matter before they willfully and unanimously decided the course of action. Thus, directly applying the statute, the judgement went against the survivors and they were awarded the death penalty. I disagree with Justice Foster’s argument in which he supports the natural school of jurisprudence, according to him the survivors were separated from the State by rock walls, and they could not be adjudged guilty as the case was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Newgarth, I just as Judge Tatting did, questioned how the survivors shifted from a civil society to a state of nature, and considering for a moment that they did, where did the court of Newgarth derive its authority from to adjudicate on a Law of nature rather than the Law of State. I also agree with his argument about the Commonwealth Vs. Valejean case, he said if a person cannot be pardoned for stealing a loaf of bread how can someone get away with
The main question we’re dealing with out here is that of executive clemency, i.e. mercy or leniency; especially, the power of the President or a governor to pardon a criminal or commute a criminal sentence (Black’s Law Dictionary). According to Justice Truepenny, the trial judge had followed an equitable course of action, wherein he awarded them the death sentence. According to Justice Truepenny and Justice Keen, and this is a point I concur with is that the law is not ambiguous and must be exempted from interpretation and subjectivity.
The Statute states that, “Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death,” according to the facts of the case Whetmore and the survivors deliberated for hours on the matter before they willfully and unanimously decided the course of action. Thus, directly applying the statute, the judgement went against the survivors and they were awarded the death penalty. I disagree with Justice Foster’s argument in which he supports the natural school of jurisprudence, according to him the survivors were separated from the State by rock walls, and they could not be adjudged guilty as the case was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Newgarth, I just as Judge Tatting did, questioned how the survivors shifted from a civil society to a state of nature, and considering for a moment that they did, where did the court of Newgarth derive its authority from to adjudicate on a Law of nature rather than the Law of State. I also agree with his argument about the Commonwealth Vs. Valejean case, he said if a person cannot be pardoned for stealing a loaf of bread how can someone get away with