Regina (Queen) v. Dudley and Stephens

Regina (Queen) v. Dudley and Stephens
Murder and cannibalism on the high seas!
Brought to you by 7sage.com/

[@danielathenian2256]

This is awesome please upload more of these!!

[@GhulamMustafa-ct6hv]

When more stuff like this happen then am sure they will post them

[@HarshitSingh-mu2rx]

I liked and commented because you included walter white's and jesse's example.😆 Great explanation btw :)

[@nanamrembo6522]

All jurisprudence students should assemble here.

[@mariacillan9668]

The thing that bothered me the most is that they were charged for murder--not cannibalism. What's the difference of these two, people might ask. Let's say that Parker dies naturally, would they still be charged or put on trial if they ate the dead body?

[@jerrythornhill]

I believe the charge would then be something having to do with mutilation of a corpse which is a crime in some jurisdictions

[@kykysmith446]

They should have brought food.

[@chrisdaniel2759]

The difference between murdering someone and eating them versus eating a dead body that you didn't murder is, well, the complete lack of murder in the second thing.

[@seg9298]

in the sea, apparently cannibalism is not unlawful due to extreme situations of survival

[@jaizeahacol2333]

The difference of murder and cannibalism is that the murder is an act of taking someone’s life with an intent or intentional killing. Murder is not legally justified making it unlawful. While cannibalism is the act of consuming another individual of the same species as food. Murder and cannibalism are two separate things that can happen at the same time. It only depends on how the human flesh/meat was obtained (if obtained illegally or you intentionally killed a human for consumption then it definitely is a murder) (if you unintentionally consumed a human meat because you didn’t know it was a human meat because it was just given to you and were told it was like a beef or other consumable animal meat, then you wouldn’t be charged anything because you are unaware of the history of the given meat) As for the question, if the body is already dead before they consumed it, then they probably wouldn’t be charged for murder but for cannibalism. But the law for cannibalism varies from each country.

[@hairradical]

love the colors!

[@lookatcurryman8793]

Please make more of these videos! Love you JY!

[@OneMileyCyrusFanVlog]

This was so goood and so interesting!

[@ayeshaimdad3542]

Not the game of thrones joke😂😂 But it was so true 😂😂😂

[@edithlloyd824]

My question is, if they were out in the open sea and managed to catch a turtle then couldnt they catch any fishat all?

[@chrisdaniel2759]

I will give you a thousand dollars for every fish you can catch with your hands in the open ocean.

[@hawkpeterson]

Fish are a lot faster

[@piyushrajput3907]

what a great Explanation

[@AysAberia]

Hello, if brooks also ate the boy's flesh then why is he not part of the trial? Why is it only Dudley and Stephen?

[@delbobs123]

A very helpful video, thank you for sharing.

[@utsavmandal9378]

Amazing explanation.. Loved it❤

[@akshittaneja4260]

Law must be upheld.

[@choo1030]

2 questions 1) how did they even get caught? They ate the body and did not throw away the evidence to the ocean? 2) if those judges were put in the same dire situation, would they have not eaten the boy? Because it's easy to pass on judgement to others when you don't put them in their shoes.

[@Rosa01010101]

2 is irrelevant, the judge is never in the shoes of the accused, that doesnt mean he cant pass jugement

[@mamavswild]

They voluntarily wrote their experience down when they returned to England in affidavits that were required any time a vessel is lost at sea. At first the authorities didn't know what to do with the information in the affidavits, but they sent it to the prosecutor after discussing it. The reason that the sailors were willing to be so honest was they believed they were covered under accepted group of semi-laws called 'The Custom of the Sea'. The judges, in throwing out their defence, utilized the experience of soldiers, stating that there are times when their is a greater duty to die than a duty to live, and in a 'christian country' this instance was also one.

[@shubhampathak3291]

the 3rd guy who didn't agree told the world

[@msToshKaz]

They were saved and caught with blood and skins all over their fingernails and the body of Parker .

[@sarahasan5617]

@@msToshKaz didnt the judges also technically committed murder too because they got sentenced to death soo isnt that wrong too? hmm

[@angf9469]

Awesome video! This really helped me

[@yejoonleojo2419]

good explanation

[@jastudylog7816]

They didnt have the permision to kill parker, he stabbed him by a knife Those 2 made me confuse

[@Industrialist2015ofUk]

This is one of my favourite cases in criminal law, although the judgment came outright murder! Didn't realise they were on a lifeboat..

[@Semiboes]

How could anybody imagine how it is to sit in a boat without eating and drinking for weeks. There are situations beyond law and order...

[@travishreno6032]

'versus?'

[@pokefurnoX454]

Could you make an argument and say that out there laws don't apply or would that be the same as what lord bacon said.

[@davidmurphy2604]

This was actually an argument put forward by Lon L Fuller in his hypothetical case of the speluncean explores. Justice Foster argues that the individuals are in a state of nature and therefore normal law does not apply. When I studied this case my decision was ultimately guilty because Parker was not a participant in drawing lots for example which would fall under self sacrifice but was predated upon by dudley and Stephens

[@evemainds8115]

I'm related to dudley

[@joli3745]

OH NO