Extended Inquiry:

THE CASE OF THE CAVE EXPLORERS

Roger and three other men set out to explore a cave. While they were deep inside, a landslide blocked the
cave's entrance. Luckily, they had filed plans of their expedition with local authorities, and a search party
was sent out a few days later to look for them. The search party discovered the landslide and began to
clear the enormous pile of rocks from the entrance.


At considerable expense to the province, dozens of rescuers were recruited to work day and night. It was a
dangerous operation and several more landslides occurred, delaying rescue of the four trapped men for
several weeks and resulting in the death of 10members of the rescue team.


Meanwhile, the four trapped men succeeded in repairing a damaged two-way radio and were able to
establish contact with the outside world. They described their physical condition to a medical doctor who
was a member of the rescue team. It was clear to the doctor that the four men, who had long since eaten
the provisions they had with them, could not survive one more week without food. The engineer in charge
of the rescue operation confirmed that the entrance could not be cleared in less than three weeks.
Speaking on behalf of the other trapped men, Roger asked what their chances were if they ate the flesh of
one of their group. The doctor reluctantly confirmed that they could survive for several weeks if they
received any type of food.


Roger asked to speak with the local law enforcement officers and a minister about a plan he had conceived
that would involve all four men drawing lots to see who would be sacrificed to save the rest. Neither the
legal nor religious authorities would comment on what the men should do.


No further messages were received from the trapped men and it was assumed that the radio had
malfunctioned. Five weeks after the original landslide, the entrance was finally cleared and three survivors
emerged from the cave. They admitted that they had killed Roger and eaten him.


They explained that it was Roger who had initiated the idea of drawing lots and that he had convinced the
rest of them to go along with the plan. They admitted that, at the last minute, Roger decided to withdraw
from the arrangement. However, since the three had become convinced that it was their only hope, they
insisted that Roger be held to his word.


Roger refused to draw his lot, so one of the others drew for him. They asked him if he thought that the
process was fair and he said that it was, although he did not want to be part of it. Unfortunately for Roger,
the draw went against him and he was put to death and eaten by his companions.





JUDGES RULINGS:
The law in this fictional province indicates that "anyone who willfully kills another is guilty of murder and shall face the death
penalty/be executed". Accordingly, the three cave explorers are charged with the murder of Roger and, if convicted, are subject
to the death penalty. Seven judges are assigned to hear the case. Six of the judges deliver the following verdicts/judgements:

Judge A's Ruling
While, strictly speaking, the law forbids all deliberate killing, the law should not be interpreted literally. If
we were to adopt this strict interpretation, police officers who shoot a dangerous criminal or military
personnel who kill an enemy soldier would be guilty of murder. It would even mean that we would be
guilty of murder since, if we sentence these 3 men to death, we are willfully causing their death. Obviously,
the legislators cannot have intended that these types of situations be regarded as murder. It should be
obvious that the point of our laws against killing is to prevent unjustified killing. Killing someone because
you don't like them is unjustified; killing someone in order to save 3 lives is justified. The actions of these
men, while unfortunate, do not qualify as murder within the intended meaning of the law. Not guilty.

Judge B's Ruling
The issues raised by this case are very complex. As can be seen from the opinions offered by my fellow
judges, each has a different explanation as to what should be done. It appears to me that we cannot
pretend to have a satisfactory legal resolution to this situation. While I can find little reason in law for
deciding that these men did not willfully kill another person, I cannot bring myself to sentence them to
death for their understandable action. It would be wrong, as a matter of personal conscience, to do so. It
appears to me that the only reasonable solution is to find the defendants guilty of the charge of murder and
to insist, through both formal and informal channels, that the Government grant full clemency (mercy) and
release them from custody, free to return to their lives.

Judge C's Ruling
I have considerable sympathy for the 3 people charged with this crime. Numerous character witnesses have
testified that they are decent men. As much as I would personally wish that they could return home to their
families and put this tragic event behind them, I cannot permit them to do so. I am not free to make the
law. As a judge, I have sworn an oath to apply the law that the authorized legislators have enacted. The
elected representatives have clearly determined that those who willfully take the life of another human
being must be punished. It is not for me to second-guess whether the lawmakers should have anticipated
situations like the one that confronts us today. It is with great regret that I find the 3 men guilty of murder.
By law, I am compelled to sentence them to be executed for their crime.

Judge D's Ruling
While we may sympathize with the people charged with murder under these most unfortunate and unusual
circumstances, we must not take lightly the message our decision will send out to others. We must resolve
this case by considering the consequences that will likely follow from our decision. The death of one
person is not the issue; our decision cannot bring back his life. The real issue is the lives of other men and
women that may be lost if, by allowing these 3 men to go free, we inadvertently encourage others who
might kill an innocent person. On the other hand, we must consider the lives that will be lost if we execute
these 3 men and other who may decide in good faith to sacrifice 1 life in order to save several lives. The
situation is so unusual that I cannot imagine that letting these 3 men go free will encourage others to kill.
Its only effect will be in rare, similar situations where the choice is between the lives of all or the life of
one. The consequences of our decisions are clear. For this reason, I find the defendants not guilty.



Judge E's Ruling
While it is clear that the law forbids murder, it is not clear that this situation qualifies as murder. While I
appreciate that a police officer who shoots a dangerous murder is probably justified in his action, I am less
certain that these men were justified in their action. The man they killed posed no threat to them; he was
an innocent party. It is not clear to me whether or not the law regards killing an innocent party. It is not
clear to me whether or not the law regards killing an innocent person to save your own life as justified
killing. The seven of us sitting should not pass judgement in this case on the basis of what we think the law
should be. In a democracy, that is for the people to decide and we have ample evidence, based on public
reactions to this event, to ascertain what these feelings are. Most people believe that the defendants deserve
some punishment. After all, our society does not encourage killing or cannibalism (eating human flesh). On
the other hand, the vast majority of citizens are sympathetic to the plight of these men and their families.
Thus, in the eyes of the public it would be wrong to convict them of murder or to let them go completely
free. In view of this, I find the defendants guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter and sentence them to
a six-month prison term.

Judge F's Ruling
As a society, we are committed to regulating our activities according to properly authorized laws. This is
often referred to as the rule of law. Another basic principle is that of the sanctity of human life. In most
situations, acting according to the rule of law is the best means of respecting the sanctity of life. Owing to
the unusual circumstances of this case, we find ourselves in a situation where these two principles conflict.
On one hand, we can live by the rules and treat the actions of these men as an act of murder. On the other
hand, we can regard their behavior as a life-saving act. We have it on reliable, expert testimony that no one
would have survived the five weeks without food. The defendants' decision to end one life saved three
lives. We must now ask ourselves which principle we uphold. The answer depends on which principle is
more fundamental. Clearly we do not have laws for the sake of having them; we have laws because living in
a rule-guided society is the best way to promote other more basic principles, such as the sanctity of life. It
is counterproductive to stick to the rules in situations where the reason for the rules is best served by
breaking them. In other words, if breaking the law achieves a higher good, then the law should be broken.
Because of the actions of these men, 3 people are alive that would not have otherwise been alive. They do
not deserve to be treated as murderers. I find them not guilty.


















The Case of the Cave Explorers Legal Philosophy at Work
Complete the following chart:
Judge School of Thought
used for Judgment
Proof/Reasoning
1.) A






2. ) B






3.) C






4.) D






5.) E






6.) F






7.)
YOU












THINKING FURTHER:
- Put yourself in the judges shoes pick the school of thought and provide your reasoning for your decision
- Which Judge do you most agree with? Why?
The Case of the Cave Explorers Legal Philosophy at Work
ANSWER KEY
Judge School of Thought
used for Judgment
Proof/Reasoning
1.) A





SPIRIT OF THE
LAW

NOT GUILTY
- killing one person to save three is justified given that a strict interpretation of
the law cannot be taken
- the legislators cannot have intended to punish all people who kill someone
when the law was written, therefore we must interpret their intended purpose (i.e.
a police officer who shoots a dangerous criminal)
- the law therefore should not be interpreted literally
2. ) B





LEGAL REALIST

GUILTY WITH
RECOMMENDATIO
N THAT THE GOVT
GRANT FULL
CLEMENCY
- from a realistic perspective, the judge realizes that there cannot be a satisfactory
resolution to this situation
- the three mens actions are seen as understandable and therefore the only
reasonable solution is to find them guilty of murder but insist on clemency
(mercy) from the Government
3.) C





LETTER OF THE
LAW

GUILTY DEATH
SENTENCE
- although the judge has his or her own personal opinions about the case (i.e.
sympathy toward the three men), the law must be upheld according to the literal
meaning of its words
- the supremacy of the law must be upheld it is not up the judge to interpret of
second guess the law
- the judge is not free to make the law and has sworn an oath to apply it as the
authorized legislators
4.) D





SOCIALOGICAL
JURISPRUDENCE

GUILTY
- the judge focuses on the message that his or her decision might send to others
and possible consequences that might follow
- two opposing effects may occur according to the judge: 1. others may be
inadvertently encouraged to kill an innocent person OR 2. they must consider
that 3 good men decided in good faith to sacrifice 1 in order to save several lives
- the judge concludes that the negative effect of encouraging the murder of
innocents will be rare and too minute
- thus, the defendants are found not guilty
5.) E





POPULAR
MORALITY

GULTY OF
MANSLAUGHTER
6 MONTHS IN
PRISON
- the judge affirms that it should not be up to the judges to pass judgment on the
basis of what they think the law should be, as the law itself is not clear in
determining if this qualifies as murder (i.e. what is willful murder?)
- instead, the judge focuses on the right for the people to decide in a democracy
the beliefs of the citizens are assessed and the judge concludes that the majority
of the citizens are sympathetic to the men and their families
- with focus on the publics opinion, the defendants are found guilty of a lesser
charge
6.) F





CRITICAL
MORALITY

NOT GUILTY
- acting according to the rule of law is the best means of respecting the sanctity of
human life
- in these case, what is just must be determined by asking which principle is
more fundamental the rule of law or the sanctity of life?
- the actions of the men have lead to three men being alive, instead of four men
being dead they do not deserve to be treated as murderers and are found not
guilty
THINKING FURTHER:
- Put yourself in the judges shoes pick the school of thought and provide your reasoning for your decision
- Which Judge do you most agree with? Why?