Firm name: PINK FIRM

Members:
Autida, Kyle
Caballes, Serah Joy
Dondoyano, Dianne
Garcia, Charisse
Janayon, Glennie
Taborada, Jasafe

SPEECH

Necessity

“Some acts that would otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or
by the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils” - Granville Williams.

Our honorable judge, esteemed moderator, our very competent opponents my dear
colleagues, intellectual audience, a pleasant afternoon. In a modified oxford oregon debate it is
the duty of the affirmative side to establish the facts and premise of this case and the negative
side to destroy it. And I as the first speaker of the negative side would lay down to you my must
heard contentions on why it is necessary for the living speculean explorers to be acquitted.

First, the law is a social fact, it is a convention. Simply because the source of laws are
the people. Through their chosen representatives, laws were drafted to address the problems or
issues of a society in a certain period. For this reason, we can say that the law is infact a
convention. It is an agreement where people surrender a few of their individual rights to promote
the welfare of the majority.

Second, We would like to emphasize that there was agreement between the parties that
they would need to sacrifice one life to save the lives of the rest. This agreement came about
after a thorough discussion with the experts outside the cave. Death by starvation being an
imminent threat, the victim himself made this proposition to which the defendants reluctantly
agreed to. Thus being said, it can be deduced that the defendants did not intend to kill the victim
from the very beginning. Their main intention was only to explore the cave, as evidenced by
their lack of preparation as well them informing their organization regarding their exploration.
However, nature was not in their favor, leading them to the circumstance which is now
presented in front of us.
It has been a long established fact that laws should be construed to give way to the
intent of the law and bring about justice. Literal interpretation of the law would lead to the
conviction of the defendants. Would this not be injustice to the 10 men who died trying to save
their lives as well as the victim himself? The defense would like to implore this honorable court
to liberally interpret the said law and give consideration to the novel circumstances surrounding
the act committed by the defendants.

Lastly, Looking into the facts of this situation, the defendants’ circumstances were
unique. As argued by Judge Foster, the moment they were trapped in the cave, they were in a
state in nature in which the laws of the of the Commonwealth could not be applied to them.
Being in such a state, the defendants did not break any rules and only acted for their survival.

Basing on this premise, the defense believes that the defendants should be acquitted of
murder. A situation often presented in philosophy is whether or not you would risk the lives of a
few to save many. As human-beings, our first instinct is to answer yes. We would always
choose to save more lives. Thus being said, I humbly appeal to the humanity of this court and
move for the defendants’ acquittal.

Beneficiality
There is this famous maxim which says that the law is made for man and not man for the
law. Honorable judge, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
First, the statute prohibiting the willful taking of one’s life should be applied with the end
view of dispensing justice in a given situation. Certainly, a strict interpretation of the law in the
case would lead to injustice. The act committed by the defendants are justified by their
conditions and their consensus to commit such act. The law, in turn, should favor them. It is
beneficial to free them of criminal liability in order to dispense justice.
Second, the situation presented to us is similar with the famous trolley problem in
philosophy. Basically, it gives us the dilemma whether we would kill one person to save many
lives if there was no other way. The defense most respectfully argues using a utilitarian
approach. The utilitarian perspective tells us that the better method is that which achieves good
for a greater number. A utilitarian would choose to save the many and sacrifice one. There was
a threat of starvation as advised by the medical experts, and there was no other way to save the
spelunkers because there was no animal nor vegetable matter inside the cave. All five of them
have agreed to sacrifice one life to save the many. The act was resorted to for the benefit of the
majority.
Lastly, acquittal would be the more equitable decision. The defendants have
indeed suffered much trauma brought about by their plight. To further prosecute them,
convict them, and then kill them would bring a huge blow to the principle of equity and
would even be an injustice. It would invalidate the deaths of the men who worked for their
rescue. It would make all the grants and resources spent for the rescue a waste. And it would
convict and subsequently execute the already traumatized defendants for committing an act
essential for their survival. The defendants are after all also victims of the dire situation in the
cave and any of them would have met the fate of Whetmore if it were not for the random turn of
the dice.
As we know, when they were finally rescued, the defendants had to stay in a hospital
where they underwent a course of treatment for malnutrition and shock. It would be beneficial to
acquit the four individuals to give them time and reprieve, after experiencing that traumatic
incident.

Practicability

First, it should be stressed that it took us a lot of resources and grants and most
importantly the lives of ten workers to rescue the very lives sought to be convicted and hanged,
it would be impractical to make all the effort and sacrifices all for naught
Second, a poll clearly shows that acquittal is more in line with public clamor, as part of
the government it is a duty of the court to maintain a decent and amicable relationship with the
public, the present case has garnered quite a remarkable level of public interest, a poll shows
that 90 percent of the public favor the defendants, to make an unfavorable decision would likely
upset the public and sour the relationship between them and the government, imagine the
controversy, bad press and attacks on the judiciary if such decision came to be? such is the
reality of the situation and how can you discuss practicability without assessing the reality of the
situation? It is common practice to take in outside considerations when deciding a case so it
may lead to more practical outcomes which in this case is acquittal. Even looking at all the
modes for acquittal, personal and extralegal factors will always come to play, look at the
amnesty provided by Cory in the 80s, it was motivated due to factors concerning her
presidency, it’s not alien for an institution to take note of public clamor when weighing the
practicability of a decision
It is also needs to be mentioned that public opinion is not without reason. Common
sense tells us that in a direct life or death situation the basic instinct of survival will prevail and
almost anyone would make the same choices if in an identical situation.
Lastly, to sum it all up, i believe that there is no proper argument for the practicability of a
decision for conviction, as mentioned by the earlier speakers, to convict would lead to absurdity,
absurdity is never practical, we hang the already traumatized victims of the dire situation in the
cave who we’ve spent so many resources and lives to save and disappoint a public whose
amicability is integral to maintaining peace and order in society. Clearly the more practicable
solution is to acquit.