Overview of the Case
The four Petitioners in the instant case have come to court by way of an appeal after being aggrieved by their convictions and death sentences. The Petitioners are also aggrieved by the decision of the Chief Executive not to commute their sentences to six months in prison as recommended by the trial court. For the avoidance of doubt the instant appeal canvasses both the conviction by the trial court as well as the death sentence.
The facts of the case as gleaned from the trial records are as follows. The four petitioners and the victims got trapped inside a cave by a landslide. It is worthy of notice that all five were very lucky to be alive as they may only have been saved by being inside the cave with several other people having died within the proximity of the same cave. Monumental efforts to save the five kept going for 20 days without success. On the 20 th day, a radio connection enabled the five victims to communicate with the outside world. From the communication, they realized that it would be more than five days before they were rescued. Further, they learned from medical experts that due to their levels of starvation, in five days they would all be dead. However, if they cannibalized one of them, the remaining four have a better chance of survival. It is worthy of notice that the issue of cannibalism was raised by the victim, Roger Whetmore. Further, Whetmore asks if they should cast lots to find out who should be cannibalized but communication is terminated before he could get a solid answer. Eventually, the rescuers reached the cave only to find four survivors. According to the survivors, they had all acted on Whetmore’s idea of cannibalism using the casting of lots while using Whetmore’s own pair of dice. The four, however, admitted that at some point, Whetmore seemed to change his mind and did not even participate in the casting of lots. The four cast lots on his behalf and he lost. However, they also intimated that Whetmore did admit that the casting of lots was fair and that he lost, just before the petitioners killed him and consumed his flesh.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Based on the facts above, the petitioners were indicted and tried before a jury of their peer under the special verdict process. Based on strict adherence to the letter of the law, all four were convicted and since only the sentence of death by hanging is available for such a conviction, they were duly sentenced to death. However, the jury recommended that the executive branch commutes the death sentence to the very lenient sentence of six months imprisonment. However, the executive exercised its discretion by ignoring the plea by the jury, hence the instant appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues to be Determined
If the petitioners are guilty of murder as defined by the Criminal laws of Newgarth.
If the petitioners ought to be sentenced to death by hanging as a direct consequence of their conviction.
If the executive should be bound by the recommendations of the jury.
Holding
After carefully considering the facts of this case and the applicable laws, it is my holding that the four petitioners did unlawfully and intentionally kill Roger Whetmore. The four petitioners unilaterally cast the losing lot for Whetmore then proceeded to kill him and consume his flesh. According to the letter of the law, the actions of the petitioners amount to the definition of murder as defined by the law. However, the letter of the law in the instant case must be found to be defective as it essentially nullified the fundamental right of trial by a jury of one’s peers. The jury was given no choice by the law than to convict and sentence the petitioners to death by hanging. The de jure decision of the jury may have been a conviction and a death sentence but their de facto decision was a conviction and a six-month prison sentence. The conviction for murder and death sentence is, therefore, irregular, unfair and illegal and should be vacated and replaced with alternative sentencing of six months which under the law should be effectuated by the executive.
Based on the holding above, the decision of the lower court is neither expressly affirmed nor reversed but rather clarified. The jury intended for the petitioners to serve a sentence of six months for their crime and that specific part of their decision is affirmed.
The Reasoning Behind the Decision Above
Supreme courts of law are uniquely placed as not merely courts of law but also courts of justice. It is in this capacity that Supreme Courts can even determine laws to be unconstitutional, therefore, null and void (Massey & Denning, 2019). It is also within the capacity of the Supreme Court to determine actions of the legislature or the executive as ultra vires or illegal, thus void. Unlike the trial court that was bound by applicable laws during the trial, the Supreme Court has the ability to holistically look at the case with a view to seeing to the ends of justice. In the instant case, therefore, the Supreme Court will be evaluating the facts of the case, the laws applied by the trial court, the actions of the executive in regard to the case and most importantly, the interests of justice.
The easiest way to dispose of this case would be through a finding that no crime was committed hence reversing the conviction. It is, however, my informed opinion that such a determination would be wrong as it would set a bad precedent. Under the applicable law, the only way that the petitioners would not have broken the law would be if they never killed the victim or if they did not have the legal capacity to break the law through some form of incapacitation (Hirschi, 2017). By the very admission of the petitioners, either of the above cannot be true. For a start, the petitioners do admit that they killed the victim for the sole purpose of consuming his flesh as they were starving. The fact that the petitioners were starving bring in the issue of incapacitation due to the exigent circumstances. However, the admission of the petitioners once again rules out the defense of incapacitation. The petitioners meticulously followed an agreed upon protocol in the process of killing the victim. They agreed on a system of casting lots, all four cast their lots, then they cast a lot for the victim. Further, they informed the victim of the outcomes of the lots and even remember that the victim admitted that the process of casting of lots was fair and judicious. It is impossible to follow such a process while someone is legally incapacitated. A crime of killing was thus committed. The next issue would be to determine if the crime committed is deserving of a conviction where there is a mandatory death sentence.
In this regard, the letter of the law seems to be contrasting with the intention of the law. On the one hand, the Penal Code of Newgarth provides express rules on how to deal with any and all killings through an extremely express provision: " Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death ". The said provision expressly eliminates any and all justification of killing another human being even in self-defense. As per the letter of the law, as long as the act of killing was willful, then a conviction for murder is automatic, with the death sentence being attached to the conviction. Conversely and in direct contradiction to the penal code, the criminal procedure laws of Newgarth provide for a trial by a jury of one’s peers when a person is indicted for a crime including murder. In any jury trial, a jury is expected to evaluate any facts of the case then apply the law to them. Further and most pertinent to the instant case, it is even available to the jury to consider the facts and ignore the law, through the principle of jury nullification (Royer, 2016). Based on the above, during a trial by a jury, the wish of the jury is more important than the letter of the law as long as the jury follows the lawful procedure in undertaking all its proceedings. It must, therefore, follow that in a criminal trial, criminal procedure is more important than the letter of the law and when the two collide, the criminal procedure must prevail. In the instant case, criminal law provides for a conviction for an automatic death sentence. On the other hand, the criminal procedure provides for a jury of the peers of the defendant to evaluate the law and the facts then make a determination (Royer, 2016). The jury found that the petitioners had committed a crime but they were not liable for the death sentence hence their recommendation for a very light sentence. It is clearly evident that a de facto jury nullification happened during the trial. However, the members of the jury, just as with most laymen were unaware of the concept of jury nullification so the de facto nullification never became a de jure one. Instead, the jury makes a recommendation to the executive. The onus must then fall upon the Supreme Court as the primary custodian of justice to effectuate the will of the trial jury to have the defendants saved from the hangman’s noose.
Dissenting Opinion
The case before this honorable court is relatively simple and relates to whether or not the four petitioners are guilty of murder and should thus be sentenced to death by hanging. Both the conviction and the sentencing are based on the letter of law which states "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death". It is not an issue that the four petitioners did participate in the bizarre killing of one of the victims, Roger Whitmore with whom they had been trapped in a cave for almost three weeks. All five men had endured the vagaries of hunger, starvation, lack of proper air supply and the constant fear of death. To exacerbate the situation, the five men were informed that they faced a sure death and the rescuers cannot be able to rescue them in time. However, the victim, Roger Whitmore came up with a possible source of hope in the form of feeding on one of the victims so as to save the remaining four.
The narrative outlined above brings to sharp focus part of the letter of the law in the definition of the crime for which the defendants are convicted. The focus should be on the word ‘willfully’ as outlined in the penal code. Willfully means a determined or obstinate intention to do something. To be considered as being willful to do something, one must not only have an intention to do it but also a determination to see that intention through (Hirschi, 2017). Four starving and partially asphyxiated men saw a chance to survive and took it but it led to the death of one of them. The situation is similar to a drowning person who clutches so tightly to the rescuer that the rescuer drowns while the drowning victim survives. In both cases, the primal desire to survive kick in taking away the more refined human faculties. The killing of Roger Whetmore was tragic but in my informed opinion, the four petitioners had no capacity to willfully doing anything except try to survive. The conviction was irregular in its entirely and I move to have it reversed.
References
Hirschi, T. (2017). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of crime. In The reasoning criminal (pp. 105-118). London: Routledge
Massey, C. R., & Denning, B. P. (2019). American Constitutional Law: Powers and Liberties . New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Royer, C. E. (2016). The disobedient jury: Why lawmakers should codify jury nullification. Cornell L. Rev. , 102 , 1401-1429
