Don’t Eat The Cabin Boy
Cannibalism – what a thing. It’s disgusting but I find that whenever the topic comes up we tend to have a morbid curiosity with it. I think we all pay a little closer attention when Jeffrey Dahmer or the Donner Party comes up (just to name a few). Our ears perk up, we lean in a little further, and listen in for those infamous details. Debates on the morality of cannibalism in survival situations inevitably almost always ensue. To think, someone so desperate or so insane that they feast on the flesh of another – its extreme, its gross, its disturbing, but, well, it’s fascinating. This might just be my experience, but I think not. A well known story of cannibalism in the legal community is the case of Regina v. Dudley and Stephen.
In the late 1880’s, a small yacht named Mignonette was being transported from England to Australia after being sold to an Australian attorney. The crew sailing the ship to Australia included T. Dudley, E. Stephens, E. Brooks (no, not me), and 17-year-old R. Parker, an orphan who joined the crew as the cabin boy. The Mignonette was by no means well suited for a trek to Australia and met its untimely fate about six weeks after its departure from England. On the evening of July 5th, while the crew slept below, the Mignonette was hit by a wave and sank only 5 minutes later. The crew scrambled into a dilapidated lifeboat with only a couple of tins of turnips. The crew initially survived off of the turnips and a turtle they caught a few days in, but in desperation, began drinking sea water and eventually, their own urine. After about two weeks, with no hope and no remaining supplies, having fought sharks, the sun, the salt and the endless horizon, the men began to discuss sacrificing one crew member to facilitate the survival of the others — cannibalism. Dudley claimed he prayed for forgiveness for him and his fellow crew members, praying for salvation should such an act take place. One evening, several days after the notion was initially brought up, in an act of pure desperation, Dudley (and possibly Stephen) stabbed the throat of the young cabin boy with a penknife. Dudley and Stephen later claimed that killing Parker made the most sense as he was in a coma from illness and on the brink of death, believing that his body would be of more value (nutritionally?) if it was fresh. The men devoured young Parker for several days and recalled the horror of the sight of their feasting in later accounts. Only four days after Parker was slain, the remaining crew were rescued by a passing German vessel which brought them safely back to England. When the men were rescued, they were truly at the cusp of death. You’re probably thinking if they only knew they would be rescued in a few days! — I know I did the first time I read this case, but, it was claimed that had they not resorted to gorging themselves on the body of the cabin boy that they too would have perished.
This brings forward several moral and legal questions: Does necessity excuse murder? What qualifies as necessity? When is one’s life more valuable than another’s? Does survival excuse punishment? The list goes on.
The Court sought to answer some of these questions, primarily, if the necessity of this killing justifies the crime and excuses the punishment.
The crew were found guilty of murder and on appeal claimed that the extreme circumstances and absolute necessity justified their action. The Court disagreed, finding that survival is not an excuse nor a defense for murder. Interestingly, some dissenting judges claimed necessity for survival was an excuse for murder, but their opinions do not hold the legal backbone of their majority colleagues.
The outcome of this case has lead to a bit of an inside joke amongst the criminal law legal community — Keep Calm and Don’t Eat the Cabin Boy.
…morbid but true. At least if you don’t want to go to prison.
