[LAWS 2908] - Midterm Exam Guide - Everything you need to know! (12 pages long)
6 Feb 2017
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Kill one man to eat him and survive. Once rescued they were all sentenced to death (surprised many) Defence of necessity not used (not common defense yet) Debates in legal philosophy: natural law v. legal positivism. Justice tatting defence of starvation for larceny of loaf of bread. Speaks of fictional case (larceny of loaf of bread) Questions how it is possible to deem cannibalism ok in situations of starvation. Human weakness (mitigating) as defence is not often usable, however it can be valid but not necessarily a necessity completely. In cannibalism cases eating a person already dead or killing the weakest to survive. Must have no reasonable legal alternative for the course of action. Harm inflicted to accused must be proportional to the harm avoided by the accused. Seems to be no alternative, as they would not have survived long enough to get rescued if they had not eaten anything.
