Question
Chapter 1 Discussion Forum Note: This is a post-first discussion forum. Once you have posted your...


Answers
1. The circumstances for crimes have always been considered when weighing potential remedies. The question asks whether or not penalties should be levied against the criminals given the extraordinary circumstances. The answer should only be that the only justifiable taking of another man's life should be in self defense. Since the young boy posed no threat to the stronger men, self defense is not a viable defense. If the men were pardoned for murder however necessary to survive, it would condone other takings for self-benefit. No human has the right to judge the survival capability of other and this was an act of rarest cruelty and should be punished sternly.
2. The judges should have the power to look beyond the letter of the law in making their decisions. Laws cannot be written to encompass every single potential instance. There is the 'letter' of the law and the 'spirit' or 'intention' of the law. Both are important and must be taken into consideration when making a decision. The job of a judge is always to be impartial and unbiased. So, if there happens to be a clear tussle between the letter and spirit of the law, the judge shall first attempt to interpret the law so as to create an acceptable compromise to both or if it cannot be achieved, the matters are usually judged by a bench which has the power to uphold the true spirit of the law and not the the letter of the law. Thus, although most cases would use Stare decisis, the judge has the authority to come to a different conclusion if he or she believes that the precedent ruling is incorrect.