|
|
|
|
|
THE CASE OF THE SPELUNCEAN EXPLORERS.
|
|
|
Compare and contrast the judgements of Handy J. and Keen J. in the Case of the Speluncean Explorers. Whose conception of the role of the judge in appellate cases is most persuasive? This case presents contrasting representations of the relationship between law and justice. The judges involved in this case struggle to determine a significant difference. I aim to establish which judgements of Handy J. and Keen J. is the most persuasive. Firstly I shall start with Truepenny, C.J. who made a valid reference towards the explorers trying to communicate with the outside world whilst being trapped in their, “underground prison”. This is an important point which one must be aware of, as it is referenced to throughout the case with respect to which law the defendants were under. Truepenny, C.J. also mentions the discrepancy involved over how fair the lots were called and whether it was an appropriate method. This could be compared with the laws of contract, which themselves can be ambiguous. This doesn’t sway me in anyway what so ever as he fails to make a powerful argument with the facts before him. The most successful element of Truepenny’s presentation has to be the explanation of the statute N.C.S.A. (N.S.) § 12-A: “whoever shall wilfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.” He uses it to diminish any previous beliefs you had with respect to the innocence of the explorers. From the statute it seems that the explorers are correctly charged. Although the above presentation is quite persuasive in that Truepenny starts with some promise but finishes poorly.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
