TheCaseOfTheSpelunceanExplorersAnAnalyticalStudy

TheCaseOfTheSpelunceanExplorersAStudy

PROLOGUE

ProfessorL.Fullerwasadeptinexplaininglawthroughallegory.Itissaidthatthereisnobetterwaytostudylawthanto
readcases.Thereisnobetterwaytostudylegalphilosophythantoseehowvarioustheoriesclashwitheachother.The
Professorachievedalloftheseobjectivesinthebrilliantlyimaginedcasethatheinvented TheCaseOfTheSpeluncean
Explorers.

ProfessorLonL.Fuller'sCaseoftheSpelunceanExplorersissaidtobethegreatestfictitiouslegalcaseofalltime.Thatis
sayingalot,forithassomestiffcompetition.Whileitscompetitorsmayoutdoitincourtroomdrama,characterdevelopment,
orinvestigativesuspense,nonematchesitinlegaldepthordialecticalagility.Itdoesn'tshowwhatmakessomelawyer's
caseloadinteresting,butwhatmakeslawitselfinteresting.[1]HisstoryofRexisanotherinterestingallegory[2]whichspeaks
aboutthecharacteristicswhichalawshouldnthave.ThefollowingstatementbyFullerinhisbookMoralityofLawoutlines
hisphilosophy:
Theonlyformulathatmightbecalledadefinitionoflawofferedinthesewritingsisbynowthoroughlyfamiliar:lawisthe
enterpriseofsubjectinghumanconducttothegovernanceofrules.Unlikemostmoderntheoriesoflaw,thisviewtreatslaw
asanactivityandregardsalegalsystemastheproductofasustainedpurposiveeffort.[3]

ABOUTTHEAUTHOR
Fuller(190278)isarepresentativeoftheschooloflegalthoughtknownaspurposivejurisprudence[4].Thisisakindof
jurisprudence which sees the activities of the courts as reflecting the very purposes of the law, which turn upon the
subjectingofthehumanconducttothecontrolofrules.Lawandmoralityareintertwinedand,accordingtoFulleralaw
whichiscompletelydivorcedfrommorality,ceasestobelaw.
FullerwasanAmerican,aTexantobeprecise.HeservedasprofessorofLawatHarvardUniversityformanyyears,andis
notedinAmericanlawforhiscontributionstothelawofcontracts.HisdebatewithH.L.A.HartintheHarvardLawReview
(Vol.71)wasofsignificantimportanceforframingthemodernconflictbetweenlegalpositivismandnaturallaw.Fullerwas
animportantinfluenceonRonaldDworkin,whowasoneofhisstudentsatHarvardLaw.[5]Heisregardedasoneofthe
greatestlegalphilosophersofthe20thcentury.HehadaprofoundeffectonAmericanjurisprudence.

FullersTheMoralityofLaw,firstpublishedin1964,ishismostfamousand,perhaps,hismostcontroversialwork.Ata
timewhenlegalpositivismstilldominatedjurisprudence,thesuggestionthatlawandmoralitywerenotonlyconnectedbut
connectedintimatelywassuchanaffronttoscientificthinkingthatitbroughtrepeatedchargesofaxegrindingfromone
reviewer.[6]

CASEOFSPELUNCEANEXPLORERS
ThisfamousfictitiouslegalcasewascreatedbyLonL.Fullerinhisarticle,"TheCaseoftheSpelunceanExplorers,"
HarvardLawReview,vol.62,no.4(1949)pp.616645.Thecasetellsthestoryofagroupofspelunkers(caveexplorers)in
theCommonwealthofNewgarth,trappedinacavebyalandslide.Astheyapproachthepointofstarvation,theymakeradio
contactwiththerescueteam.Engineersontheteamestimatethattherescuewilltakeanother10days.Themendescribe
theirphysicalconditiontophysiciansattherescuecampandaskwhethertheycansurviveanother10dayswithoutfood.The
physiciansthinkthisveryunlikely.Thenthespelunkersaskwhethertheycouldsurviveanother10daysiftheykilledandate
amemberoftheirparty.Thephysiciansreluctantlyanswerthattheywould.Finally,themenaskwhethertheyoughttoholda
lotterytodeterminewhomtokillandeat.Nooneattherescuecampiswillingtoanswerthisquestion.Thementurnofftheir
radio,andsometimelaterholdalottery,killtheloser,andeathim.Whentheyarerescued,theyareprosecutedformurder,
whichinNewgarthcarriesamandatorydeathpenalty.FullerwrotefiveSupremeCourtopinionsonthecasewhichexplore
thefactsfromtheperspectivesofprofoundlydifferentlegalprinciples.
TheresultwasafocusedandconcreteillustrationoftherangeofAngloAmericanlegalphilosophyatmidcenturyTHE
SPELUNCEANEXPLORERSCASE.

ItisgenerallybelievedthatFullerscaseisbasedontworealcases,namely
U.S.v.Holmes(1842)and
Reginav.Dudley&Stephens(1884).
ThesetwoU.Scasescanbecalledaslifeboatcasesinwhichdisasteratseawasfollowedbyhomicideandprosecution.In
theHolmescase,thehomicidesweretolightenabadlyoverloadedlifeboat.InDudley&Stephens,thehomicidewasto
createamealforthestarvingsurvivors.[7]

OnecaneasilyseetheuncannysimilaritiesbetweenthefactsofthesetwocasesandthatofFuller.Fullerborrowedfrom
thesecasesforhisown:extremitiesofdesperation,lotteries,cannibalism,popularsympathyforthedefendants,politically
difficultprosecutions,defensesofstarknecessity,juryconvictions,thepossibilityofpardons.Evensmalldetails,likethe
jury'sspecialverdictinDudley&Stephens,comesupagaininFuller'scase.Butaninventoryoftheseborrowedelements
onlybringsintorelieftheextentofFuller'screativity.HemovedtheaccidentfromthehighseastoacavewithinNewgarth.

Inthispaper,thepartshavebeensubdividedasfollows:
1.Allegory
2.OpinionofChiefJusticeTruepenny.
3.OpinionofJusticeFoster.
4.OpinionofJusticeTatting.
5.OpinionofJusticeKeen.
6.OpinionofJusticeHandy.
7.ConclusionandFindings

PARTI:THEALLEGORY/STORY
LonL.FullersthecaseofSpelunceanExplorerswasfirstpublishedin1949intheHarvardLawReview.[8]Fullerwrotethis
storyinordertoillustrateanumberofdifferenttheoriesaboutthenatureoflawandlegalreasoning.Thevariousopinionsare
writtenbyfictionaljudgeswhorepresentdifferenttheories,andthuseachopinionillustratesoneormoreofthosetheories.
InthecaseofSpelunceanExplorers,Fullerslessonisthatthelawsbasicintegrityistobefoundwithintheveryprocesses
whichareutilizedintheattainmentofitsproclaimedgoals.WhenLonFullerhadputtogetherhisSpelunceanExplorers
hypotheticalinthe1949,therewereonlytwosignificantjurisprudentialphilosophiesintheair:naturallawandpositivism.
Theformerhadlargelybeendiscredited,butwasrevivedinthehypotheticalbyJusticeFoster[9],whoclaimedthatthe
trappedexplorerswereinamoral,ifnotgeographical"stateofnature."
Thiscaseissetinamythicalfuture,4300A.D.Fullerdidnotchoosethedateinrandom,heestimatedthatin1949 [10],the
centurieswhichseparateusfromtheyear4300areroughlyequaltothosethathavepassedsincetheAgeofPericles .The
caseisheardintheCourtofGeneralInstancesoftheCountyofStowfieldintheCommonwealthofNewgarth,whichhasa
charterofgovernmentdrawnuporiginallybythesurvivorsofapastcatastrophe(theGreatSpiral).Thecaseisbasedona
statuteN.C.S.A(N.S.)whichstatesinspecifictermsinSection12Athat WhoeverLawfullyTakesTheLifeOfAnother
ShallBePunishedByDeath.

Thefactsofthecaseareinoutlineasfollows:
ThefourdefendantsandRogerWhetmoreweremembersofaSpelunceanSocietyintheCommonwealthofNewgarth.This
societyencouragedtheexplorationofcaves.EarlyinMayof4299they,inthecompanyofRogerWhetmore,thenalsoa
memberoftheSociety,penetratedintotheinteriorofalimestonecavernofthetypefoundintheCentralPlateauofthis
Commonwealth.[11]Whileexploringthecave,whentheywereinapositionremotefromthemouthofthecave,alandslide
occurred.Heavybouldersfellinsuchamannerastoblockcompletelytheonlyknownopeningtothecave,andtherefore,
theywerealltrappedwithinthecavern.Thefivemenwerecarryingscantresourceswiththem.Ontheirnonreturnthe
familiesoftheexplorersinformedtheSocietywhichinturninformedtheState.Arescuepartywaspromptlydispatchedfor
theirrescue.Intherescueoperations,10workmenlosttheirlivesinfreshlandslides.Agreatexpensewasalsoincurredto
rescuethetrappedmen.

Itwasfoundthatoneoftheexplorershasaportableradiosetcapableofsendingandreceivingmessages.Therefore,contact
wasestablishedbytherescueteamwiththetrappedmen.Thefivetrappedmen,afterlearningthatitwouldbeatleastten
moredaysuntiltheywererescued,soughtaprofessionalmedicalopinionastowhetherornottheycouldpossiblysurvive
thisduration.Uponbeinginformedthattheywouldnot,theydeliberatedforeighthoursafterwhichtheysoughtcounselfirst
fromthephysician,thenfromagovernmentofficial,andfinallyfromaministerastowhetherornotitwouldbeadvisableto
castlotsandkillandconsumeoneoftheirmemberssothattheothersmaysurvive.Noneofthethreepartieswerewillingto
answer.Noneofthem answeredintheaffirmativeornegative.Withtheirquestionunanswered,themenseveredradio
contactwiththepeopleoutside.

Ontheireventualrelease,itbecameapparentthatsometwentythreedaysaftertheirentryintothecave,thedefendantshad
killedandeatenWhetmore.Inevidence,itwasindicatedthatWhetmorehadsuggestedthatthegroupssurvivalwouldbe
impossiblewithoutnutrient,andthatthiswouldnecessitatetheeatingoffleshofamemberofthegroup.Itwasalsosaidthat
Whetmorehimselfhadsuggestedthecastingoflotsbydicetochoosesuchunfortunatemember.However,Whetmoreafter
reflectionwithdrewfromtheoffertermingitfrightfulandodious.Hewasaccusedbythedefendantsofbreachoffaithand
theyproceededtocastdice.Whetmorealsodeclaredtathehadnoobjectiontooneofthedefendantscastingthediceonhis
behalf.ThethrowofthedicewasunfortunatelyagainstWhetmore.Theothergroupmembersthereforekilledhimafter
whichtheyatehisflesh.

Afterthedefendantshadbeenrescuedfromthecaveandtheirsuitabletreatment,theywereindictedforthemurderof
WhetmoreintheCourtofGeneralInstances,theCountyofStowfield.Thecourtfoundallofthemguiltyandweresentenced
todeathbyhanging.
Followingthedischargeofthejury,itsmembersjoinedincommunicatingwiththestatesChiefExecutiveandrequesting
thatthedeathsentencebecommutedtoimprisonmentforaperiodofsixmonths.SimilaractionwastakenbytheTrialjudge.
ThedefendantsbroughtapetitionoferrortotheSupremeCourtofNewgarth.Thecourtissueditsopinionsintheyear4300.

Inthetrialthatensued,thefivejudgebenchgavedifferingopinionsandprofoundlydifferentratiosforthesame.Fullerwrote
thesefiveopinionsasrepresentingdifferentschoolsofthought.

PARTII
1)OPINIONOFCHIEFJUSTICETRUEPENNY
InhisargumentChiefJusticeTruepenny[12]afterstatingthefactsasmentionedinPartIofthispaperruledinfavourfor
strictlyapplyingtheletterofthelawratherthaninterpretingthelaw.Accordingtohimthejuryandthetrialjudgefolloweda
coursethatwasnotonlyfairandwise,buttheonlycoursethatwasopentothemunderthelaw.Hehoweveralsoproposedto
hiscolleaguesthattheyfollowtheexampleofthejuryandtrialjudgebyjoininginthecommunicationstheyhaveaddressed
totheChiefExecutiveoftheStateforclemencyforthedefendants.
ChiefjusticeTruepenny appearstobean AdvocateofTextualismorInstitutionalism.HerepresentedthePositivist[13]
Perspective.Accordingtothisschoollawshouldbegivenaliteralinterpretation.Lawiswhatitisratherthanwhatitoughtto
be.Thatis,itisfreefrommoralconsiderationsonceitisenactedbyasovereignauthority.

VERDICT:Heaffirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourtbuthoweverrequestedclemencyalso.

ANALYSIS
ThemainthrustofthisargumentpresentedbyChiefJusticeTruepennyisthatthestatueunderscrutinyisnotambiguousand
isplainlystatedforapplyingthelawratherthaninterpretingthelaw.And,asthestatuestates,Whoevershallwillfullytake
thelifeofanothershallbepunishedbydeath,hesaidthedefendantsshouldbehangedtilldeath.However,Truepennys
argumenthasmuchstrengthwhich,atfacevalue,canbeappliedtothiscaseinquestion.Arguably,first,thelanguageofthe
statue applies directly to what the defendants did to Roger Whetmore. Therefore, there is no argument not to punish
defendantsfollowingtheexistinglaw.Also,thereisnoquestionintothematterthatthemenontrialwillfullytookthelife
ofWhetmore.Itisanadmittedfatthattheydid.
However,thereisanotheraspectofthispeculiarcase.AshasbeenstatedinthetestimonyofthedefendantsthatWhetmore
was in concurrence with the decision to cast lots to determine his own fate. Now, therefore, the question is, does all
accountabilityofRogerWhetmoresdeathresideinthedefendantsalone,orshouldWhetmorebeheldpartlyresponsibleas
wellforthecrime.
Therefore,itissubmittedherethatitwouldbeimpracticaltomerelyapplythestatueonthegroundsofthetextandignoring
thebasicfoundationofwhylawhasbecomelaw.Thereshouldbeutilizationofprudenceindecisionofcasesandeachcase
shouldbedecidedonitsmerits.Whatlawrequiresisintelligentobedience,notidioticadherence.
Toconclude,ChiefJusticeTruepenny'slegalanalysiswasshort.HerecommendedapleaforclemencytotheChief
Executivebecausehefeltthestatutewasclearlyagainsttheconspirators.Butthereisnoreflectionorconsiderationofthe
statuteitself;itisassumedtospeakagainsthedefendants.Theappealforclemencyseemedasanabandonmentofthe
judicialrole,asortof"copout,"oranadmissionthatthelegalsystemwasnotreallyabletohandlethecomplexitiesof
theissue.

2)OPINIONOFJUSTICEFOSTER
JudgeFosteritissaidrepresentsthealteregoofFuller.Herepresentsthenaturalschool [14]ofjurisprudence.Hisopinionis
thebestwrittenoneofthefive.
Justice Foster expressed shock at hearing of Chief Justice Truepennys opinion. He argued that the Law of the
Commonwealthisatstakeifwetrytotextuallyapplythelawinthiscase.Accordingtohim,thedefendantswhentrappedin
thecavewereoutsidethejurisdictionofCommonwealthofNewgarth.

VERDICT:Inhisverdict,hesetasidetheverdictoftheTrialcourtandheldthatpurposiveconstructionshouldbe
giventothestatutes.

ANALYSIS
JusticeFosterdidnotbelievethatthelawcompelsthemonstrousconclusionthatthedefendantsweremurderers.Onthe
contrary,hesaiditdeclaresthemtobeinnocentofanycrime.Herestedthisconclusionontwoindependentgrounds.Hesaid
thedefendantsarenotguiltyonbothofthesegroundsindependentlyofeachother.
The first of these grounds is that the enacted or positive law of this Commonwealth, including all of its statutes and
precedents,isgovernedinsteadbywhatancientwritersinEuropeandAmericacalled"thelawofnature."Whenasituation
arisesinwhichthecoexistenceofmenbecomesimpossible,thenaconditionthatunderliesallofjudicialprecedentsand
statuteshasceasedtoexist.Hesays,whenthatconditiondisappears,thentheforceofourpositivelawdisappearswithit.Itis
similartoasituationinwhichacrimeiscommittedoutsidetheterritorialjurisdictionoftheState.Thishastheconsequences
thatthelawapplicabletothemisnottheenactedandestablishedlawofthiscommonwealth,butthelawderivedfromthose
principlesthatwereappropriatetotheircondition.Hethereforesaidapplyingthisprinciplethedefendantswerenotguiltyof
anycrime.
Hesaysthatpositivelawisinherentlyterritorial.Therefore,whenapersonisoutsideitsscope,therulesoflawwouldnot
applytohim.Applyingthisprincipleintheinstantcase,hesaysthatthedefendantswereseparatedfromtheStatebyrock
walls.WithinthemtheStatewasnotevenabletoapplythemwithsuccour.HeaddsthattheStatewascreatedbyasocial
contracttoprovidepeace,orderandsuccourtoall.

Thesecondgroundthathetakesisthatoneofthemostancientbitsoflegalwisdomisthesayingthatamanmaybreakthe
letterofthelawwithoutbreakingthelawitself.Accordingtohimeverypropositionofpositivelawshouldbeinterpreted
reasonably,inthelightofitsevidentpurpose.Inthejudgment,JudgeFostersaysCenturiesagoitwasestablishedthata
killinginselfdefenseisexcused.Thereisnothinginthewordingofthestatutethatsuggeststhisexception.Buttheexception
infavorofselfdefenseisnotoutofthewordsofthestatute,butoutofitspurpose.Whentherationaleoftheexcuseofself
defenseisthusexplained,itbecomesapparentthatpreciselythesamereasoningisapplicabletothecaseatbar.Thatis,he
arguesthatselfpreservationisthemostbasicofall humantendencies.Intheinstantcase,thedefendantsdidnotkill
Whetmoreoutofmalafidesbutbecausetheywantedtogivesuccourtotheirstarvingbodies.Therefore,thiswasakillingin
selfdefence.
Hefurthersitesthecase[15] of Commonwealthv.Staymore whereinitwasheldthat apersoncannotbeheldguiltyfor
anythingwhichwasbeyondhiscontrol.Itisheresubmittedthatarguably,whenamanmadelawisenactedorenforced,there
isalwaysareasonwhythelawwasconstructedinthefirstplace.Andtherefore,lawshouldbeconstruedwithinitspurpose.
Further,headdsthatiftheStatecouldsacrifice10livestosaveone,whycannotonelifebesacrificedtosavefour.

Toconclude,JusticeFosterbasedhisjustificationonthefollowing.Hesayswhenweconsideracasewhichhastakenplacea
milebeyondterritoriallimitsofastate;noonewouldpretendthatthelawofthestatewouldbeapplicabletothecase.This
meansthatlawisnotabsolute,andthatthepositivelawispredicatedonthepossibilityofmen'scoexistenceinsociety.When
asituationarisesinwhichthecoexistenceofmenbecomesimpossible,thenaconditionthatunderliesallofourprecedents
andstatutesceasestoexist.Whenthatconditiondisappearsthattheforceofourpositivelawdisappearswithit,thenthelaw
ofnatureworks.Selfdefenseisarightnotoutofthewordsofapenalstatute(liketheoneinthiscase),butoutofitspurpose.
Eventhoughthereisnothinginthewordingofthestatutethatsuggestsselfdefense,theexceptionofselfdefenseisaccepted.

3)OPINIONOFJUSTICETATTING.
JudgeTattinghadacompleteoppositeviewofthatofJudgeFoster.Hesaidhecannotacceptanyofthelattersopinions,
moresothefirstpartofit.AccordingtoTattingJ.howcanlawofcontractbemorepowerfulthanlawofmurder.Secondly
heaskedaveryfundamentalquestionwhenexactlydidthe5membercompanymovefromastateofcivilsocietytoa
stateofnature.Wasitwhenthepartyenteredthecave,orwhenthelandslideoccurredorwhenthepartycrossedthe
thresholdofstarvation.Further,heaskedtheSupremeCourtofNewgarthwascreatedoutofapositivelaw.Fromwheredoes
thecourtarriveitsauthoritytodecideadisputeonlawofnatureratherthanlawoftheState.
Verdict:Hewithdrewfromthecase.

ANALYSIS
TattingJ.alsorepresentedthepositivistschool.
TattingJ arguesthatitistruethatastatuteshouldbeappliedinthelightofitspurpose,andthatoneofthepurposesof
criminallegislationisrecognizedtobedeterrence.Thedifficultyisthatotherpurposesarealsoascribedtothelawofcrimes.
Ithasbeensaidthatoneofitsobjectsistoprovideanorderlyoutletfortheinstinctivehumandemandforretribution.Healso
arguedthatlawofretributionisequallyimportantifnotmorethanlawofdeterrence[16] incriminallaw.Hequotedthecase
ofCommonwealthv.Scapewhereinitwasheldthattheoneoftheobjectsoflawisalsotoprovideoutletforretribution.It
hasalsobeensaidthatitsobjectistherehabilitationofthewrongdoerasinCommonwealthv.Makeover.
Healsosaidthatthethereisnodoubtthatthedefendantshavecommittedmurder.Citing Commonwealthv.Valjean[17],he
saidifapersoncannotbepardonedforstealingaloafofbreadhowcanonebeforgivenforkillingapersonoutofstarvation.
[18]Further,hesaysassumingthatwemustinterpretastatueinthelightofitspurpose,whatarewetodowhenithasmany
purposesorwhenitspurposesaredisputed? Thefamiliarexplanationfortheexcuseofselfdefensecannotbeappliedby
analogytothefactsofthiscase.Thesemenactednotonly"willfully"butalsowithgreatdeliberationandafterhoursof
discussionwhattheyshoulddo.
HehowevergavecredencetoFosterJ.forhistheoryofpurposiveconstructionofastatute.Headdedthatitisamatterof
regretthattheProsecutorsawfittoaskforanindictmentofmurder.Ifwehadaprovisioninourstatutesmakingitacrimeto
eathumanflesh,thatwouldhavebeenamoreappropriatecharge.Ifnootherchargesuitedtothefactsofthiscasecouldbe
broughtagainstthedefendants,itwouldhavebeenwisernottohaveindictedthematall.
Further,itseemsfromtheallegorythatJudgeTattingbelievedinthepowerofjudicialprecedents.Hewasconfusedasto
whateffectthisprecedent[19]wouldhaveonfuturecasesbeforethecourts.
SinceHewaswhollyunabletoresolvethedoubtsthatbesethimaboutthelawofthiscase,Hedeclaredhiswithdrawalfrom
thecase

Fromtheallegory,itcanbesaidthatJudgeTatting ultimatelywithdrewfromthecasebecauseoftheoverwhelming
dissonancehefeltafterthinkingthroughtheissues.HedisagreedwithFosteronthestateofnatureissue,butheagreed
withFosterthatthereisprecedentialvalueinhistheoryofselfdefense.Hehowever,didnotseestatutesashavingjust
onepurpose,andaccordingtohimthereareotherexplanationsofselfdefensestressingtheimportanceof"nonwillful"
conduct.Buttheconspiratorsacted"willfully."So,thatiswhyheisconfused.Heseesthatbothperspectives(acquittal
andconviction)haveequallystrongargumentsandhecannotdecide.

4)OPINIONOFJUSTICEKEEN
Intheoutsetofhisopinion,JudgeKeensaysExecutiveclemencyisaquestionfortheChiefExecutive,notforthejudgesto
directtheChiefExecutive.HethereforedisapprovedofthatpassageintheopinionoftheChiefJusticeinwhichheineffect
givesinstructionstotheChiefExecutiveastowhatheshoulddointhiscase.
Hesaidwhiledecidingwhetherwhatthesemendidwas"right"orwrong""wicked"or"goodisnotforajudgetodecide.
Heshouldnotapplyhisconceptionsofmorality,butthelawoftheland.Thesolequestionbeforeus,therefore,hesaid,for
decisioniswhetherthesedefendantsdid,withinthemeaningofN.C.S.A.(N.S.)12A,willfullytakethelifeofRoger
Whetmore.Onthiscount,anycandidobserverwouldconcedeatoncethatthesedefendantsdid"willfullytakethelife"of
RogerWhetmore.Hethenproceededtoacknowledgethatharddecisionsareneverpopular,butthathardecisionmayeven
haveacertainmoralvaluebybringinghometothepeopletheirownresponsibilitiestowardthelawthatisultimatelytheir
creation and by reminding them tat there is no principle of personal grace that can relieve the mistakes of their
representatives,i.e.thelegislators

VERDICT:Hefoundthedefendantsguilty.

ANALYSIS
KeenJtoobelongedtothepositivistschool.HeappearstobeanadvocateofTextualism. Hestressedthataskingfor
executiveclemencyisimproperforjudges,althoughtheymaydosointheircapacityasprivatecitizens. Hesaidthatthe
majorprobleminthecaseisthefailureofotherstoseparatelawandmorality.Oncethisisdone,onerealizesthat
statutesarenotnecessarilyembodimentsofmoralthoughtsandadecisionismucheasier.
HesaidtherewasatimeintheCommonwealthwhenthejudgesdidinfactlegislateveryfreely.Butwenowhaveaclearcut
principle,whichisthesupremacyofthelegislativebranchofourgovernment.Fromthatprincipleflowstheobligationofthe
judiciarytoenforcefaithfullythewrittenlawinaccordancewithitsplainmeaningwithoutreferencetoourpersonaldesires
orourindividualconceptionsofjustice.Here,heoutlinestheprincipleofstrictadherencetoseparationofpowersofthethree
chieforgansofgovernment.
Then,hegoesintothehistoryofthecommunity,stressingthatjudicialactivismorindeterminacyofinterpretationactually
wasafactorinprecipitatingacivilwar.[20]Healsodeclinestoacceptthetheorythatthereisonlyonepurposeforastatute.
Itreallyisimpossibleforajudgetodivinelegislative"purpose." Finally,ahardandharshdecisionhereisprobably
good,foritforcesthelegislaturetoreconsiderthestatute.HesaysitisforthepeopletoremindtheLegislatureofhis
mistakeandnotforthejudiciary.ThescopeoftheexceptioninfavorofselfdefenseasithasbeenappliedbytheCourtis
plain:itappliestocasesofresistinganaggressivethreattotheparty'sownlife.Itisthereforetooclearforargumentthatthis
casedoesnotfallwithinthescopeoftheexception,sinceitisplainthatWhetmoremadenothreatagainstthelivesofthese
defendants
Toconclude,itcanbesaidthataccordingtohimalawintheformofalawcanbeenforcedifitisagoodlaworabadone.
Andlawyershouldthinkoftheletterofthelawnotthepersonalmoral.Andtheprocessofthejudicialreformrequiressteps
onthepartoftheLegislature/executive.

5)OPINIONOFJUSTICEHANDY.
JusticeHandybelievedthatlawshouldbewhatthepublicwants.Hedisprovedofwhathecalledhiscolleagues'abilityto
throw an obscuring curtain of legalisms about every issue presented to them for decision. Judges should not go into
positivismornaturallaw,rightorwrong.Accordingtohim,sincebyapollitwassaidthatthemajoritypopulacewantedthe
defendantstobeletoffwithatokenpunishment,thejudgesshouldcomplywiththispopularopinion.
Accordingtohimgovernmentisahumanaffair,andthatmenareruled,notbywordsonpaperorbyabstracttheories,butby
othermen.Theyareruledwellwhentheirrulersunderstandthefeelingsandconceptionsofthemasses.Theyareruledbadly
whenthatunderstandingislacking.Judgesneedtobeintunewithpopularopinion.Hedisapprovedofthepracticeofthe
courts.HeobservedLawyersarehiredbybothsidestoanalyzeanddissect.Judgesandattorneysviewithoneanotherto
seewhocandiscoverthegreatestnumberofdifficultiesanddistinctionsinasinglesetoffacts.Eachsidetriestofindcases,
real or imagined, that will embarrass the demonstrations of the other side. To escape this embarrassment, still further
distinctionsareinventedandimportedintothesituation.Whenasetoffactshasbeensubjectedtothiskindoftreatmentfora
sufficienttime,allthelifeandjuicehavegoneoutofitandwehaveleftahandfulofdust.
Accordingtohim,thecasebeforethecourtwasaquestionofpracticalwisdom,tobeexercisedincontext,notofabstract
theory,butofhumanrealities.Hesaidthemostobviousadvantageoftreatingformsandabstractconceptsasinstrumentsis
thatitpermitsonetogoaboutonesdailytaskswithefficiencyandcommonsense.Whentheseconceptionsareappliedto
thecasebeforethecourts,decisionbecomesperfectlyeasy.Hefurtheraddedthatthiscasehasarousedenormouspublic
interest.Inonewidelyreadnewspaperchainspoll,onthequestion,"whatdoyouthinktheSupremecourtshoulddowith
theSpelunceanexplorer?",aboutninetypercentexpressedabeliefthatthedefendantsshouldbepardonedorletoffwitha
kindoftokenpunishment.Itisperfectlyclear,then,howthepublicfeelsaboutthecase.Andthisisthedecisionthejudges
shouldgive.

VERDICT:Hesetasidetheverdictandsaidthatthecourtshouldfollowpublicopinion.
ANALYSIS
JudgeHandyisthejudgeofpractical/popularwisdom.[21]Intheallegory,heechoedtheviewsofsociologicalschoolof
jurisprudence.PracticalwisdomisasignificantcategoryforAristotleinhis NicomacheanEthics andreferstotheskill
neededinlifetodeliberateandreachdecisions(incontrasttotheoreticalknowledgeorpracticalskill).[22] Thisjudgeis
verysolicitousofpublicopinion,believingthatthelegitimacyofthejudicialenterpriseisbecauseitreflectsthewillof
thepeople.Thisaspecthaspracticalimplicationsinourmediadrivensociety.Manyatimesweseethatpopularmediahas
hadaneffectonjudges.[23]Further,trialbymediahasbeenanissueofhotdebateinlegalaswellaspopularcirclessince
sometimenow.

Thiswasthelastofthefiveopinions.TheSupremeCourtbeingequallydivided,theconvictionandthesentenceoftheCourt
ofGeneralInstanceswasaffirmed.Thedefendantswereorderedtobehanged.

CONCLUSIONANDFINDINGS
Fullerscaselooksatseparationofpowersissues(throughthenotionofrecommendingclemencytotheChiefExecutive),
naturallawtheory,positivism,statutoryinterpretation(whetherthereare"gaps"instatutesandhowto"fill"them),the
purpose(s)ofstatutes,theroleofprecedentsandhowtousethem,therelationshipoflawandmorality,judgingasthe
manifestationofpracticalreason,varioustheoriesofselfdefense.Allinallitdealswithalmostalltheissuesthatcouldbe
contemplatedinmid20thcentury.
Assaidearlier,itiswidelybelievedthatFullerbasedhiscaseontworealcases.Abriefgistofthecasesisproducedbelow
forthebenefitofthereader.
U.S.vs.Holmes(1842)[24]
FACTS:In1841,theU.S.immigrantshipWilliamBrownsailingfromLiverpooltoPhiladelphia,sankafterhittingan
iceberg.42people,includingthemateandseveralsailors,foundthemselvesononeofthelifeboats;afteradayorsoitbegan
to spring leaks and was sinking. Crewmen, including the defendant Alexander William Holmes, believed that their
overloadedlifeboatwasindangerofitselfsinkingandput14or16passengersoverboardtotheirinevitabledeathsinthe
frigidwater.OnhisreturntoPhiladelphia,Holmeswasarrestedandchargedwithmurder.However,thegrandjuryrejected
the indictment and substituted manslaughter. The judge in the United States circuit court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvaniainstructedthejurythatnecessitymightbeacompletedefencebutthat"beforetheprotectionofthelawof
necessitycanbeinvoked,acaseofnecessitymustexist,theslayermustbefaultless,hemustowenodutytothevictim."The
juryconvictedHolmesandtheprincipleofnecessitywasnottestedbyanyhighercourt.
Holmeswasfoundguiltyandsentencedtosixmonthsinprisonandafineof$20;heservedthetimebutdidnothave
topaythefine,becausehewaseventuallypardonedbyPresidentJohnTyler.

Reginavs.Dudley&Stephens(1884)[25]
Therewasanothercasein1884(Queenv.Dudley)whichresemblestheSpelunceanCaseevenmoreclosely,insofarasittoo
involvedcannabalism,albeitcannabalismonthehighseas.Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows:
AyachtsailingfromEssex,EnglandtoSydney,Australiasank,leavingfourcrewmembersina13footlifeboat:the
captain(Dudley)andthemate(Stephens),andtwoseamen,BrooksandParker.Parkerwas17yearsoldandalreadyweak.
Afterseveraldayswithoutfoodandwater,DudleysuggestedtoStephensthattheyconductalotterytochooseonepersonto
bekilledandeatenbytheothers.Stephensrefused.LaterDudleyconvincedStephensthattheyshouldkillParker,whowas
alreadyillandwithoutfamily,andeathim.TheydidsoandconsumedabouthalfofParkeroverthenextfewdays,atwhich
pointtheywererescuedbyaGermanBoat.TheboatputinatFalmouth,EnglandonthewaybacktoGermany.Therethe
menwerechargedwithmurder. Thepublicwasonthesideofthedefendants,sothejudgeaskedthejuryforaspecial
verdict:notafindingofguiltorinnocence,butsimplyafindingonthefacts.
Basedonthefactsfoundbythejury,thejudgefoundthemenguiltyandsentencedthemtohang.Theywerepardoned
byQueenVictoria.

Assaidearlier,whenLonFullerhadputtogetherhisSpelunceanExplorershypotheticalinthe1940s,therereallywereonly
twosignificantjurisprudentialphilosophiesintheair:naturallawandpositivism.Theformerhadlargelybeendiscredited,
but was revived inthe hypothetical by Justice Foster, who claimed that thetrapped explorers were in a moral, ifnot
geographical"stateofnature."ItseemsthatFullerincludedanaturallawargumentinthehypotheticalwasthattheoneofthe
underlying real caseswas USv.Holmes,wherethedefendant'sattorneysunsuccessfullytriedtoarguesuchadefensefor
Holmes.Positivism,theothertheory,wasalltherageinthe1940s.Positivismisa"bigumbrella"word ,whichcoversall
thingsfromtheutilitarianismofJeremyBenthamtoanyeffortthatwantstoseparatelawfrommorality.JusticeKeenisthe
exponentofpositivisminthehypothetical.

Throughthisallegory,Fullerisseekingconsiderationofthepurposesforwhichlawexists.Thevaryingnatureofjudgements
oftheSupremeCourtareusedtoillustrateavarietyofapproachestolaw.TheopinionoftheChiefJusticeseemstobebased
uponabeliefinthesignificanceofexecutiveclemencyinappealsagainstconvictionandsentence.FosterJ(whoaccepts
Fullers ownviews)drawsattentiontotheimportance ofthespirit ofthelaw ratherthanthe letter.TattingJ.evades
responsibilitybydeclaringhisinabilitytoreachadecision.KeenJ.followsthephilosophyofpositivisminseparating
mattersoflawandmorality.HandyJ.advocatesadecisionwhichhebelievestobeadministrativelyconvenientandpopular.
ThroughthedecisionofFosterJ.,Fulleraffirmshisbeliefintheneedforintertwiningoflaw,moralityandreasonindeciding
legalquestions.Eachstrandoftheprocessisnecessary.Positivismprovidesadistortedviewoflaw,whichisseenasaone
wayprojectionofauthoritythelawissetoutandtisthedutyofthecitizentoobeyitsletter.

Fullersownpostscripttothecaseisofparticularsignificance.Thecase,henotes,wasconstructedforthesolepurposeof
bringingintoacommonfocuscertaindivergentphilosophiesoflawandgovernment,philosophieswhichhaveexistedsince
thetimeoftheancientGreeks.Evenafterwehavesoughtsolutionstotheproblemsraisedinearliertimes,thedebateswill
continue.Heendswithsayingthatifthereisanyelementofpredictioninthecase,itdoesnotgobeyondasuggestionthatthe
questionsraisedherearepermanentquestionsbeforethehumanrace.Thisstatement,itissubmittedhereisparticularlytrue.
Debatesonjudicialaccountability,judicialactivism,separationofpowers,roleofmedia,retributivetheoryofpunishmentv.
reformatvetheoryarestillconstant topicsofdebateanddiscussionsevenafter60yearsofthisallegory.Anditseems
unlikelythatthesedebateswillbesettledsoon.

ItisalsopertinenttomentionherethatD'Amato's"FurtherProceedings,[26]addedfurtherproceedings.Theauthorinhis
articleimaginesthatthedecisionoftheCourtwasgivenovertoaCommitteeofthreeprofessorsforreview.Hisarticledeals
withtheopinionoftheseprofessors.Itwouldnotbewrongtomentionherethereasonsfortheartcleasmentionedbythe
authorhimselfinitsfirstparagraph
isaclassicinjurisprudence.SetintheSupremeCourtofNewgarthintheyear4300thecasepresentsfive
judicial opinions which clash with each other and produce for the reader an exhilarating excursion into fundamental
theoriesoflawandthestateandtheroleofcourtsvisivislegislaturesandexecutives.Thoughtheissuesarticulatedby
ProfessorFullerin1949aretimeless,thepastthirtyyearsinjurisprudentialscholarshiphaveproducedatleastonemajor
newvantagepointthe"rightsthesis"asadvancedbyProfessorDworkinandothers.Simplystated,therightsthesisholds
thatthereisa"right"answer,andonlyonerightanswer,ineverycase.Thelitigantshavea"right"tothatandfinallytoadd
onemoreshadeofmeaningtothecomprehensiveterm"right"theanswerthusarrivedatisdictatedbygeneralrequirements
ofjustice.Sincejusticeisabranchofmorality,the"right"answerisnotonlycorrectbutalsorightinamoralsense