Queen v Dudley and Stephens Hunger can make a man do crazy things, it can make him do things he never

thought he would. Many actions done by an insane person would limit his liability. There are several defenses available to a person who has killed another under certain circumstances. But would killing of another for the purpose of eating that persons flesh for his own survival be acceptable? The accused were under the belief that they were doomed to die if they did not take the appropriate measures and sacrifice one of their own to preserve the lives of the others. They chose Richard Parker as he was rather sickly and did not have family like they did. The main issue in this case is whether the killing of Richard Parker was a necessity. Killing for necessity is justified by actual and immediate danger to be suffered by the accused. In this case, there was no showing of actual or immediate danger, as the victim had no means to even defend himself. The men should have thought of other means to survive. Killing for self-defense and duress are two different things. The former refers to the justified killing of another because the victim himself is guilty. On the other hand, duress is not an excuse to kill innocent people. A person does not have a duty to preserve his own life when asked to choose between his own and another innocent persons life. In this case, Richard Parker was in no way a threat to the lives of the other men; therefore, his killing was not justified. We cannot put greater importance over another persons life. In this case as all their lives are equally important. The Court finds the accused guilty of the crime of murder.