Specter, J.

1750028

The language of the law of the Commonwealth of Newgarth is clear

when it says, "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be
punished by death." A cardinal rule in statutory construction also provides that
when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room
for construction or interpretation. There is only room for application.

As the law states in unequivocal terms that a willful taking of the life of
another shall be punishable by death, means there is thus no exception. Again,
since the statute is clear and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal
meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. We cannot interpret the
law in ways we deem convenient cloaked under the cape of Judicial
legislation.

After a 3-month litany of hearing the case, I would assume that any
person who has studied the case and had an opportunity to become thoroughly
acquainted with all its circumstances has every reason to believe and concede
that the defendants did willfully take the life of Whetmore.

I dismiss the argument of my fellow Justice in favor of self-defense as

irrelevant for the simple reason that since antiquity the exception in favor of
self-defense refers to acts made only for the purpose of resisting an aggressive
threat coming from an unlawful aggressor. It is also an obvious fact that a man
who acts in self-defense does not act willfully.

I dissent also in the contention of Justice Foster that the situation of the
defendants removed them from the effect of the positive law and instead
governed by those principles that were appropriate to their condition which is
the law of nature. If adopted, the argument of Justice Foster will create a
precedent that would be dangerous in the future, not to mention a major
revamp of cases decided by this court. Man would find it easy to fabricate
“conditions” attached to a philosophy that such situation placed them in a law
of nature should they be faced in a difficult situation just exculpate himself.

The facts of the case as stated by the Chief Justice clearly shows that
the defendants were not totally cut off as it was erroneously presumed by the
rescuers that the batteries of their communication device died the moment the
group stopped communicating, where in fact, it did not. This is an important
fact because the crux of Justice Foster contention is based on this argument.
The defendants still clearly coexist with society. The defendants failed to
exhaust all opportunities to communicate their desire to be advised on a matter
so important such as the status of the rescue operation intended to them, that
if they just did so, murdering Whetmore could have been avoided.
Notwithstanding the fact that they’ve been rescued earlier than the date
projected by the physician for them to last without nutriment.

I move to uphold the decision of the lower court. Whatever clemency

may the Executive grant to the defendants is beyond the reach and concern of
this Court.