-- Fuller Problem Legal cave mystery

Cave mystery is USA famous jurist Fuller in 1949, "Harvard Law Review" published articles, for decades Public opinions are divergent. in jurisprudence.
The facts of the case
Cases occurred in more than two thousand years later, in 4299, the late spring and early summer Newcastle country. In early May of that year, the country's cave explorers Association Whitmore, five members in the central plateau is located in the limestone cave exploration. But when they go deep into the cave when landslides, rock blocking the only export limestone cave. Five explorers found trapped after waiting for rescue near the entrance. The explorers did not return home on time, their family members informed the explorers club, a rescue team rushed to the scene of the accident.
Because the cave site is located in a remote, landslides continued, rescue work difficult greatly exceeds the ex ante expected, and a landslide in a rescue is killed ten rescuers life. At the same time, the cave five adventurers can not be optimistic about the situation. They had brought food Co., nor can maintain the animal or plant life, explorers may well before access to starve to death. On the twentieth day the trapped, rescue workers that explorers carry a can send and receive information for wireless devices. Outside the staff quickly through the communication facilities for the stranded explorers made contact.
When explorers asked how long it will saved, engineers answer is at least ten days. Victims and rescue workers in the doctor to describe their physical condition, and then ask the doctor, without food, whether they are likely to live for ten days. When the doctor answered in the negative, the communication equipment of silence. Eight hours after the restoration of communication, ask to speak to the doctor again, explorer. Whitmore represented himself and four companions asked, if it is one of the members of flesh and blood, can live for ten days. Even if reluctantly, the doctor gave a positive answer. Whetmore asked, by drew lots to decide which one of them is feasible. This is of course a doctor can't answer the question. When the government officials and ministers are not willing to answer this question, there is no no news. Thirty-second days trapped in the cave, rescue the final success. But when the rescue personnel to enter the cave, it was learned that, on the twenty-third day siege, Whitmore has been his companion to kill to eat.
According to the four survivors in their testimony, eating food that carry, is Whitmore first proposed eat a companion flesh to save the other four, and Whitmore first proposed by drew lots to decide who to eat, because he happened to take a pair of dice. Four survivors had not agreed to such cruel proposal, but access to outside information in the explorers, they accepted the proposal, and repeatedly discussed mathematical problem which ensure fairness, ultimately selected for the dice to decide their fate. A roll of the dice the object needs to sacrifice to Whitmore, and he was eaten by fellow.
Four explorers were rescued due to malnutrition and hospital treatment. After discharge, four rescued persons accused of the murder of whitmore. The court of first instance after a special verdict confirmed the above facts, according to the provisions of Newcastle in the criminal law, the judge four defendants of murder Whitmore convicted, sentenced to be hanged. The four defendants to appeal to the Supreme Court of newcastle.
The court's opinion and judgment
Newcastle's Supreme Court consists of five judges, they are Forster, Kean, truepenny, Han and Tang ding. Now their decision will determine the fate of the four defendants.
The chief judge truepenny played a role in the Fuller case the narrator's basically, this let his explanation of maintaining trial original reason is very simple. Truepenny think, as a democratic state judge, his duty is to make their own decision according to the ordinary meaning of legal provisions, legal provisions and cannot develop in the legislature added value preferences. The criminal law stipulates: "any deliberate deprivation of life are to be sentenced to death." Although empathy can be prompted the judge to understand the misery at the back of the legal provisions, but does not allow any exceptions. In this sentence, the chief executive of the pardon truepenny proposal to limit the law in the case of severe. Be concise and to the point of view from the verdict, truepenny apparently legal formalism and legal positivism spokesman.
The second justices Forster advocated the overthrow of the trial court's judgment, and to put forward two reasons independent description. First of all, Forster says Newcastle criminal law does not apply to those trapped in the cave explorers in despair. According to the theory of social contract, people in natural state is in a civilized society peaceful coexistence was the political state, the contract also constitute the foundation of national law enforcement. But in the five men trapped in the cave, the reality of the plight of their decision is not in the "civilized society", but in the social contract theory, "the state of nature". In this natural state, Whitmore proposed and by consent of the owner's life and death Agreement constitutes their social contract, should also be effective law applicable in this case. "We all legal branch...... The common goal is to promote and improve the state of coexistence of people, fair and equal relationship between the coexistence of regulation. When the people can coexist with no longer exist, as in the case of extreme situations, survive only through to deprive others of life becomes possible, the basic premise supporting our entire legal order has lost its meaning and effect." Secondly, Forster admitted that the defendant violated the letter of the law. But the old adage "provisions of law is the surface of a person can violate the law without violating the law itself." Any law should be based on the clear purpose of it to get a reasonable explanation. The main purpose of criminal legislation is to prevent people from crime, justice Forster use self-defense precedent to on the actions of the defendant. Forster's verdict embodies the explanation teleological methods: the judge must consider reasonable objective law in the interpretation of the law, the judge and truepenny stand in stark contrast. Standing in the position of truepenny may say, Forster's theory of legal interpretation may cause judicial assumption of power. We have a look Forster is how to respond to the potential challenges in front of me, "the use of reasoning did not influence on the substantive law of loyalty, it puts forward the reasonable and unreasonable problem of loyalty loyalty. No leader can be an inability to grasp the implication of the servant. The stupid maid all know, when she was told 'cut off the skin soup, skim potato oil', her mistress is just a slip of the tongue...... Correct errors and omissions in the legislation was not replaced the legislator's will, but it will be realized."
The third justices Kean dropped to maintain the trial court second votes. As a legal formalism, judge Kean has said: "I don't want to discuss the problem of good and evil is wrong about the doings of the people. This is the same independent court because the judge sworn duty, applicable law, rather than the individual morality." Kean then said: "all the difficulties of the case come from? It is failed to distinguish between legal and moral factors in this case. Frankly, my colleagues are not willing to accept the law requires judgment defendant guilty fact, me too. But unlike my colleague, I respect my job responsibilities, it asked me when the interpretation and application of federal law, put my personal preference behind." In the successful challenge objective interpretation, judge Kean put forward the democracy legislation Supreme principle. "Came from this principle is applicable law court has the duty of loyalty, to explain the law in accordance with the laws of the plain meaning, can not refer to the wishes of the individual or the concept of justice." On this basis, judge Kean drew his conclusion, the defendant was "deliberately deprived of the life of Whitmore".
Handy judge fourth appearances of claim to rescind the guilty verdict in the case of first instance, this let both sides in the first four round tied. Handy judge is the legal realism and pragmatism in the Supreme Court judges, handy pointed out, "this is a problem of practical wisdom, it is not a matter of abstract theory, and the related to the reality of human." "The government is a kind of human affairs, ruled by people are not the newspaper words or abstract theory, but is ruled by others. If the ruler to understand people's feelings and ideas will bring benevolent. But if the ruler of this lack of understanding, people feel only tyranny. In all branches of government, judicial departments most likely to lose contact with ordinary people." So what is the people's common sense and the will? He proposed a mainstream media polls, "do you think that the Supreme Court should be how to deal with the cave explorers?" About ninety percent of respondents think should forgive the defendant or only given symbolic punishment. People's attitudes obviously. Because "the court should consider the people", the defendant is not guilty.
In view of the four judges vote on the formation of more than 2 2 draw, the final appearance of the judge Tang Ding's attitude will determine the ultimate fate of the defendant. Tang Ding judge "the target point to judge Forster said: if the case should be applied to" natural law ", so we are not in a natural state of judges from where made to explain the natural law of power? And for Forster to explain the theory, Tang Ding believed the purpose of the law is sometimes difficult to determine, sometimes is multiple, between the objective and purpose sometimes conflict. In the criticism of Forster's position, the judge may make Tang Ding the defendant guilty verdict according to the legal text. But Tang ding or in the final out of the dilemma of themselves in: on the one hand can not accept Forster's opinion; on the other hand, "when I tend to maintain the initial ruling, I look ridiculous, these will be executed is one of the 10 heroes of the life as the cost of." Tang Ding judge eventually made the Supreme Court without precedent in history: the ruling announced its withdrawal from the judgment of the case.
The waiver Tang Ding judges, five judges of the Supreme Court's position has dramatic draw, which means the court of first instance ruling upheld. On April 2, 4300 morning 6 when, four defendants were executed.