Scenario #1 (true):
U.S. ship "William Brown" left Liverpool March 13, 1841 bound for Philadelphia.
April 19, 1841, it hit an iceberg and sank.
Two boats were lowered. On the larger boat, the first mate, 8 seaman (including a man named Holmes) and 32 passengers got on board the longboat. In the second, smaller, boat were the captain, second mate, 7 more crew and one passenger.
From the very beginning, the longboat was leaking. When the two boats separated, the captain told everyone on that boat to obey the orders of the first mate. The first mate told the captain straight out that the longboat was unmanageable, and unless the captain could take some of the longboat's passengers, it would be necessary to cast lots and throw some people overboard.
The captain (allegedly) replied: "I know what you will have to do. Don't speak of that now. Let it be the last resort."
During the night the sea grew heavier and the longboat began taking water over the bow. There were pieces of ice floating about. The makeshift plug on the original leak came out. The first mate, who had been bailing forever, suddenly stopped in despair and cried out, "This work won't do. Help me, God. Men, go to work." Meaning, throw some people overboard.
After a while, the Mate again exclaimed, "Men, you must go to work or we shall all perish."
Then he directed the crew "...not to part man and wife, and not to throw over any woman."
No lots were cast. The crew, including Holmes, threw into the water 14 male passengers and two women. No member of the crew was thrown into the water.
The next afternoon, the longboat was picked up by a passing ship and all still aboard were saved. Holmes was indicted for manslaughter on the high seas, in the case of United States v. Holmes. The case was decided in 1842.
If you were on that jury, what would YOU have done?
[The book I got this out of didn't say why the rest of the crew were not charged, or if they weren't. It only used Holmes as an example.]
---------
Scenario #2 (true):
1884. Three able-bodied English seamen and a 17-year-old English boy survived a shipwreck 1600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope and were compelled to put out in the open seas in a lifeboat. They had no water. They had no food except 2 tins of turnips.
On the fourth day, they caught a small turtle. This was the only food they had for 20 days. On the 18th day, when they had been without food or water for many days (apparently they had caught some rain water, but had been without any water for at least 5 days), 2 of the seamen suggested to the third (who did not agree) that someone be sacrificed to save the other three.
On the 19th day Seaman Dudley, suggested they draw lots to determine who should be put to death. Finally, on the 20th day, Dudley, with Stephens' assent (but without the assent of the third seaman) went to the boy (without drawing lots), told him his time had come, and put a knife in the boy's throat.
Before being killed, the boy had been lying on the bottom of the boat, quite helpless, extremely weakened by starvation and from drinking seawater, and was unable to put up resistance.
The three men (including, of course, the seaman who had refused to take part in the killing) fed upon the boy and drank his blood, for four days. On the fourth day, they were picked up by a passing vessel.
Dudley and Stephens were indicted for murder (The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, 1884.)
Knowing that they had no idea they were about to be rescued, and given their unreasonable state of mind from being starved and thirst-crazed, and also considering the boy was dying at the time, what do you do if you are on THAT jury?
I will tell you what the juries did on both cases next time, but what would YOU do? What are your reasoning processes?
