R V. DUDLEY AND STEPHENS REVISITED: A MODERN PERSPECTIVE ON MORALITY, LAW, AND SURVIVAL ETHICS

This paper critically examines the 19th-century case R v. Dudley and Stephens, analyzing its legal and ethical implications within the framework of the necessity defense. It explores how the case set a precedent against justifying murder for survival and compares it with United States v. Holmes and Re A (Conjoined Twins) to assess the evolving interpretation of necessity in legal contexts. The analysis concludes that the verdict in R v. Dudley and Stephens still allows room for further examination and debate among legal scholars. The research highlights gaps in the verdict’s reasoning and evaluates its lasting impact on modern criminal law. By revisiting the case through contemporary legal perspectives, this study invites further discourse on necessity in extreme circumstances.