Jump to Navigation

Cannibalism and the Common Law

By A. Lentin | Published in History Today 1985 
Print this article   Email this article
by A.W. Brian Simpson
Cannibalism and the Common Law
by A.W. Brian Simpson.
353 pp. (Chicago University Press, £21.25.)

This is a remarkable book on several counts. The author is professor of law at the universities of Kent and Chicago; but this is no law book, and though exhaustively researched, it is no conventional academic monograph either. Indeed it is strange to see it under a university imprint. Professor Simpson is not even primarily concerned with the legal aspect of his subject-matter. His principal object, which he achieves with considerable panache, is to recount, in full and wide- ranging detail, a sombre tale of the sea. His book is a narrative of the background to the notorious case of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (1884), which, as every law student knows, established that 'necessity' is nn defence to the crime of murder.

In 1884, the yacht Mignonette , under way from England to Australia, foundered in mid-Atlantic, 1600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope. The crew of four, Dudley, Stephens, Brooks and the seventeen-year-old Richard Parker, took to a small dingy. All the food they had were two tins of turnips and a passing turtle. There was no water. After nineteen days, all were desperate from hunger and thirst. Parker lay ill and semi-comatose. Dudley and Stephens agreed that the only hope for any of them was to kill one of their number and live off his flesh and blood. Dudley and Stephens were family men, with dependants at home. Brooks and Parker were bachelors. Parker was prostrate and likely to die in any event. The choice fell on him. With Stephens' agreement, Dudley cut the lad's throat. Five days later, the three survivors were rescued. On reaching England, Dudley and Stephens were tried and convicted of murder. Brooks, who had taken no part in the killing, though he partook of the flesh, testified for the Crown. Sentence of death was passed, although there was never any question of its being implemented, and the Home Secretary commuted it to six months imprisonment.

 This article is available to History Today online subscribers only. If you are a subscriber, please log in.

Please choose one of these options to access this article:

Call our Subscriptions department on +44 (0)20 3219 7813 for more information.

If you are logged in but still cannot access the article, please contact us

About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Subscriptions | Newsletter | RSS Feeds | Ebooks | Podcast | Submitting an Article
Copyright 2012 History Today Ltd. All rights reserved.