In the Queen v. Dudley and Stephens shipwreck case, which statement is correct about necessity?

In the Queen v. Dudley and Stephens shipwreck case, which statement is correct about necessity?

• A. Necessity is a defense to murder.
• B. Necessity was a defense to murder.
• C. Necessity is never a defense to murder.
• D. The case did not address necessity.

Answer: (C)

Necessity cannot justify murder in criminal law. In Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, shipwrecked sailors killed a cabin boy to survive and argued that necessity supported their actions. The court rejected that line of defense, holding that allowing necessity to excuse killing would undermine the value of human life and invite endless justifications for murder. So, while necessity may be a defense in some non-homicide offenses or under very limited circumstances, it does not excuse murder.

Necessity cannot justify murder in criminal law. In Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, shipwrecked sailors killed a cabin boy to survive and argued that necessity supported their actions. The court rejected that line of defense, holding that allowing necessity to excuse killing would undermine the value of human life and invite endless justifications for murder. So, while necessity may be a defense in some non-homicide offenses or under very limited circumstances, it does not excuse murder.