 |
| HANDBOOK OF CORRECTIONAL MENTAL HEALTH |
the meaning and purpose of punishment in an interesting case before them.
Two Englishmen, Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens, were indicted for
the murder of a 17-year-old boy named Richard Parker. All three men were
sailing on an English yacht when they encountered a severe storm on the
high seas 1,600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope. As a result of the storm,
they were lost and stranded. There was no supply of water and only two 1-
pound tins of turnips on the boat. After 21 days of virtually no food or water,
the men realized that they all would die without some type of sustenance.
The 17-year-old boy was the weakest of the three and was lying at the bottom
of the boat extremely malnourished by famine. Dudley and Stephens agreed
that if they were not rescued by the following day, the boy would have to be
killed so that they could potentially survive. On the day of the murder, the
two men told the fragile boy that his time had come, put a knife to his throat,
and then killed him. For 4 days the two men fed on the body and blood of
the boy and on the fourth day they were rescued by a passing vessel. Both
men were subsequently charged with the murder of Richard Parker, whom
they had eaten. At their trial, testimony was presented that the boy would
probably have died from severe famine during the 4 days prior to the rescue
and therefore he would not have lived anyway. Further testimony was provided
that had the two men not eaten the boy, they also would have likely died
from starvation. Should these men be punished considering these circumstances?
If so, what purpose would punishing them serve?
Four general principles of punishment help answer the difficult questions
posed by this case: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation.
