English Writing

Case of the Spelunkers: No Excuse for Murder

First Last

San José State University

No matter what the situation might be, taking away a person’s life is simply immoral, and it deserves the maximum penalty possible. Four best friends who are originally planning to go mountain climbing decide to go cave exploring. These men end up trapped in the cave with limited food, which bring about the idea of sacrificing one of them to save the others. Four and a half weeks later, the three are saved but immediately face public outrage regarding the murder. This essay will discuss the spelunkers’ decisions that lead to sacrificing a friend. This essay will analyze the backgrounds of the spelunkers and the situations in which the spelunkers are trapped in, and as a result, choosing to murder. Although their focus is solely on survival, they should face the consequences of their action.

The spelunkers made a series of decisions together, leading to the final decision of killing to escape what was supposed to be group responsibilities. First, they decided to change their plans from mountain climbing to cave exploring. (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 2). Although they heard the loud cracking sound in the distance, they still explored further instead of immediately going back (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 3-4). Seeing how it took five and a half weeks for them to be rescued, it is safe to say that they did not notify anyone about the change of plans. (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7-9). Up to this point, all of these were decided together.

Certainly, the fact that they were trapped in the cave was an unexpected incident. However, it was not a price that only one person should pay. Everyone contributed something. Their last options were either taking the responsibility together, or “dumping” it all on someone, namely Paul. They chose to save themselves and betrayed Paul. Just like the previous impulsive choices they made, such as changing plans, and moving forward even after the cracking noise, it finally lead to a bigger question: to kill or not to kill. They made these decisions out of their selfishness and emotions, based on the backgrounds of each person.

All four of the spelunkers, Greg, John, Paul, and Peter, have different backgrounds. Greg is married and wealthy because of his parents; John is also married and is an eBay executive; Peter is an ordained minister who is single; Paul, lastly, does not have a job and has a kid from his previous marriage (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 1). Let’s not forget the fact that they—supposedly—are best friends (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 1).

For instance, Greg, the one who suggested the dreadful idea of killing must have had reasons why he was so eager to stay alive. Other than the fact that he was married, he was a wealthy man. He had a lot to lose and would do anything in his power to survive. John and Peter just followed the advice blindly. They should have thought twice before they throw their ethics out of the window and decided to kill for their own sake. They killed Paul, along with Paul’s hope to see his child. These differences in their backgrounds lead to a different way of problem solving in difficult situations.

The spelunkers were trapped in some tough situations, causing them to slowly reveal their dark side. When they were faced with the matter of life and death, the spelunkers did whatever they can to survive. That, however, does not mean that this murder is justified. No matter what circumstances it might be, no one should get away with murder. There are different reasons why murder should not be an option for this case.

First, Paul did not voluntarily offer himself as a lamb to be slain. He thought it was a terrible idea, and he did not want to be a part of it (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7). In spite of Paul’s disagreement, the other three still proceeded with the plan. Paul is a human being that still wants to survive; he wants to live. It is true that this murder is not premeditated. None of these three planned, “Let’s go to a cave and kill Paul.” However, that does not mean that an instantaneous decision to kill is better than premeditated, and therefore does not require punishment. If that is the case, should people start jabbing others with a knife whenever they have that on-the-spot need to kill?

Also, there is no strong defense to prove the circumstances were so severe that the only way out was killing Paul. They know there was a source of water trickling through the cave, and they also have four powerbars left (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 6). Moreover, it was only one week after they are trapped when the three spelunkers decided to kill Paul (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7). According to How Stuff Works website, most doctors said that human can survive without food for about 8 weeks, depending on the body’s condition and metabolism (Bryant, 2008, para. 2). Although they did not have adequate food, they had a source of water. With enough hydration, all four could have survived. Greg, John, and Peter, acted recklessly based on fear after only one week. The cost is someone’s life, and they should be punished for that. Looking at these situations, murder should not be the way out, and the spelunkers should not expect they could avoid the consequences after doing such horrendous action.

People have to face the consequences after every action, whether they are positive or negative. Of course, the positive outcome is that the three survived. But the repercussion of taking someone’s life is huge. Although there are no charges for cannibalism, it falls under murder and desecration of corpse (Wex Legal Dictionary, n.d., para. 1). Without a doubt, it is a violation of the law, and letting it pass just because the other three are desperate and having sudden fears is the antithesis of justice. For this reason alone, there is definitely a sentence that needs to be passed, no matter what vindication might be posed by the perpetrator.

Murder is a criminal conduct, and the perpetrators should be charged with homicide, regardless of their justification for the action. Although it is true that they are trapped in an unexpected situations, the spelunkers should have acted with careful reasoning, instead of momentary impulse, before jumping to the conclusion of killing a friend. Thoughtless decisions cause greater consequences to face. Those decisions are the products of one’s personal backgrounds and aggravated by the situations in which he or she is in. In this case, impulsive thinking has proven to be a dangerous thing. The society is faced with choices everyday, and sometimes, they make hasty judgment. Small actions count and lead to a bigger one, and consequently, bigger effects. Every man and woman should think twice before diving into an extreme situation, and small gestures like informing others when going places can make a huge difference in cases like these and everyday life. This simple act can save someone’s life.

References

Bryant, Charles W. (2008). How long can you go without food and water: Living without food. How Stuff Works. Retrieved from http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/live-without-food-and-water1.htm

Cannibalism. (n.d.). In Wex Legal Dictionary online. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cannibalism

Lawhorne, B. (2014). The case of the spelunkers fact pattern [Word Document]. Retrieved from https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1084877/files/33488769?module_item_id=7274760