Question 12 Page 170 On July 5, 1884, four sailors were cast away from their ship in a storm 1,600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope. Their lifeboat contained neither water nor much food. On the 20th day of their ordeal, Dudley and Stevens, without the assistance or agreement of Brooks, cut the throat of the fourth sailor, a 17- or 18-year-old boy. They had not eaten since day 12. Water had been available only occasionally. At the time of the death, the men were probably about 1,000 miles from land. Prior to his death, the boy was lying helplessly in the bottom of the boat. The three surviving sailors ate the boy’s remains for four days, at which point they were rescued by a passing boat. They were in a seriously weakened condition.
a. Were Dudley and Stevens guilty of murder? Explain.
b. Should Brooks have been charged with a crime for eating the boy’s flesh? Explain. See The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queen’s Bench Division 273 (1884).

a. “The facts found on the special verdict shew that the prisoners were not guilty of murder, at the time when they killed Parker but killed him under the pressure of necessity. Necessity will excuse an act which would otherwise be a crime.”(justiceharvard) After reading this I believe that they did what they had to do in order to survive. They said the boy was weak and wouldn’t have made it anyway. They will have to live with the decision they made but they got to live because of it. b. No, he used it as a means to survive. If he would have just killed the boy to kill him and not use his flesh to survive then he would be a murderer. By eating the boy’s flesh he showed that he only committed the crime to survive.

Question 11 Page 210
11. Lancaster, California, located about 45 miles from Los Angeles, was trying to build its local economy but was tripped up by the United States Constitution. Costco, a big-box retailer, wanted to expand into next-door space leased to 99 Cents Only Stores. Costco told the city it would move to Palmdale if it could not expand. Lancaster tried to buy 99 Cents’ lease, but the company refused. Lancaster then used its power of eminent

domain to condemn the 99 Cents property for the purpose of making it available to Costco. The city noted that blight might follow if Costco left, and the city contrasted 99 Cents’ under $40,000 per year in sales taxes generated with Costco’s more than $400,000. 99 Cents then sued the city seeking an order blocking the effort to take the 99 Cents property.
a. How would you have ruled on the case when it was tried in 2001? Explain.
b. Would the result be any different today after the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in the New London, Connecticut, case? Explain. See 99 Cents Only Stores v. Lancaster Redevelopment Agency, 237 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2001). Appeal dismissed, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4197.

a. In 2001 is would of ruled in favor of the 99 cents store because it was privately owned. Only the government was benefiting from Costco due to the taxes. So I do not see how it could have been for public use. b. I think the result would be the same because the Supreme Court held that the taking by the city and sale to a private development company did qualify as a valid exercise of eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment, as the "public purpose" could also be interpreted as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Kelo v. City of New London, 549 U.S. 469 (2005). Thus, after the New London case, it would be a permissible use of eminent domain.

http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/the-queen-vs-dudley-and-stephens-1884-the-lifeboat-case/