Holmes Case

I disagree with the statements made by Associate Justice, Benjamin Cardozo, concerning the "Holmes" case where crew and passengers experienced extreme dire events that threatened their survival. Justice Cardozo is of the opinion that under these circumstances it was not justifiable to sacrifice one human life for another, and that all should have perished or survived. This is a hard statement to agree or disagree with, as for me it would depend on the circumstances of each individual situation. For example, in the "Holmes" case when it was determined that the boat would sink if drastic measures were not taken, I feel they were justified in taking action to save some of them. In this case all people on board even crew members should be considered equals. The fairest way to determine who has to jump overboard would have been to hold a lottery. I feel that if a group of people is facing eminent death it should be an option for them to hold a lottery. If it is the consensus of the majority to have a lottery drawing resulting in the sacrifice of one or more, they should not be punished for taking this action. It must be a majority consensus and all other options for survival must have been tried and exhausted. Humans would like to believe that they are incapable of making such a decision, but under the duress of such inconceivable circumstances this decision could be easier than most of us would like to admit. The question of "Does the harm avoided outweigh the harm caused?" Was it more harmful for all to perish or for some to survive? I feel it would be better for some to survive than all to die. The death of all would result in the suffering of many families, while the survival of some results in less suffering. Some circumstances call for us to do things out of necessity that we probably would not choose to do under normal conditions.

In my opinion, all of the crew members and the captain should have been tried rather than just the one man. The physical description given of the sailor on trial leads you to believe that he would be incapable of carrying out the crime alone. The first mate probably had a large part to do with determining who was sacrificed on board of the vessel. The jury had a tough time rendering the guilty verdict, so this shows that the jury truly saw how tough of a decision it was. The judge gave the man a quite lenient sentence, which leads you to believe the judge didn’t think this man was capable of carrying out the act by himself or that he did not totally disagree with the actions taken by the crew.

Whenever people are faced with life or death decisions they must often act quickly and respond to the situation in a way they feel is in the best interest of all involved. It is difficult to sit in judgement of the decisions made by the parties in the "Holmes case". It is difficult to make decision concerning this case, as there were many stipulations surrounding their situation. No one is able to honestly say how they personally would act until put into the same situation.