According to the four principles outlined by Bentham, Dudley and Stevens' case seems "unmeet for punishment. According to Laura Hillenbrand, author of the novel Unbroken, which tells the true story of a group of downed air force pilots over the Pacific in WWII, the practice of cannibalism in survival situations was a sort of understood necessity. Though the airmen in the situation never turned to such a measure, the possibility of what people in a comfortable situation may consider a heinous crime couldn't help but cross their minds more than once. So, though the act of cannibalism may qualify as a sort of "mischief to prevent," punishing these sailors likely would not prevent the "mischief" from occurring again. Additionally, if it were made a punishable crime for stranded sailors to commit cannibalism, it is likely the crew addressed in Regina v. Dudley and Stevens would have suffered a greater number of casualties: the same can be said for any survival scenario. Though the murder of an individual can never be fully justified, it is important to note that these men did it to survive, and this act effectively kept them alive long enough to be rescued. Had no man been slaughtered, it is also possible that none would have survived. Therefore, to prevent this kind of behavior would raise a situation in which "the mischief produced"--in this case, death--"would be greater than what it prevented." Finally, the isolated incident of this situation makes punishing the act needless. These men were fighting for their lives, and in a state of starvation, likely not in a state of full competency. This special situation requires even more unique consideration, for it is almost certain no jury member has been in a state similar to theirs, or even imagine enduring stranded starvation. These men were at the end of their rope, desperate for any means to survive.

For my final paper, I'd like to look at the effect media has on the outcome of criminal sentences, focusing on the case of the West Memphis Three. In 1993, HBO followed the trial of 3 teenages boys charged with the rape and murder of 3 elementary school boys. All three were found guilty--one was given the death sentence. Many people who viewed HBO's documentary felt there was insufficient evidence to charge the boys, spurring a nationwide campaign, fundraiser, and website to "Free the Three," attracting support even from celebrities like the Dixie Chick's Natalie Maines. In 2010, new DNA evidence was produced, and under extreme public pressure, the 3 were retried, entered an Alford plea, stating their innocence while acknowledging the prosecutor's evidence against them, and freed. I'd like to highlight the main events in this case, and the impact video and social media had on each.