Dudley and Stephens

1. Dudley and Stephens' crimes were not groundless, therefore does not meet Bentham's requirements.  They were starving and the victim was weak and unconscious, and was going to die anyways. They had reason to kill for food (i.e. self preservation).
2. Punishment would not be helpful (it would be inefficacious) because the man Dudley and Stephens killed would have died either way, and they would have died as well if they had not killed him for food.
3. Punishment would not be profitable because it would not prevent what happened. However, for other cases like this, the ruling would set a precedent for what others should do in a situation like this, and we wouldn't want to encourage killing obviously.  But this case is so rare that the likelihood that it would happen again (to people who had knowledge of the case) is very unlikely.
4. The punishment is needless because of the three reasons above and because of utilitarian ethics. According to deontological ethics, punishment would be the correct thing to do because killing is wrong no matter what the situation.  However, in utilitarian ethics, this outcome of the cannibalism produced an outcome of the greater good and is therefore the correct decision to choose (for those of that belief).
Bentham's criteria for punishment are generally good, but for such a rare case like this, they do not suffice. They do not take into account anything of this matter, and for this reason I would not agree with punishment for Dudley and Stephens.  They are not exactly an exception to the law, but rather the law is bent case by case for situational factors such as these.
(paper topic posted earlier).