Four men were charged of murder. They did it to survive and live.

Your honor, worthy opponents, ladies and gentlemen good evening

As the practicability speaker I will present two arguments to support our claim that it is practicable
that these men should not face death sentence.

First, It is an indisputable fact of the case that these spelunkers were trapped in a cave with no food
and water. In their situation, they had to make a choice to make certain sacrifices or people are going
to die. Their actions from then on were based not of the direct purpose to kill but to kill with purpose
to benefit others to survive. This materializes the idea that they were already making decisions out
of necessity.

Ladies and gentlemen these men were facing an inevitable effect of starvation because help would
only arrive after 10 days and then it might be too late. Thus, they chose to kill. The stone wall isolated
them from getting immediate support which clearly shows a reason to believe that they were already
acting independently and no longer within scope of any laws.

In our criminal law one of the cardinal principles is territoriality which define crimes committed within
territorial jurisdiction of a State is punishable under its laws. Exemption to the rule are those crimes
committed beyond territorial jurisdiction. In peculiar situations, such as this case, it is only reasonable
to apply the concept that jurisdiction of a State ceased when the coexistence of men and State is
already impossible.

According to Jeramy Bentham the law’s basic integrity is to be found within the very processes which
are utilized ‘in the attainment of its proclaimed goals’. We must consider that their only goal was to
survive until the rescuers come on the 10th day. What would prevail now is the highest form of
morality by which to maximize the general welfare for the common good. These men acting out of
necessity acquired a sense of community that compromises the sum of its individuals. That is why
in deciding the best policy, in deciding what the law should be, in deciding what is just the citizens
should ask themselves the question by adding up all of the benefits of this policy and subtract all of
the costs the right thing to do is the one that maximizes the balance between happiness over suffer-
ing. This clearly manifest that the act done by the spelunkers is justifiable.

Second, these four men have minds of their own, they tend to think that their own welfare has su-
preme value. Yet in their desire for group preservation over and above individual preservation has
stronger roots. This suggests that the right and moral thing to do depended on the consequences
that will resolve from a collective action. Note that the decision to go ahead with the pill-taking was
the result of the informed consent of all four persons, each of whom arrived independently at the
conclusion that the odds of survival if no action was taken were negligible.

The willingness to go ahead with this desperate procedure would prove the genuineness of each
individual's decision as to the odds of survival. They were already thinking that the greatest good
lies with a greater number. Whereas Whetmor’s act of taking back his consent, he was in effect, if
not consciously, trying to ensure his own survival at no risk to himself. It is a practice of our laws that
it cannot single out one person for special treatment, requiring others to risk their lives to save others.
Thus, in the case at hand the collective decision of four men had a moral right to decide that three
survivors would be better than no survivors and that such a procedure would thus be justifiable.

With the foregoing, ladies and gentlemen, we in the negative side stand firmly that the acquittal of
the spelunker men from death sentence is practicable, necessary and beneficial.

Thank you!

I am now ready for the interpellation