I finally have more than five minutes to sit down and write. It’s definitely been a crazy week and now I’ll admit, everything they say about law school is true. The work load is crushing, the professors are ridiculous (but I think in the best way possible and I’m loving it), and no one knows what to do. It seems every time you’re confident you’ve finally briefed a case correctly half of what you’ve written down gets destroyed by the professor.
I think I can comfortably say I’ve found the profession for me. It seems everyone in class is on the same wave length, all the professors share a love for cynical humor, and at least for the moment, I’m enjoying the cases while not minding briefing. During orientation we were warned of the way some professors were simply without a shred of mercy during the Socratic Dialogue and the first few days there was certainly a tense feeling in the air beforehand. I think that’s largely passed. Everyone’s just now figuring out no one expects you to be right but people expect you to try.
Here’s an example of what I said a little earlier about thinking you have a great brief and then rewriting everything:
Regina v. Dudley and Stephens
p.83 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884)
Defendants, two sailors accused of murder (Dudley & Stephens).
Plaintiff, the Queen, on behalf of victim (Richard Parker)
Special Verdict convicting both defendants. Conviction was death penalty. Now appealed.
Sailors stranded at sea, no food for days. Dudley and Stephens, upon realizing Parker is the weakest and most likely to die, Dudley slit his throat. He was then consumed by the group who were later picked up by a ship after four days.
Does abandonment and starvation allow self-defense to be used as an excuse for murder to provide a cannibalistic form of nourishment in extreme cases?
Self-defense is not an appropriate excuse when used to kill an innocent who does not pose a threat.
No amount of duress allows for self-defense resulting in murder except in instances were bodily force or threat are immediate and the lives of innocents are not jeopardized. The killing of an innocent individual who fails to provide a harm is never justified.
Richard Parker posed no threat to the other sailors. His death was unjustified, he was merely an innocent who was present and failed to post a threat to either Dudley or Stephens.
Death sentence is affirmed with recommendation of mercy. (Reduced to 6 months prison)
*Animo furandi– The intention to steal
*Se defendo– In self-defense
**Quoting from Paradise Lost?
**Is it possible to prosecute crimes that happen outside of a jurisdiction?
**Is it possible to hold Brooks accountable for not stopping a known murder attempt?
That was the brief I went into class with. This is what I had afterword:
The notes I was taking were pretty conservative considering the corrections he was making, so it could easily look three or four times worse. Well I hope everyone’s first week or weeks have been going well too.
*For any new readers to the blog, I try to post weekly. It’s a general guideline I try to follow, although I can’t guarantee I’ll always be living to it. For the law school dorks out there. This is not a written or verbal contract. Don’t even push for an implied one. 😉
The act of being “Lawyered”.