Well, let's see here. The court didn't find these people to be scum:

There was a shipwreck and a crowded lifeboat and no food or water. The
passengers stole the life of one of their fellow passengers in order to
survive. The case came before a judge on the charge of murder and
cannibalism but was dismissed. Defense of necessity.

If they actually killed the guy in order to eat him, they were guilty of
murder. It would seem that they apparently had the jury from the OJ Simpson
trial judge this case?

If they ate the guy *after* he died, they were guilty of nothing -- although
I suspect they might be warped for life after such an incident?

You can read about it in Holmes, _The Common Law_ although I doubt you do
much reading or thinking and maybe are a little hotheaded.

You must be new here. Do some googling if you'd like to know my educational
background.

There have been other cases in which someone stole food in order to
survive.
That someone was neither scum nor criminal. Did someone steal a towel or
silverware from your inn? Now *that* thief would in my opinion be, well,
maybe not scum but a little slimy. I kinda get the feeling you would cut
off his hand like the moozle-ums do, but that would be a little harsh and
our Constitution forbids cruel and inhuman punishment.

You obviously haven't lived or worked in a lawless environment. I spent
seven years working in the inner city, doing (among other things)
collections. Until you've seen the way people live (and die) in an utterly
immoral, nearly lawless society, you are in no way qualified to discuss this
issue.

I can't comment about the desperately poor corners of the world, but in
America there is NO excuse for being a thief. Americans who steal are scum,
and deserve whatever maximum punishment society can arrange for them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"