1. Dudley and Stephens should be wrongly accused because; even though they were suffering from intense hunger, there is no legal justification for the murder. Furthermore, Richard Parker did not have the same chance of survival because he did not agree on the issue, and he was weaker. They should have been convicted because, despite the circumstances, they still committed murder. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the men would not be able to survive without food until help arrived. I disagree with their death sentence because, although they committed murder, they suffered from extreme hunger, causing disorientation and reckless behavior. I think a lighter sentence – 3 to 5 years – would have been more appropriate.2. Brooks should not have been charged with murder or any other crime because he had clearly dissented from any motive for killing Richard Parker. On the eighteenth day, Brooks did not agree to kill Richard Parker, not even to survive. On the nineteenth day, he disagreed with the draw to decide which crew member would be killed, and the draw was never drawn. Finally, on the twentieth day, he did not support the murder or death of Richard Parker. It can be argued that because he had participated in feeding on Richard Parker's flesh, he was guilty, but the only reason he did so was because he was suffering from extreme hunger. In conclusion, Brooks was not charged with complicity to murder considering the fact that he disagreed with all suggestions to kill the innocent Richard Parker, and under the circumstances he could not have saved the victim anyway. All four men on this boat had rights and/or responsibilities that they should follow. Both Dudley and Stephens... center of paper... naumented. Without food, they would have suffered a slow and painful death due to the harsh climate. Finally, the survivors of the plane crash ate only those who died in an avalanche; they have never committed murder. The fact that the survivors did not kill the people they ate, as Dudley and Stephens had done, means that they did not commit any serious crimes. Dudley and Stephens would have to wait for one of the crew members to die before eating his body. If Dudley and Stephens had acted accordingly, eating only one crew member once he died, it is almost certain that they would not have been imprisoned. But by killing Richard Parker, they not only violated the law, but also morals and human rights. In a word, Dudley and Stephens definitely should have waited for a crew member to die before disobeying the law and breaking several moral codes..