Running head: THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
Case of the Spelunkers: No Excuse for Murder
First Last
San José State University
1
THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
2
No matter what the situation might be, taking away a person’s life is simply immoral, and
it deserves the maximum penalty possible. Four best friends who are originally planning to go
mountain climbing decide to go cave exploring. These men end up trapped in the cave with
limited food, which bring about the idea of sacrificing one of them to save the others. Four and a
half weeks later, the three are saved but immediately face public outrage regarding the murder.
This essay will discuss the spelunkers’ decisions that lead to sacrificing a friend. This essay will
analyze the backgrounds of the spelunkers and the situations in which the spelunkers are trapped
in, and as a result, choosing to murder. Although their focus is solely on survival, they should
face the consequences of their action.
The spelunkers made a series of decisions together, leading to the final decision of killing
to escape what was supposed to be group responsibilities. First, they decided to change their
plans from mountain climbing to cave exploring. (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 2). Although they heard
the loud cracking sound in the distance, they still explored further instead of immediately going
back (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 3-4). Seeing how it took five and a half weeks for them to be
rescued, it is safe to say that they did not notify anyone about the change of plans. (Lawhorne,
2014, para. 7-9). Up to this point, all of these were decided together.
Certainly, the fact that they were trapped in the cave was an unexpected incident.
However, it was not a price that only one person should pay. Everyone contributed something.
Their last options were either taking the responsibility together, or “dumping” it all on someone,
namely Paul. They chose to save themselves and betrayed Paul. Just like the previous impulsive
choices they made, such as changing plans, and moving forward even after the cracking noise, it
finally lead to a bigger question: to kill or not to kill. They made these decisions out of their
selfishness and emotions, based on the backgrounds of each person.
THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
3
All four of the spelunkers, Greg, John, Paul, and Peter, have different backgrounds. Greg
is married and wealthy because of his parents; John is also married and is an eBay executive;
Peter is an ordained minister who is single; Paul, lastly, does not have a job and has a kid from
his previous marriage (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 1). Let’s not forget the fact that they—
supposedly—are best friends (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 1).
For instance, Greg, the one who suggested the dreadful idea of killing must have had
reasons why he was so eager to stay alive. Other than the fact that he was married, he was a
wealthy man. He had a lot to lose and would do anything in his power to survive. John and Peter
just followed the advice blindly. They should have thought twice before they throw their ethics
out of the window and decided to kill for their own sake. They killed Paul, along with Paul’s
hope to see his child. These differences in their backgrounds lead to a different way of problem
solving in difficult situations.
The spelunkers were trapped in some tough situations, causing them to slowly reveal
their dark side. When they were faced with the matter of life and death, the spelunkers did
whatever they can to survive. That, however, does not mean that this murder is justified. No
matter what circumstances it might be, no one should get away with murder. There are different
reasons why murder should not be an option for this case.
First, Paul did not voluntarily offer himself as a lamb to be slain. He thought it was a
terrible idea, and he did not want to be a part of it (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7). In spite of Paul’s
disagreement, the other three still proceeded with the plan. Paul is a human being that still wants
to survive; he wants to live. It is true that this murder is not premeditated. None of these three
planned, “Let’s go to a cave and kill Paul.” However, that does not mean that an instantaneous
decision to kill is better than premeditated, and therefore does not require punishment. If that is
THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
4
the case, should people start jabbing others with a knife whenever they have that on-the-spot
need to kill?
Also, there is no strong defense to prove the circumstances were so severe that the only
way out was killing Paul. They know there was a source of water trickling through the cave, and
they also have four powerbars left (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 6). Moreover, it was only one week
after they are trapped when the three spelunkers decided to kill Paul (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7).
According to How Stuff Works website, most doctors said that human can survive without food
for about 8 weeks, depending on the body’s condition and metabolism (Bryant, 2008, para. 2).
Although they did not have adequate food, they had a source of water. With enough hydration,
all four could have survived. Greg, John, and Peter, acted recklessly based on fear after only one
week. The cost is someone’s life, and they should be punished for that. Looking at these
situations, murder should not be the way out, and the spelunkers should not expect they could
avoid the consequences after doing such horrendous action.
People have to face the consequences after every action, whether they are positive or
negative. Of course, the positive outcome is that the three survived. But the repercussion of
taking someone’s life is huge. Although there are no charges for cannibalism, it falls under
murder and desecration of corpse (Wex Legal Dictionary, n.d., para. 1). Without a doubt, it is a
violation of the law, and letting it pass just because the other three are desperate and having
sudden fears is the antithesis of justice. For this reason alone, there is definitely a sentence that
needs to be passed, no matter what vindication might be posed by the perpetrator.
Murder is a criminal conduct, and the perpetrators should be charged with homicide,
regardless of their justification for the action. Although it is true that they are trapped in an
unexpected situations, the spelunkers should have acted with careful reasoning, instead of
THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
momentary impulse, before jumping to the conclusion of killing a friend. Thoughtless decisions
cause greater consequences to face. Those decisions are the products of one’s personal
backgrounds and aggravated by the situations in which he or she is in. In this case, impulsive
thinking has proven to be a dangerous thing. The society is faced with choices everyday, and
sometimes, they make hasty judgment. Small actions count and lead to a bigger one, and
consequently, bigger effects. Every man and woman should think twice before diving into an
extreme situation, and small gestures like informing others when going places can make a huge
difference in cases like these and everyday life. This simple act can save someone’s life.
5
THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
6
References
Bryant, Charles W. (2008). How long can you go without food and water: Living without food.
How Stuff Works. Retrieved from
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/live-without-food-andwater1.htm
Cannibalism. (n.d.). In Wex Legal Dictionary online. Retrieved from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cannibalism
Lawhorne, B. (2014). The case of the spelunkers fact pattern [Word Document]. Retrieved from
https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1084877/files/33488769?module_item_id=7274760
Writing Assignment 1 (WA1)
The Case of the Spelunkers
4 best friends, all of whom were males, decided to go on an adventure excursion for the weekend.
Two of the men, Greg and John, were married; the other two, Paul and Peter, were single. Paul has a
child by a previous marriage. Peter is an ordained minister, Greg is independently wealthy from his
parent’s trust fund, John is an EBay executive, and Paul is unemployed.
The four men had initially decided to go mountain climbing, but on route, changed their plans and
decided to go cave exploring (spelunking) in the Providence Mountain State recreation area (remotely
situated in California).
At the close of the first long day of cave exploring, the men were deep in a remote cavern preparing to
camp in a “cave cathedral” when they heard, in the distant recesses of the cave (near the entrance), a
loud cracking sound.
The next day, the men venture just a little further (until the entryways were too narrow for
exploration) before turning back.
Near what they hope is the first mile of the cave entrance, they discover that there has been an
enormous cave-in and the way out is completely blocked. While they try every attempt to clear the
exit, it is to no avail.
After taking stock of their surroundings, they are painfully aware of the fact that though there is a
source of water trickling through the cave about a mile and a half inward, they only have 4 Powerbars
left between them.
A week passes. As they sit in despair of their lives, their bellies empty, Greg suggests a fateful course
of action—they will draw straws to determine who must be “sacrificed” in order to feed the remainder
of the friends (so that the remaining three have any hope of making it out alive). John and Peter both
agree with the plan and take their straws—Paul is horrified by the idea. He tells his friends that if they
want to do whatever they want to do, that is fine, but they should leave him out of it.
Taking this advice, Greg, John, and Peter select 4 straws and place them in hand and each of the three
men takes his straw (leaving one remaining for Paul who refuses to draw). As it turns out, the last
straw remaining, the one they allocated for Paul, is the shortest straw.
The three men kill and eat Paul before they are rescued 4 and one half weeks later.
When the men reveal the gruesome details of their ordeal, the public outrage is immediate and the
men face moral repudiation and charges in court for homicide.
1) This persuasive essay will test your ability to employ thoughtful and effective use of the
principles and techniques regarding: Topic, Audience, Purpose (T.A.P.), style, tone, and voice.
Additionally it may include elements on buzzword captures, prewriting elements, thesis
paragraph structure (O.T.R), and major/minor transition sentences.
2) Please note, you may (and should) review the assignment RUBRIC by clicking on the Case of
the Spelunkers Assignment on the Canvas Shell. You will see an exact point distribution that
also serves as a reminder of critical concepts tested by this assignment.
Running head: THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
Case of the Spelunkers: No Excuse for Murder
First Last
San José State University
1
THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
2
No matter what the situation might be, taking away a person’s life is simply immoral, and
it deserves the maximum penalty possible. Four best friends who are originally planning to go
mountain climbing decide to go cave exploring. These men end up trapped in the cave with
limited food, which bring about the idea of sacrificing one of them to save the others. Four and a
half weeks later, the three are saved but immediately face public outrage regarding the murder.
This essay will discuss the spelunkers’ decisions that lead to sacrificing a friend. This essay will
analyze the backgrounds of the spelunkers and the situations in which the spelunkers are trapped
in, and as a result, choosing to murder. Although their focus is solely on survival, they should
face the consequences of their action.
The spelunkers made a series of decisions together, leading to the final decision of killing
to escape what was supposed to be group responsibilities. First, they decided to change their
plans from mountain climbing to cave exploring. (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 2). Although they heard
the loud cracking sound in the distance, they still explored further instead of immediately going
back (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 3-4). Seeing how it took five and a half weeks for them to be
rescued, it is safe to say that they did not notify anyone about the change of plans. (Lawhorne,
2014, para. 7-9). Up to this point, all of these were decided together.
Certainly, the fact that they were trapped in the cave was an unexpected incident.
However, it was not a price that only one person should pay. Everyone contributed something.
Their last options were either taking the responsibility together, or “dumping” it all on someone,
namely Paul. They chose to save themselves and betrayed Paul. Just like the previous impulsive
choices they made, such as changing plans, and moving forward even after the cracking noise, it
finally lead to a bigger question: to kill or not to kill. They made these decisions out of their
selfishness and emotions, based on the backgrounds of each person.
THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
3
All four of the spelunkers, Greg, John, Paul, and Peter, have different backgrounds. Greg
is married and wealthy because of his parents; John is also married and is an eBay executive;
Peter is an ordained minister who is single; Paul, lastly, does not have a job and has a kid from
his previous marriage (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 1). Let’s not forget the fact that they—
supposedly—are best friends (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 1).
For instance, Greg, the one who suggested the dreadful idea of killing must have had
reasons why he was so eager to stay alive. Other than the fact that he was married, he was a
wealthy man. He had a lot to lose and would do anything in his power to survive. John and Peter
just followed the advice blindly. They should have thought twice before they throw their ethics
out of the window and decided to kill for their own sake. They killed Paul, along with Paul’s
hope to see his child. These differences in their backgrounds lead to a different way of problem
solving in difficult situations.
The spelunkers were trapped in some tough situations, causing them to slowly reveal
their dark side. When they were faced with the matter of life and death, the spelunkers did
whatever they can to survive. That, however, does not mean that this murder is justified. No
matter what circumstances it might be, no one should get away with murder. There are different
reasons why murder should not be an option for this case.
First, Paul did not voluntarily offer himself as a lamb to be slain. He thought it was a
terrible idea, and he did not want to be a part of it (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7). In spite of Paul’s
disagreement, the other three still proceeded with the plan. Paul is a human being that still wants
to survive; he wants to live. It is true that this murder is not premeditated. None of these three
planned, “Let’s go to a cave and kill Paul.” However, that does not mean that an instantaneous
decision to kill is better than premeditated, and therefore does not require punishment. If that is
THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
4
the case, should people start jabbing others with a knife whenever they have that on-the-spot
need to kill?
Also, there is no strong defense to prove the circumstances were so severe that the only
way out was killing Paul. They know there was a source of water trickling through the cave, and
they also have four powerbars left (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 6). Moreover, it was only one week
after they are trapped when the three spelunkers decided to kill Paul (Lawhorne, 2014, para. 7).
According to How Stuff Works website, most doctors said that human can survive without food
for about 8 weeks, depending on the body’s condition and metabolism (Bryant, 2008, para. 2).
Although they did not have adequate food, they had a source of water. With enough hydration,
all four could have survived. Greg, John, and Peter, acted recklessly based on fear after only one
week. The cost is someone’s life, and they should be punished for that. Looking at these
situations, murder should not be the way out, and the spelunkers should not expect they could
avoid the consequences after doing such horrendous action.
People have to face the consequences after every action, whether they are positive or
negative. Of course, the positive outcome is that the three survived. But the repercussion of
taking someone’s life is huge. Although there are no charges for cannibalism, it falls under
murder and desecration of corpse (Wex Legal Dictionary, n.d., para. 1). Without a doubt, it is a
violation of the law, and letting it pass just because the other three are desperate and having
sudden fears is the antithesis of justice. For this reason alone, there is definitely a sentence that
needs to be passed, no matter what vindication might be posed by the perpetrator.
Murder is a criminal conduct, and the perpetrators should be charged with homicide,
regardless of their justification for the action. Although it is true that they are trapped in an
unexpected situations, the spelunkers should have acted with careful reasoning, instead of
THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
momentary impulse, before jumping to the conclusion of killing a friend. Thoughtless decisions
cause greater consequences to face. Those decisions are the products of one’s personal
backgrounds and aggravated by the situations in which he or she is in. In this case, impulsive
thinking has proven to be a dangerous thing. The society is faced with choices everyday, and
sometimes, they make hasty judgment. Small actions count and lead to a bigger one, and
consequently, bigger effects. Every man and woman should think twice before diving into an
extreme situation, and small gestures like informing others when going places can make a huge
difference in cases like these and everyday life. This simple act can save someone’s life.
5
THE CASE OF THE SPELUNKERS
6
References
Bryant, Charles W. (2008). How long can you go without food and water: Living without food.
How Stuff Works. Retrieved from
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/live-without-food-andwater1.htm
Cannibalism. (n.d.). In Wex Legal Dictionary online. Retrieved from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cannibalism
Lawhorne, B. (2014). The case of the spelunkers fact pattern [Word Document]. Retrieved from
https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1084877/files/33488769?module_item_id=7274760
Purchase answer to see full
attachment