see the attacged pleaase

Instructions: This assignment requires you to answer twelve (12) questions and to post your responses on the Discussion Forum. Review The Case of Dudley and Stephens and answer the nine (9) questions highlighted in red. Complete a reflective summary of the Lesson and Activity by answering the following three (3) questions: 1. What was the intended message of the Lesson and Activity? 2. What personal attitudes, values, and beliefs shaped your perception of crime and offenders? Are they factual? 3. What one (1) aspect of the Lesson and Activity had the greatest impact on your attitudes, values, and beliefs? Why? Your substantive posting, of approximately 300 words, must be a thoughtful posting and must be checked for grammar and spelling. If necessary, the source or origin of details in your posting must be referenced as per Algonquin's Plagiarism policy. In addition to your discussion posting, you are expected to comment on one other colleagues' postings, as well as respond to comments on your posting contributed by others. The CASE OF DUDLEY & STEPHENS Summarized and adapted from The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884) Review the following case and answer the highlighted Questions (red).Sometimes the law is forced to deal with tragic choices as it did in the following 19' century case. The case concerned three shipwrecked sailors and a cabin boy. The story is a grisly one. The facts of the case were not in dispute. The only question was: Had the law been broken? To answer this the judges had to decide what the law was. Their decision, rendered over a hundred years ago in England, contains the law for Canada today. On July 5, 1884, the crew of an English yacht, a registered English vessel, were cast away in a storm on the high seas 1600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope. and were forced to abandon ship into an open lifeboat. On the lifeboat were Captain Dudley, Seaman Stephens, Seaman Brooks, and a 17 year old cabin-boy, Richard I For over twenty days the three sailors & cabin boy drifted in an open boat a thousand miles from land. Their only food was 2 tins of turnips and a turtle they had caught. Their only drink, the rain collected in their oilskin capes. When this gave out, they stayed 7 days without food and 5 without water. The Only Way??? . They couldn't have lived many more days unless they took the only course remaining. That course, said Captain Dudley, was to sacrifice one life to save the rest - kill one for the other 3 to eat. Questions 1. What course of action would you take? 2. Even if there is only one course, would they be right to take it?\"If no help comes,\" said Dudley & Stephens, \"We'll have to sacrifice one to save the rest\" Brooks knew they meant the boy and didn't agree. On the 20t day Dudley made the suggestion to Brooks & Stephens that they draw lots to see which one to kill. He never made it to the boy himself. But Brooks would not agree and no lots were drawn. \"We have families, \" said Dudley & Stephens, \"and the boy has no one dependent on him. Better to kill him to save the rest of us. If no help comes tomorrow, we'll have to kill him.\" The next day, no help came, no ship appeared. The captain motioned to Stephens & Brooks that they should kill the boy, who lay helpless at the bottom of the boat. He would have died anyway before the other three. Once again Brooks would have no part of it. The captain, a religious man, offered a prayer. He asked forgiveness for them all. Then he & Stephens told the boy his time had come. They put a knife to his throat and killed him. For four days afterwards the three men fed upon his body and his blood. Had they not done so, they would all have died. On the fourth day a passing ship picked them up. All 3 were in the lowest state of prostration. Their rescuers brought them home to England where the law took over. Brooks was never charged but a witness at the trial. Murder, says the law, is intentionally killing a person without lawful justification. This is common sense, because in general we believe it is wrong to kill. However we may think it is justified in exceptional cases