Defenses Flashcards
Types of Defenses
- Procedural Defenses
- Failure of Proof Defenses
- Offense Modification Defenses
- Justification Defenses
- Excuse Defenses
Procedual Defenses
These defenses bar a defendant’s conviction, or even her prosecution, for public policy reasons that fall outside of substantive criminal law doctrine.
In these sistuations, the socialital interest served by the defense outweighs the rationales for punishing the offender.
Ex.
- Statutes of limitations
- Competence to stand trial
- Diplomatic, executive, judicial and legislative immunities
Failure of Proof Defenses
A failure-of-proof defense is one in which the defendant introduces evidence at his trial that demonstrates that the prosecution has failed to prove an essential element of the offense charged.
The defendant is raising a reasonable doubt about elements of crimes that the prosecutor has the burdon of proving
Failure of Proof Defenses
Examples
Negation of Actus Rea
- Alibi
- Non-volitiobal conduct
- No duty to act
Negation of Mens Rea
- Accident
- Mental illness or intoxication
- Mistake of fact or law
Offense Modification Defenses
Some defenses apply only apply to one crime or a set of crimes.
A common feature of these defenses is when the underlying purpose for criminalizing the conduct is negated by the condictions that constitute the defense, acquittal of the defendant is permitted even though her conduct technically satisfies the elements of the crime.
Examples
- Inchoate crimes - renunciation
- Attempt - legal impossibility
- Group criminality - abandonment
Justification Defenses
A justfication defense is one where the conduct, although meeting the elements of the crime, is deemed socially acceptable and not deserving of criminal liability.
Examples
- Necessity
- Self defense
- Defense of others
- Defrense of propery
Justification Defenses
Common Structure
- There is a subjective and objective reasonal belief
- There is a triggering condiction
- There is a necessity of response
- There is a proportionality to the response
Excuse Defenses
An excuse defense is one where the defendant is deemed to be not morally culpable even though she engaged in wrongful conduct that met the elements of the crime because her mental functioning was affected in a manner that makes her not blameworthy.
Examples
- Duress
- Insanity
- Intoxication
Excuse Defenses and Failure-of-Proof Defenses
There is potential overlap between excuse defenses and failure-of-proof defenses.
In addition to (or instead of) raising an excuse defense, a defendant might be able to claim that her mental functioning was affected to such a degree that it negates either the mens rea or the actus reus.
Excuse Defenses and Failure-of-Proof Defenses
Examples
If the defendant’s conduct was caused by mental illness, she might be able to claim that she lacked the mens rea for a specific defense crime as well as claiming an insanity defense.
If someone spiked the defendant’s drink and then hit someone in a drunken super, she might be able to claim she lacked the actus reus of a crime because her act was not volitional as well as asserting an intoxication defense.
The deficiency of mental functioning must be much more severe for an actus reus or mens rea claim than the excuse defense.
Mistake of Fact
Common Law
Specific Intent Crimes
Mistake of fact eliminates culpability where the mistake negates the additional intent/purpose beyond the intentional act
It must negate the specific intent
Mistake of Fact
Common Law
General Intent Crimes
Mistake of fact is a defense to general intent crimes only if the mistake is reasonable. It negates the mens rea towards an attendent curcumstance.
Some jurisdictions also require the conduct is not legally wrong if the circumstances had been as the defendant believed.
Other jurisdictions also require that the conduct us not morally wrong if the circumstances had been as the defendant believed.
Mistake of Fact
Common Law
Strict Liability Crimes
There was no strict liability at the common law, but some jurisdictions that use the common law have adopted strict liabillity. In those jurisdictions, mistake of fact is not a defense.
Mistake of Fact
MPC
Any mistake of fact - reasonable or unreasonable - is a defense if it negates the mens rea required to establish a material element of the offense.
However, if the defendant’s conduct would have been wrong if the circumstances had beed as the defendant thought, then the defendant will be liable for that lessor defense.
Mistake of Law
Common Law
Specific Intent Crimes
Mistake of law is generally not a defense.
Exceptions
- negation of specific intent
- reasonable reliance on an official statement of law later determined to be erroneous given by a public person or body with the responsibility for interpreting or enforcing the law
Mistake of Law
Common Law
General Intent Crimes
Mistake of law is generally not a defense.
Exception
- reasonable reliance on an official statement of law later determined to be erroneous given by a public person or body with the responsibility for interpreting or enforcing the law
Mistake of Law
Common Law
Strict Liability Crimes
There was no strict liability at the common law, but some jurisdictions that use the common law have adopted strict liabillity. In those jurisdictions, mistake of law is a defense only with reasonable reliance on an official statement of law later determined to be erroneous given by a public person or body with the responsibility for interpreting or enforcing the law.
Also, mistake of law may be a defense in cases where the nature of the conduct is not of such a nature as to put the defendant on notice that there may be a duty to act.
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Common Law
A person who is not the aggressor is justified in using deadly force upon another if she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect herself from the imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by that other person.
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Common Law Elements
- Reasonable belief
- Reasonable belief (objective and subjective)**
- Triggering condiction
- Unlawful
- (Threat or actual) use of deadly force
- By the aggressor**
- Necessity of response
- Use of force is necessary**
- To prevent imminent harm**
- Proportionality of response
- Response of deadly force only if the aggressor threatens or actually uses deadly force
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Common Law Elements
- Reasonable belief
- Reasonable belief (objective and subjective)
- Triggering condiction
- Unlawful
- (Threat or actual) use of deadly force
- By the aggressor
- Necessity of response
- Use of force is necessary
- To prevent imminent harm
- Proportionality of response
- Response of deadly force only if the aggressor threatens or actually uses deadly force
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Common Law Elements
Reasonable Belief
The person claiming self defense must have a reasonable belief that she faced deadly force, and it was necessary for her to respond, and that her response was proportionate
Reasonable belief has both subjective and objective components:
- The defendant must have these beliefs and
- A reasonable person would have had these beliefs
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
MPC Elements
Reasonable Belief
The MPC has a purely subjective approach. The person claiming self defense must believe she faces dead, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat and that it’s immidiately neccessary for her to respond.
However, if the defendant was reckless or negligent in judging the necessity for his conduct, he can’t use self defense for any offense for which recklessness or negligence suffices to establish culpability.
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Common Law Elements
Unlawful
If a defendant was being unlawfully arrested - being arrested without probable cause - she could claim self defense if she used non-deadly force to resist arrest.
If excessive force was being used by the arresting officer, a defendant could claim self defense if she used reasonable force to resist arrest, including deadly force if her life reasonably appeared to be in jeopardy.
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
MPC Elements
Unlawful
If a defendant was unlawfully arrested - arrested without probable cause - she does not have the right to use force to resist arrest.
If excessive force is used to unlawfullly arrest the defendant, she can claim self defense only if she uses non-deadly force to resist arrest
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Modern Trend
Unlawful
Most jurisdictions do not recognize a right to use force to resist an unlawful arrest
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Common Law
Deadly Force
Deadly force was define as force likely or reasonably expected to cause dead or derious bodily injury
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
MPC
Deadly Force
Deadly force is define as force that the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or that he knows to create a substantialy risk of causing, death or seriously bodily injury
Therefore, brandishing a weapon such as a knife or a gun does not by itself constitute a threat of deadly force; what matters is the person’s state of mind. If the person only intends to scare someone, then the brandishing of the weapon would not b a threat of deadly force.
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Common Law
Aggressor
An aggressor is one whose affirmative unlawful act is reasonably calculated to produce a fight foreboding injurious or fatal consequences.
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
MPC
Aggressor
An aggressor is one who acts with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury.
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Aggressor Using Self Defense
An aggressor can claim self defense if she
- withdraws from the conflict in good faith
- fairly communicates her withdrawal to the other party and
- retreats if it’s safe to do so
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Aggressor Using Self Defense
Fight Aggressor v. Deadly Aggressor
A fight aggressor can use deadly force in self defense if the person he is fighting uses deadly force first. The deadly force aggressor is the initial aggressor and the fight aggressor has no duty to retreat.
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Modern Developmnents
Aggressor
Some courts consider informational words by themselves to be enough to render a person an agressor.
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Common Law
Need to Use Force
A defendant could claim self defense only if it was necessary to have used force to protect himself.
So there was a duty to retreat “to the wall” before h could use self defense, but only if he could do so safely
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Common Law
Need to Use Force
Castle Exception Rule
A person did not have to retreat if the encounter happened in her home, unless the aggressor also lived there
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
MCP
Need to Use Force
Castle Exception Rule
A person does not have to retreat if the encounter happened in her home, even if the aggressor also lived there.
A person does not have to retreat if the encounter happened at hor place of work, unless the aggressor also works there
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Common Law
Imminence
The (actual or threatened) harm must be imminent. Even if harm by an aggressor is inevitable, use of force in self defense is not permitted unless the herm is immediately impending
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
MPC
Imminence
The need to respond must be immediately necessary
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Common Law
Proportionality
Deadly force can be used in self defense only if deadly force was used (or threatened to be used) against the person
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
MPC
Proportionality
Deadly force can be used in self defense not only if the person is facing death or serious bodily harm, but also if the person is facing kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Intimate Partner Abuse
Stages of Abuse
These repeat over and over:
- Tention building
- Acute battery encounter
- Contrite / Quiet
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Intimate Partner Abuse
Stages of Abuse
Tention Building
Characterized by
- “Small” abusive episodes
- The episodes generally escalate over a period of time
- The tention continues to build until the second stage
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Intimate Partner Abuse
Stages of Abuse
Acute Battering Encounter
Characteized by
- Out of control battery
- Psychological abuse in the form of threats
Justification Defenses
Self Defense
Use of Deadly Force
Intimate Partner Abuse
Stages of Abuse
Contrite / Calm Stage
Characteized by
- A calm, loving period in which the batterer is colntrite, seeks forgiveness and promises too refrain from future violence
- Positive reinforcement for the woman to continue the relationship in the hope that the violent behavior will not recur.
Affirmative Defense
A defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged factss.
Defense
A reason why the plaintiff or prosecutor should not prevail on a cause of action or demand for relief.
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Temporal Periods Important to Mental Functioning
- Time of the crime
- During the trial
- Duriing sentencing
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
- Time of the crime
- During the trial
- Duriing sentencing
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Burden of Proof
Most states put the burden of production on the defendant, who has to prove he is insane by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Pre-Modern Tests
Wild Beast Test
A defendant was deemed insane if her mental functioning was no different than a wild beast. It was meant to identify people who lacked the ability to reason
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Pre-Modern Tests
Good and Evil Test
The defendant was deemed insane if she did not have the reasoning ability to choose between good and evil. It focused on the defendant’s moral capacity.
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Pre-Modern Tests
Twenty Pence Test
The defendant was deemed insane if she could not count to 20 pence. It focused on cognitive capacity.
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Mental Disease
Most courts have held that diagnoses such as schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder qualify as a mental disease for the purpose of insanity
Diagnoses such as personality disorder, paraphilias, and voluntary substance intoxication normally don’t qualify
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Mental Defect
Mental defect most commonly refers to intellectual disability or some sort of developmentally acquired disorder of intellect.
The finding of mental defent typically requires intellectual impairment in the range of at least mild intellectual disability.
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Temporary Insanity
Temporary insanity is when external circumstances render the defendant temporarily insane
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Settled or Fixed Insanity
Long-term alcohol abuse can lead to organic brain changes or even to the development of a mental illness.
Most jurisdictions permit the use of the insanity defense caused by a settled mental disease or defect when the defendant is not voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the crime.
If the defendant is violated at the time of the crime, courts are split on whether to allow evidence of a settled mental illness or defect
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Modern Tests
- M’Naghten Test
- Irresistible Impulse Test
- Product Test
- MPC Test
- Federal Test
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Modern Tests
M’Naghten Test
A persobn is deemed to be insane at the time of the crime if m due to disease of the mind:
- She did not know the nature of the act that she was doing (cognitve incapacity) or
- She knew what she was doing, but did not know that what she was doing was wrong. That is, she did not know the difference between right and wrong. (legal/moral wrongfulness)
Some jurisdictions look for moral wrongfulness and others look for legal wrongfulness. In jurisdictions look for moral wrongfulness, the issue is whether the defendant knew that socety deemed his behavior was wrong, not what he personally believed
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Modern Tests
Irresistible Impulse Test
A person is deemed to be insane at the time of the crime if, due to disease of the mind:
- She did not know the nation of the act that she was doing (cognitive incapacity) or
- She knew what she was doing, but did not know that what she was doing was wrong (legal/moral wrongfulness) or
- She lost the ability to choose between right and wrong to avoid committing the act (volitional incapacity).
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Modern Tests
Product (Durham) Test
A person is deemed to be insane at the time of the crime if her unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Modern Tests
MPC / ALI Test
A person is deemed to be insane at the time of the crime if, due to mental disease or defect:
- She lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct (cognitive incapacity or legal/moral wrongfulness) or
- She lacked substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law (volitional capacity)
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Modern Tests
Federal Test
A person is deemed to be insane at the time of the crime if, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect:
- She was unable to appreciate the nature or quality of her conduct (cognitive incapacity) or
- She was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct (legal/moral wrongfulness)
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
Alternative Test by Judge Bazelon
A person is deemed to be insane if her mental or emotional processes were impaired to such an extent that she cannot justly be held liable for her actions
Excuse Defenses
Insanity
New York Penal Law § 40.15
- In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that, when the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect.
- Such lack of criminal responsibility means that at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either
- The nature and consequences of such conduct or
- That such conduct was wrong.
Mental Defect v. Mental Disease
A mental disease is one which affects the cognitive functions, behavior and emotions, which disease can improve or deteriorate.
A mental defect, however, is a major psychiatric disturbance, primarily organic in nature, which cannot improve.
Mental Defect v. Mental Disease
Jury Instructions
Generally, a jury will only be instructed that there must some mental disease or defect that causes the diminuation in cognitive capacity.
This criteria is more likely to be satisfied where there is a mental illness with a psychosis component (i.e. one that is chacterized by a disconnection with reality), such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
On the other hand, a jury will not be given the option of finding insanity if the evidence only supports a finding of a personality disorder (such as anti-social personality, which includes psychopathy as one indicator.
People v. Kohl
Interpreting the State Constution More Broadly Than the Federal Constitution
Courts first compare the texts of the federal and state constitution provisions
If the texts differ, courts examine the historical basis for the distiction
If the rationale for the textual difference matters to the analysis in the case, court will give effect to the New York constitutional text
If the texts do not differ, or if the rationale for the differing texts is not material, then courts see whether there are fundamental justice and fairness issues that are left unaddressed under the prevailing federal law
Clark v. Arizona (SCOTUS)
Clark had paranoid schizophrenia and believed cops were aliens in disguise. He shot and killed a cop and then raised the insanity defense. He was charged with intentionally and knowingly killing the cop and wanted to present expert evidence that he was not capable of that mens rea.
Arizona used the wrongfulness part of the M’Naughten test.
The Supreme Court held than Arizona’s version of the insanity test did not violate the Constitution. There is not constutitional requirement for any insanity defense.
The Supreme Court also held Arizona could restrict expert evidence on mental capacity to the insanity defense, precluding its use on challenges to mens rea
Excuse/Failure-of-Proof Defense
Diminished Capacity
It’s used to describe two different concepts
- As a partial responsibility doctrine, it seeks to partial excuse or mitigage a defendant’s guilt even if the mens rea and actus reus or shown.
- As a failure-of-proof defense, it challenges the showing of mens rea and sometimes actus reus.
Excuse
Diminished Capacity
Very few states recognize the partial responsbility excuse defense. Where it does apply, it is only a defense to murder to mitigate the offense to manslaughter.
But judges take it into account when sentencing. While it’s not often used to reduce liability, it is used to reduce punishment
Failure-of-Proof Defense
Diminished Capacity
Diminished capacity can be used to challenge actus reus if it prrecluded the defendant from having engaged in any conduct (e.g. seizure rendered her unconscious) or it rendered the devendant’s actions non-volitional (e.g. bodily movements while having a seizure).
This applies to general and specific intent crimes.
Failure-of-Proof Defense
Diminished Capacity
First Approach
Some states, primarily those that follow the MPC, permit introduction of evidence. when relevant, to negate the means rea of any crime
Failure-of-Proof Defense
Diminished Capacity
Second Approach
Other states limit the admissibility of such evidence to some or all specific-intent crimes
Failure-of-Proof Defense
Diminished Capacity
Third Approach
A third group bars diminished capacity evidence in the prosecution of all crimes.
Kahler v. Kansas (SCOTUS)
Kansas limited evidence of mental illness to issues related to the elements (actus reus and mens rea.
In other words, Kansas elimited mental illness as a basis for excuse defenses, permitting it only as a failure-of-proof defense.
While the defendant argued on appeal that this violated the Eight Amendment, the Court did not address it because that claim was not properly preserved.
So the only issue before the court was the defendant’s argument that the Kansas statute violated the substantive Due Process Clause
Justice Kagan’s majority opinion side-stepped the claim, holding that Kansas did not, in fact, abolish the insanity defense. Instead, according to the majority, Kansas merely changed the test it would use to measure insanity, focusing solely on cognitive incapacity.
The majority held that since there was no one constitutional test for insanity, Kansas could use whatever test it wanted to. Therefore, the majority held that there was no Due Process violation.
Comorbidity
The simultaneous presense of two illnesses in a patient.
Mental illness and intoxication are often comorbid.
Failure-of-Proof / Affirmative Defense
Intoxication
Intoxication can affect a defendant’s ciminality by negating actus reus of mens rea or by being an affirmative defense. The effect depend on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary.
Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication is any situation in which a defendant becomes intoxicated after knowingly ingesting a substance that she knows, or is aware there is a likelihood, or should know,can cause her to become intoxicated
Failure-of-Proof Defense
Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication cannot be used to claim the act was no volitional.
However, it can be used to argue that the defendant was incapacitated to such an extent that she could not have committed the act at all. This applies to all clams.
Failure-of-Proof Defense
Voluntary Intoxication
Mens Rea
Voluntary intoxication cannot be used to negate the mens rea of a general intent crime, but it can be used to negate the specific-intent part of a specific-intent crime
Excuse Defense
Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication was not recognised as an excuse defense, but mental illness caused by long-term intoxication could serve as a basis for an insanity defense (fixed or settled insanity).
This only applies if the defendant was sober at the time of the crime
Involuntary Intoxication
Involuntary intoxication is any situation in which a defendant is not calpable for being intoxicated. There are four situations in which this typically occurs.
- The defendant is coerced to ingest an intoxicant
- The defendant ingests an intoxicant by innocent mistake
- The defendant becomes intoxicated from a prescribed medicine and does not know, and has no reason to know, that the medicine is likely to have an intoxicating effect
- Due to a pathological reason, the defendant is intoxicated to a degree that is grossly excessive in degree from the normal effects of the amount of intoxicant and the defendant is not aware that she is susceptible to that pathological effect
Failure-of-Proof Defense
Involuntary Intoxication
Actus Reus
Involuntary intoxication can be the basis for finding that the defendant’s act did not satify actus reus either because it precludes the defendant from having engaged in any conduct (i.e. he was passed out) or it rendered the defendant’s actions as non-volitional.
This applies to all crimes
Failure-of-Proof Defense
Involuntary Intoxication
Mens Rea
Involuntary intoxication can be the basis for finding that the defendant lacked mens rea.
This would apply to all crimes except strict liability crimes
Excuse Defense
Involuntary Intoxication
Involuntary Intoxication was a recognized defense in the form of a claim of temporary insanity.
That is, a defendant who is involuntarily intoxicated can be found to be insane if she meets all the elements of an insanity defense other than the fact that the incapacity cognitive/moral/volitional as the particular test may require) was due to a mental disease or defect.
People v. Parms
Parms got high and he claimed someone spikled his drink but the court didn’t believe him.
He claimed he was in EMED but the court said intoxication wouldn’t cause a reasonable person to lose mental stability.
He raised the insanity defense but the court said he knew the nature of his acts and that they were wrong.
The intoxication defense is only allowed for murder in the first degree to negate deliberation. It can be used for the attemped murder arguing that he knew that he was engaging in the conduct but didn’t want to kill because he was too drunk to be able to want to kill
People v. Elysee
Elysee was charged with reckless or intentional murder after killing someone by driving drunk
Both sides wanted the jury to be given a negligent homicide option but the judge said voluntary intoxication cannot allow for lowering charges down to negligence because she knew she could get drunk and then unknowingly drive drunk. Knowing she could get drunk was enough to establish recklessness
People v. Sewell
In state court, bank robbery is a specific intent crime, so they could allow the intoxication defense.
Federal law makes bank robbery a general intent crime so the intoxication defense couldn’t be used
Excuse Defenses
Duress
Duress was a recognized defenese at the common law that excuded defendants who were coerced to commit crimes.
Excuse Defenses
Duress
Elements
Reasonable Belief
- The defendant has a reasonal belief (subjective and objective) that
Triggering Condictions
- There is a threat of human origin
- The threatened harm is unlawful
- The threat is to inflict death or serious bodily injury
- The defendant is not at fault for exposing herself to the threated harm
Necessity of Response
- The threatened harm is immediate
- There is well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out
- There is no reasonable opportunity to escape the threated harm
Nature of Response
- The harm,ed caused by the defendant is ssomething less than death
Excuse Defenses
Necessity
Necessity was a recogonized defense at the common law that was used by defendants to justify the conduct they engaged in
Excuse Defenses
Necessity
Elements
Reasonable Belief
- The defendant has a reasonable belief that
Triggering Condictions
- Significant harm is threated
- The harm is of natural origin
- The defendant has clean hands
- The legislature has not precluded action
Necessity of Response
- There is no adequate legal alternative
- The threat is immediate and dire
Proportionality of Response
- The harm caused is less than the harm avoided
- The harm caused is not death
Regina v. Dudley and Stevens
During a sea voyage, four men got on a smaller ship and were adrift for 21 days with not fresh water and limited food. They ran out of food on day 12. On day 19 they decide they need to eat one of them to survive. Two men killed one of them. The other didn’t help but at the dead man.
