The case might set a precedent that could be used in “slippery slope” situations. The circumstances of Holmes were dire; yet if he were found innocent on these grounds, what would prevent the case from being cited to support similar decisions under less dire circumstances? Where exactly can a line be drawn?

By finding him guilty, the court asserts that the rule of law applies in all cases and what he did was illegal. By making the ounishment lenient, they indicate that what he did was not necessarily wrong, making the distinction between that judgement and legality.

This ignores considerations of whether Holmes was the correct target.

Other than that a scapegoat was needed and found.

I disagree with you on two points. Firstly, this situation has been encountered many times and will be encountered again, I’m sure. It’s not just about longboats in the arctic but also about “Sophie’s Choice” and aircrash survivors in the Andes. You have a responsiblity for two people and either one, or both, will die - you choose which of the three options it is to be.

Secondly, this verdict cannot deter anybody from anything except, possibly, believing in justice. The court, sort of, accepted that someone had to go overboard and their guilty verdict seemed to be based essentially on the mechanism used to choose victims - not the defendant’s responsibility but the captain’s - as I said above. This does nothing to clarify society’s definition of socially acceptable behaviour for the crew in these circumstances.

However, having now read the complete transcript, there is one issue, touched on by Mrs T., I find very dissatisfying. Why Holmes?

An initial point is why a crewman, any crewman? The transcript goes into some detail establishing that Holmes had absolutely no principal responsibility and was under direct orders to do what he did. It also pointed out that seamen can and should ignore illegal commands. However, it fails to note that if the greatest legal minds could not agree on whether the command was actually legal (even 150 years later), a seaman in a longboat in the arctic had no chance. Nor did it point out that, had Holmes ignored a (subsequently judged) legal order and survived, he would have been guilty of piracy - failing to obey the orders of the legal captain of a vessel on the high seas - the punishment for which could be death.

Further, why Holmes and not one of the other crew or the acting captain? The transcript doesn’t tell us. After all, as Mrs T. also points out, Holmes appears to have acted in an exemplary manner in a difficult situation. Was it that he, unlike his colleagues, had faith in the justice system and didn’t just disappear? Or, was it the Guantanamo Principle adopted in a few countries: “All men are created equal, but our citizens are a bit more equal than foreigners”?

you are quite right about what is and what is not a valid argument for punishment.

As I see it, detering others from comitting the same offence _does_ seem a valid reason for punishing Holmes.

Of course, _exactly_ the same offence is unlikely to occur again, but a _similar_ might.

I certainly wouldn’t like the idea of booking a cruise to the Arctic Sea when the ship’s sailors might believe that putting their own lifes before the lifes of the passengers in extreme situations will go completly unpunished.

What was a more interesting question, perhaps, was why the captain decided that all of his men were needed rather than some the 32 initially sacrificed passengers. The outcome may have detered future captains from putting their mates (so to speak) before others.

Punishment for the sake of it, for revenge, say, or to allow the relatives of victims to feel better, is barbaric. I can understand why it was included in societal rules millenia ago as a “don’t mess with my family” message. But, I find it hard to reconcile with society and justice today. And, I’ve never heard of relatives feeling any better afterwards anyway.