Deep Spirits

Not sure how to take this one, the Captain would'nt have known of the imminent survival, and i have to answer this without that knowledge.
We dont know how many crew there were either.

I have to assume the Captain was brought to justice for leaving the crew and himself on board, i suppose that was reasonable in that he choose to put himself and his mates (!) first, and then forcibly remove others on a discriminatory basis.
I would have judged the Captains actions harshly, ......the Captain goes down with his ship etc...

Single men overboard?, surely the married men should have gone as their lives were as good as over anyway???

Hi Dermot,

I understand your doubts as I was doubtful about similar things as well.
But your last sentence made me laughing and I am still laughing during writing this.


Mirjana

Dermot,

From what I found out it looks like it was this case that made the famous "the Captain goes down with his ship" come to be, or at least it contributed to it.

After 16 hours of deliberation, the jury found Holmes guilty on April 23, 1842. As the official court report notes, the verdict was given "with some difficulty," and was accompanied by the jury's recommendation for mercy. Judge Baldwin sentenced Holmes to six months in prison and a $20 fine. There was some public sympathy for Holmes, but a movement by the Seamen's Friend Society for a presidential pardon came to nothing.
The Alexander Holmes trial dictated that seamen have a duty to their passengers that is superior even to their own lives. Further, it held that the ancient defense of self-preservation was not always adequate in a homicide prosecution if the accused was under a special obligation to the deceased.

dermot wrote:Single men overboard?, surely the married men should have gone as their lives were as good as over anyway???

Ouch!
LOL
Not a happy experience then, I take it?

Well, you know what Socrates said...


And Socrates was a philosopher.


Sabina

I think the verdict was unfair.

Against all odds, the captain managed to save 7 more souls than the boat could hold, a total of 14 people. Why did it have to matter who those people were? A human soul is just a human soul whether it belongs to a sailor or a passenger. For me, only children must have priority in such cases, because they cannot help themselves and because they are the future.

I think it was OK to keep the members of the crew on the boat, either because they could have offered valuable help or because they were his friends.
After all, isn't it what we all do in case of danger? We try to save our family and friends first, not people we do not know.
I would have found him guilty only if he and the crew had left in the boat without taking anyone else with them.

Dear Heidi,

I just gave you kudos for your reply.
I liked all the answers and thoughts it provoked.
Ryan's reply, for instance, was practical and very good, as he explained how he would have possibly done it differently (without being too certain).
You didn't even address how you would have handled the lifeboat situation, but focused on the judgment aspect, as I have shared that information in the mean time.

You focused on what the captain did right, rather than what he possibly didn't do "perfectly", and I find that refreshing. After all, he did save people.


Sabina

I read and agree that 'Judgment is right, but Love is the Best.'