Help Im on trial

So this would be 'The Lord of the Flies'? My memory of 'Lord of the Flies' is a bit sketchy. Could you outline what each of them is meant to have done to bring them in line for the murder of Piggy?

Murder, firstly, is the unlawful killing of a person under the Queen's Peace, and the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused intended to kill OR cause serious harm to the victim. Ralph - he goes with Piggy to challenge Jack and the hunters, during the course of which, Roger starts throwing stones at Piggy, then leans on a lever which drops a huge rock on him, killing him. I can't see that Ralph has any responsibility criminally for the death of Piggy - it might have been foreseeable given that Ralph knows that the boys (including he and Piggy) participated in the murder of Simon, but there is no Actus Reus (guilty act) or Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) from Ralph. (And before anyone chimes in - this is a legal argument, so I'm using legal terminology, okay?) Jack - haven't got the book in front of me - he may well say something to Roger to command him to release the rock. If so, then you're looking at a Bentley situation (the 'let him have it Chris' line, where the prosecution argued that it meant shoot the policeman, rather than let him have the gun). It wouldn't be murder - it could be incitement to murder, or an accomplice to murder - it being an offence to procure murder. Without a direct command, I don't think he's even in the frame for that. Which means, as you have got the job of defending Roger, you have your work cut out. Roger clearly released the rock, which was the direct cause of Piggy's death. There is no novus interveniens (intervening act which could be said to be the cause - i.e where a man stabbed with a bayonet was then given an overdose of medicine which killed him, the man who stabbed him was not responsible in law for his death). The only argument to run is that he did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to Piggy - I would cite the pinging of small stones and the laughter - it was a joke that went too far. He is still bang in the frame for manslaughter. What's needed for this is evidence of an act which brought about death and that the accused ought to have realised that his act had a risk of causing death or serious injury, i.e that he was reckless in his action. I R v Franklin 1883 - the accused pick up a box and threw it into the sea where it struck the deceased and killed him - he was convicted of manslaughter by an unlawful act. I think this gets Roger in deep trouble. The standard defence of necessity is no use, as Dudley and Stephens 1881 says that necessity is never a defence to murder (the shipwrecked sailors could not kill and eat a member of the crew, even though otherwise they would have starved to death.) Duress (that someone forced you to do it) R v Gotts 1992 confirmed that duress is not a defence to murder - even if say, Jack had said to Roger, kill him or I'll kill you. Incapacity of children - you cannot try a child under 10 for murder, but the evidence strongly suggests that Roger is one of the oldest boys on the island, I would have said around 12. It is however, still for the prosecution to demonstrate that he knew what he was doing was wrong. You might, I suppose, argue that the boys felt that they would never be rescued and that the whole conch and meetings set up their own law. (which Roger still breached, as Piggy had the conch when he was killed and ought to have been allowed to speak). At that stage on the island, the law was whatever Jack decreed and therefore Roger might well have genuinely believed that what he was doing was not wrong (contrast this with the earlier chapter where he is throwing stones towards one of the littleuns, but deliberately keeping the stones in a circle around the child and not actually aiming at him - at that stage at least, Roger knew the difference between right and wrong) Self-defence would be extremely bold - Roger is up on the walls of the castle and Piggy was just a bag of fat and Ralph a shock of red hair. He was surrounded by allies with spears - under no physical danger whatsoever. My conclusion therefore is that Roger is not guilty of murder, since he did not mean to kill Piggy (though he runs a risk of murder), but is guilty of manslaughter by an unlawful act. This all, of course, based on English law, which may not actually be any use to you. I think Jack has only very limited responsibility, and none at all if he did not actually order Roger to move the rock (I dimly recall some dialogue about 'that big one, move that big one') and Ralph none at all. Piggy went with him of his own free will and I don't even think Ralph has any moral responsibility - as I recall, Piggy was adamant that he was going with Ralph to challenge Jack. I would be relying heavily on the early passage in the book about him throwing stones to miss at the small boy and claiming that this was intended to be the same thing - I would downplay the whole 'sharpening a stick at both ends' affair. Hope this helps - let me know the outcome.