Is Eating People Wrong?: Great Legal Cases and How they Shaped the World

I've put 4 stars here as a caution to others...my "personal rating" is 5 stars, however. The point here being that you have to have a a curiosity about the history of common law to really enjoy the book. The title refers to a particularly lurid case in the 19th century and I suppose that will attract some potential readers. . .probably the same people who slow down to gawk at highway accidents. Good enough, but the "rule of law" finding in a Canadian case or the basis of the ruling in "Brown vs. Board of Education" is far more riveting if you are interested in the history of law. Above all, the author's discussion of how social and political forces have shaped judicial interpretations of legal precedent makes this book a great read.

A mish mash of significant legal cases pulled together by a law professor with aspirations of jargon-free literary writing. In reality, a mis-titled book (only one case about cannibalism — title used for shock value), with a number of folksily and clumsily written summations (without significant citation) of court cases that could be more clearly gleaned from their Wikipedia pages. Badly in need of an editor. Super cool concept with disappointing results.

This contained more legalize than I expected. However it was an easy read with an interesting point of view.

This is one of the Best 50 non tech books ive ever read. Very relevant even for non lawyers. The topics are not picnic.

If you are looking for a pre law book this is great. Informative yet very easy to digest and very interesting.

be forewarned, only the first case discussed is about eating people! From the title I assumed that all the legal cases would be like that of the men who killed poor Richard Parker, but alas...

It seems like a new book! very good condition! thank you!!

I came across Is Eating People Wrong?: Great Legal Cases and How They Shaped the World by Allan C. Hutchinson while reading the reference sources in another book. I always read a book cover to cover, starting with the cataloguing information and ending with the bibliography, where I peruse all the titles to find out more to read on the topic. Hutchinson, whom I have met a number of times since he works with my partner, has compiled a collection of eight legal cases which have had a fundamental effect on western law to this day. I had wanted to read Is Eating People Wrong? based on the case that inspired the title, R v Dudley and Stephens. This case, which put two men who were stranded on a lifeboat without any provisions on trial for murder for killing one of their dying shipmates in order to cannibalize him, tested the theory of the law of necessity. This case had fascinated me and so did its legal outcome. Does one have the right to kill another in order to save oneself? What precedent might this case set if one did? The background circumstances leading up to each case are described in exciting detail. That's the point I liked best about Is Eating People Wrong?; the legal talk afterward I could not always grasp or agree to, although it was rare that I finished a chapter feeling this way. Hutchinson states that the tenets of common law are not carved in stone. They aren't waiting to be chipped at to be exposed by lawyers via court cases. Common law is ever-evolving and changes with the times. What might have been acceptable and supported by judicial rulings, such as segregation in schools, is now viewed as a relic from the dark ages. Hutchinson also made very interesting reading out of property law in his analysis of Pierson v. Post, wherein one has to assign ownership of a deceased wild fox that one man was in pursuit via hunting (Post) while another man not involved in the hunt ended up killing (Pierson). Hutchinson ended Is Eating People Wrong? with an analysis of the Miranda warning ("You have the right to remain silent..." and so on). Is Eating People Wrong? was written with a minimum of legal jargon and is a compact introduction to some of the cases that have shaped the common law we know today.

This book is on the Rorotoko list. Professor Hutchinson's interview on "Is Eating People Wrong?" ran as the Rorotoko Cover Feature on May 22, 2011 (and can be read in the Rorotoko archive).

This book has NOTHING to do with eating people - for those who are studying law, this may be a helpful book, but for those who are drawn into reading this by the title, someone who does researches on legal cases and moral issues on eating people specifically, it has no useful information whatsoever. It doesn't even discuss if eating people is wrong - all it does is give an description of what happened on the shipwreck case in 27 pages in the first chapter, and the rest is filled with other legal cases that have nothing to do with eating people - like political oppressions or racial profiling issues, to wit. To name the book 'Is eating people wrong' with the picture of the shipwreck on its cover is hugely misleading and tells us about the author's intent to sell books just by its cover. Absolutely horrible, unethical marketing.

I've put 4 stars here as a caution to others...my "personal rating" is 5 stars, however. The point here being that you have to have a a curiosity about the history of common law to really enjoy the book. The title refers to a particularly lurid case in the 19th century and I suppose that will attract some potential readers. . .probably the same people who slow down to gawk at highway accidents. Good enough, but the "rule of law" finding in a Canadian case or the basis of the ruling in "Brown vs. Board of Education" is far more riveting if you are interested in the history of law. Above all, the author's discussion of how social and political forces have shaped judicial interpretations of legal precedent makes this book a great read.

A mish mash of significant legal cases pulled together by a law professor with aspirations of jargon-free literary writing. In reality, a mis-titled book (only one case about cannibalism — title used for shock value), with a number of folksily and clumsily written summations (without significant citation) of court cases that could be more clearly gleaned from their Wikipedia pages. Badly in need of an editor. Super cool concept with disappointing results.

This contained more legalize than I expected. However it was an easy read with an interesting point of view.

This is one of the Best 50 non tech books ive ever read. Very relevant even for non lawyers. The topics are not picnic.

If you are looking for a pre law book this is great. Informative yet very easy to digest and very interesting.

be forewarned, only the first case discussed is about eating people! From the title I assumed that all the legal cases would be like that of the men who killed poor Richard Parker, but alas...

It seems like a new book! very good condition! thank you!!