Sick of eating chicken, fish or beef everyday? Why not try HUMAN?

I came across this really interesting case in my course of studying Torts Law and I was just so irked out when I read it. I should have recorded my expression when I read it. I'm sure you would feel the same. So, here goes...

*Warning: this is not for the faint-hearted.*

This is the case of 'R v Dudley and Stephens', which is a leading English criminal case that established a precedent, throughout the common law world, that necessity is no defence against a charge of murder.

Basically, what had happened was an English yacht which set sail for Sydney from Southampton on May 19, 1884 with a crew of four: Tom Dudley, the captain; Edwin Stephens; Edmund Brooks; and Richard Parker, the cabin boy. Parker was aged 17 and an inexperienced seaman. The yacht was struck by a wave around the Cape of Good Hope and sank almost instantly. They 4 of them managed to get on to a lifeboat. They managed to salvage a few instruments and 2 tins of turnips and no fresh water. The turnips were quickly eaten up and they later ate other things like sea turtles(they even ate its bones). They refrained from drinking its blood because it had been contaminated with seawater. The crew consistently failed to catch any rainwater. And, with no external source of fluid, they had begun to drink their own urine. Parker soon became ill through drinking seawater.

Drawing lots in order to nominate a sacrificial victim who would die to feed the others was discussed among them but to no resolution. Parker soon fell into a coma, Dudley told the others that it was better that one of them die so that the others could survive. This happened to be instituted in the Custom of the Seas. That night, Dudley again raised the matter with Stephens pointing out that Parker was probably dying and that he and Stephens had wives and families.

The following day, with no prospect of rescue in sight, Dudley and Stephens silently signalled to each other that Parker would be killed. Killing Parker before his natural death would better preserve his blood to drink. Brooks, who had not been party to the earlier discussion claimed to have signalled neither assent nor protest. Dudley always insisted that Brooks had assented. Dudley said a prayer and, with Stephens standing by to hold the youth's legs if he struggled, pushed his penknife into Parker's jugular vein, killing him.

In some of the varying and confused later accounts of the killing, Parker murmured "what me?" as he was slain.

The three fed on Parker's body, with Dudley and Brooks consuming most and Stephens very little. The crew even finally managed to catch some rainwater and were rescued about a week later.

When the case went to the courts, the judge found the 3 men to be guilty of murder. The judges, keeping in mind of the dire circumstance and all the precedents that said it was necessary for that to happen, instead had Dudley and Stephens sentenced to the statutory death penalty.

[Excerpt above referenced from Wikipedia]

Were they guilty or not? What say you?