Hangman by Michael Slade

What she lacked in curves to hourglass her figure, she more than made up for with ballerina’s grace. Alex in motion was the flow of a tide. Alex in Zinc’s bed was an erotic writhe. She could be a dancer. She could be a model. So how did she end up at this aftermath of blood?
    It all began with cannibals and a boy in a lifeboat. It was a warm summer day in the Oregon of her youth. Alex, then ten, liked to laze up high in the canopy of leaves, sunlight stabbing her treehouse through gaps in the green. As birds chirped above and bees buzzed below, words wafted up with the clink of ice in gin and tonics from the lawyers lounging by the pool.
    This was before her dad became a judge.
    “Here’s a bone to chew on,” said Jackson Hunt, addressing the partners in his firm. “I came across a case from 1884 in which three men and a boy were shipwrecked and forced to brave the open sea in a lifeboat. Eighteen days adrift and both food and water gone saw Dudley and Stephens suggest the boy be killed and eaten. The third man balked at their plan. Two days later, starving and thirsty, the two plotters killed the boy. The three men feasted on the body until they were rescued four days later.”
    “Jackson.”
    “Yes, dear?”
    “Five minutes to lunch.”
    His wife was flipping burgers on the barbecue.
    “Dudley and Stephens were tried for murder. By a special verdict, the jury made three findings. One, the men probably would have died within four days had they not eaten the boy. Two, because the boy was in a weak condition, he probably would have died before them. And three, except by sacrificing one for the others to eat, the chance of survival at the time of the killing was unlikely. The verdict was then referred to a bench of judges to decide whether a defense of necessity was justified in law.”
    “Who likes their meat rare?” called his wife.
    The lawyers shook their heads.
    “No one, dear,” Jackson said. “You see the dilemma?” he continued. “Both accused were able to choose between two undesirable options. One choice involved breaking the law. The other involved an evil of such magnitude to them and the third man that they felt justified doing so.”
    “Bullshit,” said one of his partners. “You can’t divorce morality from law.”
    “Is it immoral to kill one to save three?”
    “If you and I were shipwrecked and there was only one plank, a plank that would sink if we both grabbed hold, should I have the right to drown you so the plank is mine?”
    “If several are overtaken by common disaster, is there no right in anyone to save the lives of many by sacrificing one?”
    “No,” said his partner.
    “So it’s the duty of all to die?”
    “Alex,” her mom called. “Time for lunch.”
    The girl dropped the rope ladder to the ground and slid down from the treehouse as her dad advanced another legal argument.
    “A dam is about to burst and flood a valley. The calamity will wipe out a town of a hundred people. By opening a sluice I can relieve the pressure, but that will flood a nearby farm and probably kill the farmer. I’m faced with a choice between breaking the law by drowning him or allowing the greater evil of letting a hundred people die. Make that a million, if it helps. Don’t you think the law should excuse me if I elect to save the many?”
    His partner saw an opening and went for the jugular.
    “What if the farmer sees you opening the dam? An action he suspects you know will cause his death? If he has a rifle at hand, would he not be excused for shooting you in self-defense? And what about the boy eaten by the men? If he was strong enough to resist, would he not be excused for killing the cannibals in self-defense? If A can kill B of necessity, and B can kill A in self-defense, there is no rule of law, just anarchy.”
    “You’re beat, Jackson,” said another partner.
    “What if the boy was a pirate about to be hanged when the ship wrecked? What if the farmer was in jail on death