Consenting Adults

Quote:

---

Armin Meiwes, the German cannibal whose case of extreme sado-masochism made worldwide headlines, has had his sentence increased from 8 1/2 years to life imprisonment. In a retrial, he was convicted of murder even though his victim wanted to be killed.

Der Speigel

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What is the world coming to when consenting adults can't do what they wanna do?
________________________
Freedom: the most fundamental right.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ May 10, 2006 06:58 AM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>

I like the "I wanted to eat him, but I didnt want to kill him part" So remorseful [img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img]

I wonder if he suggested any cooking methods or preperations for his various parts before he asked to be eaten? [img]eek.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img]

Once again, a guy uses the internet to look for a piece of ass.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dulcinea:
Once again, a guy uses the internet to look for a piece of ass.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[img]graemlins/gulp.gif[/img]

I'm wondering why the more libertarian among you have not responded specifically to LanDroid's comment?

Edited to note: I did not read the article. I've heard enough about it somewhere else that I couldn't bring myself to see any more detail

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ May 10, 2006 03:30 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

I have followed this story (in part because it made me think of something Raven might do in one of his rituals) and apparently they severed a certain body part and ate it together, the "victim" having bled to death as a result. Truly bizarre.

I am not an absolutist Libertarian. I am just way more on that side than on either of the other parties. I think we should go in that direction but not all the way.

That being said, I think that you should be allowed to die if that is what you TRULY want, but that should be under some sort of controls to make sure that it is not a temporary wish, or that it is not coerced consent.

Anyway, it was stupid because he should have just offed himself, and then the cannibal would only be guilty of breaking the law against corpse mutilation. Although I would think if the person wanted to be eaten, that shouldn't be against the law.

Lew your entire argument failed to take into account that it depends on what your definition of "is" is. [img]cool.gif[/img]

You are correct, GL, but that's because I don't know that definition myself [img]wink.gif[/img]

Alright, Reason, I'll bite (pun intended)......


Especially since I just assumed Lan was being rhetorical...

I can't speak for German law, though I was intrigued to learn that their appellate court can reverse a case because they think the punishment is not severe enough (I suppose technically that can happen here but it's not common).

But the reason we cannot allow something like this is really two-fold. First, we have a material problem, namely, in how you can determine "consent." As a general rule, yes, two adults of sound mind can do as they please. There are exceptions, of course, and one of them being you cannot agree to do something that's illegal. Generally, it is illegal for one person to kill another, hence it is impossible to argue that the victim could somehow "consent" to doing something that isn't permitted to begin with (though I do believe 'consent' could be a factor that could be argued at sentencing).

The second issue is that you have a proof-problem. The rule of thumb is illustrated by the mutual suicide pact in which one person succeeds but the other one doesn't, and then you charge that person with murder. Why? Because the dead cannot testify, and you as the defendant could say anything. Same thing here. I don't know what the evidence was, but I do know the victim didn't testify, and if the key to your defense is that the victim somehow 'consented,' I don't see how you could prove that element without the victim testifying (yes you can introduce videotapes or affidavtis or what-not, but you still have a huge evidentiary problem when the victim can't testify)

Now that I think about it, in light of my analysis above, I suppose there may have been an argument had the victim not been killed but only partially eaten (boy, there's an inteteresting sentence). Because battery is an otherwise criminal act that you can "consent" to, hence boxers and football players are not charged with battery or assault. So if my man Klaus comes into the courtroom and testifies that yeah, he and Helmut had this thing going on and he was totally cool with being eaten by him, then I suppose you could defeat a criminal charge.

Though if I were a prosecutor, I would just get some shrink whore to testify that no sane person could ever "consent" to such a horrific act, therefore any 'consent' defense would be null and void.

But then if I were defending the cannibal, I'd get my own shrink whore to testify that no sane person could ever do such a horrific act against another person, and try the insanity route.