Cannibalism case shows folly of 'victimless crime'

AJC ^ | 12/17/03 | DENISE NOE

[freedom44]

Many years ago, I saw a Dick Cavett show in which guests were debating the issue of pornography. The people opposed to censoring or banning porn made the usual points about it being "victimless." One of those who wanted to ban such materials said, "If you only had laws against crimes that have victims, you'd have laws against murder and very little else."

Cavett commented, "I guess you couldn't very well have murder between consenting adults," and the audience laughed.

But apparently you can. In Germany now, killer and cannibal Armin Meiwes is using precisely that as his defense. He freely admits that he killed, dismembered and ate 43-year-old Bernd Juergen Brandes. Indeed, he could hardly deny it because he preserved the killing on videotape and still had pieces of Brandes' body in his freezer when arrested.

However, Meiwes' attorneys argue that this was not murder because the dead man agreed to be killed. In fact, Brandes had answered an advertisement Meiwes had placed on the Internet seeking a man willing to be slaughtered and cannibalized.

According to Meiwes' lawyers, the victim's consent made this a "killing on request" under German law, an illegal euthanasia punishable by a sentence of from six months to five years of incarceration.

Prosecutors do not dispute that the victim agreed to his own death but argue that he may not have been of sound mind. They seek to have Meiwes convicted of murder and sentenced to the maximum possible term of life in prison since Germany has no death penalty. Meiwes himself has said, "It's not like I killed someone who didn't want to get killed."

Since the 1960s, liberals have repeated the mantra that "whatever two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own homes is no one else's business, providing they aren't hurting anyone else." As an early supporter of both women's liberation and gay liberation, I have said this myself.

Did Meiwes and the man he destroyed carry this to its logical conclusion? Meiwes did his gruesome work in private. The victim repeatedly urged Meiwes to cut him up and objected to nothing that went on the night of his death.

Was anyone else harmed? It might be possible to see the slain man's loved ones as "harmed," but liberals typically reject harm to the family as a reason to limit individual autonomy. After all, a bigoted family suffers when its kin marry interracially or by discovering a relative is gay.

Perhaps political and social liberals need to rethink our principles. Is the last stop for complete personal freedom of choice Armin Meiwes' freezer?

[freedom44]

Computer expert Armin Meiwes is on trial in Germany for killing, dismembering and eating a man who agreed to the arrangement over the Internet.

[Huck]

I think they should use Lawrence vs Texas as a basis for their decision. We should find the most depraved court rulings from around the world and use them as we see fit.

[job]

KaaChompp!!!

How bout that old Monty Python skit where they were trying to dispel rumours of cannabalism in the Royal Navy?

[T Minus Four]

It is SOOOOOOOO tempting to ping Indy Pendance to this thread. (I will resist, I will resist, I will resist....)

[Cicero]

This article is on the money.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Oh, come on... just for sport? :)

[T Minus Four]

I...............will.................resist (gasp)

[Recovering_Democrat]

It is SOOOOOOOO tempting to ping Indy Pendance to this thread. (I will resist...

Explanation?

[Servant of the 9]

"If you only had laws against crimes that have victims, you'd have laws against murder and very little else."

Sounds reasonable to me.
I cannot figure out why anyone would want Big Brother interfering in a consensual matter like this.

So9

[VulgarWit]

I'm not certain that this is an forthright representation of "victimless crimes." Murder, killing, euthanasia none of these can be considered a victimless crime under any circumstances since the compelling interest (and right of prosecutorial refusal) rests soley with the state (and must since the only other party --victimized or not-- is dead. Victimless crimes applies where there is NO person or party who has a compelling interest other than the state yet all parties to the incident are extant.. this is the case for example with prostitution. An act that is legal in all respects (i.e. sex, intercourse, 'is') is made illegal by the introduction of monetary compensation for one of the parties to the act. The introduction of compensation is somehow construed as harmful to the state itself. This is completely different from the depraved act described in the article.

[MEGoody]

"this is the case for example with prostitution."

Hardly a 'victimless' crime. What about all the wives or girlfriends whose significant other brings home a little 'memento' from his visit to a whore? What about the impact such visits would have on the stability of a marriage?

[Arrowhead1952]

Explanation?

Check the Please help me thread from yesterday......... You will get the explanation.

[Servant of the 9]

Murder, killing, euthanasia none of these can be considered a victimless crime under any circumstances since the compelling interest (and right of prosecutorial refusal) rests soley with the state (and must since the only other party --victimized or not-- is dead.

In other words, the State owns us and we are not allowed to die without its permission.
My mistake. All these years I thought the Constitution said the Govt belonged to us, not the other way around.

So9

[VulgarWit]

Those parties (wives or girlfriends or boyfriends or whoever) have recourse outside the criminal system. Your argument presumes that the exchange of compensation (paying the prostitute) somehow makes it worse that merely having intercourse outside the marriage--cheating is worse because it cost money? that makes no sense.

And --merely as a side-note-- if one party to a relationship (must be the man based on your example) is cheating either with a prostitute or in a standard "un-paid" affair... the stability of that relationship is already in question.

[VulgarWit]

that's a good point...
I should've worded that differently (though exactly how is eluding me at the moment).. but someone (the people as represented by the state?) has to be tasked with ensuring that your permission was indeed granted--establishing your intent. Not an easy task in some cases I'd imaging (though in the case mentioned above It seems fairly clear-cut).

[cake_crumb]

Remember, while so many Freepers were bashing Senator Santorum for his defense of states' rights when the SCOTUS agreed to hear Lawrence vs. Texas I answered the druggies anxious for legitimacy that Santorum was not only right, he didn't go far enough. I said that if the SCOTUS found in favor of Lawrence, not only would the polygamists and pedeaophiles be next to demand special Constitutional rights, murderes such as Jeffery Dahmer were wrongly convicted because they killed and ate their victims in the privacy of their own homes.

I used another actual case where a woman attempted to perform a sex change operation on her husband, who asked her to. When she cut off the good, the husband nearly bled to death, but she (the wife) called 911 and the ambulance arrived on time. She was charged with practicing medicine without a license. Her lawyer argued that the charges should be dropped because it happened between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.

Ihad no idea this case in Germany existed at that time.

Darwin jokes aside, mark my words, something like this WILL come to this country and land in the SCOTUS' lap soon.

[T Minus Four]

He posted a rant thread listing all the things he didn't care to know about, including FReeping polls, Scott Peterson, song lyrics, and cannibalism, among several dozen. Caught a lot of good-humored grief :-) I see the thread has been pulled now.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Libertarians discussed all of these decades ago. Ever hear of 'inalienable rights'? Those are rights that you cannot alienate or transfer. Among those rights are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sound familiar yet?

This means that you cannot consent to be murdered. You cannot consent to be sold into slavery. Those contracts are invalid on the face of them.

And what does this have to do with pornography?

Finally, 'victimless crime' is a technical legal term. It refers to crimes, where there is no complaining victim. Purchases of illegal substances are the classic example, along with prostitution. In both cases, the buyer and seller both agree to the transaction. There is no complaining victim.

I find that conservatives love to misuse the term 'victimless crime' and come up with some story about there are really victims. This is in my book, purposeful duplicity.

[breakem]

"If you only had laws against crimes that have victims, you'd have laws against murder and very LITTLE ELSE."

Idiot!

[Benrand]

Look, the guy had the good sense to have some fava beans and a fine KEEANTI.