Arnie bans sex with corpses

Remove all ads!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040910/80/f2d9y.html

er.... that was legal????

 

No, it wasn't "legal". The law was silent in the matter for a reason different from acceptance. There was no law rule barring expressly that, contrary to bans on sex with animals or children. Adding a rule against something relatively uncommon can make matters by attracting attention of thrill seekers and providing publicity to those who crave attention.

To do anything about anyone within the scope of criminal justice, one needs a charge. There is no crime without a law. That's why, if there's no law on something, prosecutors and judges can't indict people randomly when something bothers them.

And it's good they have made that rule. However, why didn't they apply existing regulations on defiling a human corpse? It's hard to believe they wouldn't have any such regulation.

 

Isnt sex with corpses covered under some "grave peace" law or something? I know it is here. It is illegal to do stuff to corpses in general, I even think that if a murdered chops up his victim he gets charged both for the murder and the chopping up.

 

Well, BTA, looks like you're going to have to move.

[LMAO! Ha! I'll never be caugh... err I'd never do such a thing! - BTA]

[ September 11, 2004, 19:30: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

@joacqin: that's right, but those are very general rules and they don't make much difference between what happens on the offender's side - ie, one just disturbs the rest of the body, but it doesn't change things much whether he mutilates it or sates his twisted drives.

It's a bit like with zoofilia here - it falls under cruelty to animals if the animal is forced to anything, but the sexual aspect doesn't play a great role in solving the matter in a court.

 

just because its rare doesnt mean it doesnt happen.

like here, only recently the home secretary has pushed through a bill preventing criminals or suspects on bail from gambling, because of the public outrage that a convict bought a lotto ticket and won 7mil.

 

@ Shoshino - that's more an example of legislators reacting to public outrage, rather than a real need for a law. But in the case of necrophilia, I'm not sure either justification applies.

@ BTA:

 

Um... victimless crime?? Uh....

 

"Arnie bans sex with corpses"

His wife won't be too happy about that.

*ba-doom tish*

 

Well, some people perhaps are different. If someone did that to the corpse of a person close to me, I wouldn't see that as a victimless crime.

However, in this case, the offender offends not so much a person or an object, as feelings of the society as a whole or of a group of persons.

What complicates matters is that a corpse cannot be a possession. Rightfully so, for human body is not a chattel. The person in question is dead, and the corpse alone isn't a human being. So it's neither a human, nor an object, making things difficult.

My position is that the pervert has no right to a corpse. Maybe it isn't a human, but it definitely is a human body. The culprit belongs with rapists and desecrators.

 

Hm, let's hope that corpse-brothels aren't an important branch of the Californian tourism industry. They need all the tax-money they can get, I believe.

 

It's also a good way for society to keep loonies locked up. Someone who has sex with corpses is probably very likely to rape and kill someone since they obviously care very little for morality. Best to bag them with this crime before something else happens.

 

Abomination, sexual perversions need not at all be tied to each other and they assuredly need not be tied to violence. Sexual perversions are about sex, rape and murders are about violence.

 

Sex with corpses? What in Gods name? Someones taking the piss surely.

 

However joacquin you must admit that there is a definate link between this sexual perversion and death, the culprit is very likely to show interest in more than just having sex with corpses.

 

It's going to be a difficult law to enforce - just about all sex-related laws are, especially ones where the victim isn't a person (well, not a live one) when the crime occurs. Unless someone gets busted with their pants around their ankles by the supervisor in the morgue, that is. But even so, having something like this on the statute books means that a certain level of moral abhorrence is made clear.

@ Abomination: AFAIK, there is some connection between sexual predation and perversions of this nature. However, it's far from a universal thing. Some people are just different. Sexual deviance isn't always about power or violence (although in many cases it will be).

 

I really hope nobody goes to the graveyard just to 'Fight the Man's Rules'.

Come on, you all know that someone will, just to break the law.

 

It'll probably make the act more 'arrousing' knowing you could be punished for it too.

Damn anarchists (sp?).