Corpse and (grave)robbers
The story, ofcourse, is about the three yoots from Wisconsin who were charged with sexually assaulting a 20 year old girl. Problem was, she was already dead.
The Appellate Court in Wisconsin got it right (as appellate courts are wont to do) and declared that this, obviously, cannot be a crime, since the woman was not alive.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in all their wisdom (as is their wont) reversed. [I guess I should be happy that this phenomenon doesn't seem limited to CT, but I ain't crackin' a smile.]
The sheer stupidity of the decision itself aside, the Supreme Court once again ignored the forest for the trees (as is their fundamental birthright). I’ll let Scott explain:
But there is a deeper failing in this decision. While the Wisconsin Supreme Court focused on the question of whether a corpse can give consent (both an absurdity by definition and facile solution when faced with a hard choice), they failed to consider the far broader ramifications of the definition of a “person”.
If the word “person” is to include corpses, it opens a wide world of criminal conduct that no one intends. Consider the criminal liability of the anthropologist in Wisconsin, messing around with people’s bones. A “person” can be the victim of a homicide. A corpse cannot, at least before this decisions. What now?
Scott is absolutely correct. Wisconsonians (please don’t correct me if that’s wrong, I don’t give a damn), prepare to be convicted of murder for killing a dead man. Does Wisconsin have the death penalty? That would be the ultimate ironic punishment. Put to death for killing a dead man.
Sometimes I wonder if these Supreme Court judges write such opinions just to give us fodder. It has to be. There can be no other rational explanation.
As to the act of necrophilia itself…eh, I don’t have an opinion either way. I mean, aren’t vampires supposed to be sexy?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on July 10, 2008 at 7:57 pm, and is filed under dumb laws. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 2 years ago
I see the point about the court having implicitly decided that a “person” need not be alive for purposes of the penal code, and I appreciate the fact that you (and Scott) are concerned about that – it’s problematic and disturbing, for sure. However, wouldn’t a homicide statute include a causation requirement? Stabbing a corpse through the heart, for example, is incapable of causing death, so how would it ever result in a homicide charge? Are there other (realistic) examples where this ruling would result in bizarre results?
about 2 years ago
As usual, Miranda points out the obvious flaw in my rant.
But on the other hand, one would have thought it pretty damn simple that a person cannot rape a dead person, but look where that ended up…
about 2 years ago
A couple of points:
1. People mostly say “Wisconsinite,” if they have to use a word. Out-of-staters use “cheesehead.”
2. We don’t have the death penalty, and haven’t since 1853.
3. This is actually more complicated than most of the coverage indicates, because the statute has this subsection: “Death of victim. This section applies whether a victim is dead or alive at the time of the sexual contact or sexual intercourse.” So it wasn’t just the court who thought a corpse could be a “person” in this context; the legislature seemed to have the same idea.
4. Just to be clear (not to mention thankful), the defendants did not actually succeed in their planned necrophilia; they couldn’t get the cemetery vault open. They were charged with attempted sexual assault.
about 2 years ago
Gid, you’re right, but for the wrong reason. The statute was likely drafted to deal with the issue of an episode of criminal conduct where timing issues would arise. So a robbery is a robbery, even if the victim dies first–same with rape.
In any event, how you resolve the statute in favor of the defendants is you ask: (a) would we call a guy who before sexually assaulting a woman kills her a rapist in common parlance?–yes, (b) do we think of these guys as rapists, no.
about 2 years ago
Defense: “Your Honor, my client did not kill the deceased!”
Prosecutor: “Your Honor, but for the fact that the victim was already dead, the actions of the defendant would have clearly caused the death of the victim.”
about 2 years ago
Other countries have an offense: “Offering an indignity to a deceased person” to cover this.
about 2 years ago
There is precedent for “attmepted rape” in the case where the “victim” is already dead. Of course, in that case, the guy thought she was just passed out from too much alcohol….