Comments on: Corpse and (grave)robbers

By: Terrie

Terrie — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:54:06 +0000

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….

By: Interesting Stuff « 26th St. Bar Association

Interesting Stuff « 26th St. Bar Association — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:48:59 +0000

[...] Public Defender describes a terrible Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling regarding sexually assaulting a dead person…and the difficulty that creates. As a native [...]

By: A Voice of Sanity

A Voice of Sanity — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:17:17 +0000

Other countries have an offense: “Offering an indignity to a deceased person” to cover this.

By: Edintally

Edintally — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:09:06 +0000

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.”

By: SPO

SPO — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:27:29 +0000

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.

By: Anne Reed

Anne Reed — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:26:38 +0000

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.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:52:28 +0000

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…

By: Miranda

Miranda — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:49:15 +0000

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?