the German computer technician advertised over the internet for somebody who was willing to be eaten by him. Having hacked the volunteer’s penis off, and shared the flambeed delicacy together, the rest of the bargain was fulfilled.
The question is - how is this murder? Can you murder someone who wants to be killed?
On another point, is cannibalism per se illegal in the US or UK? If you chop off your arm and give it to me to fry up and devour (no volunteers please!), have I committed an offence?
I have no cite, but it is my belief that cannibalism, per se, is illegal in the US.
But aside from that, I would still call this murder, notwithstanding that the victim was willing. Let me cast this in a different light: if you walked in on a friend who was about to commit suicide by blowing his brains out, and you grabbed the gun from him and blew his brains out, would you still be guilty of murder? Yes! You see, I would think that one would have to presume that anyone who is willing to die is mentally impaired. This mental impairment renders the person unable to determine what is best for him, unable to differentiate between right and wrong (legal definition of insanity or mental defect). So, if the victim is legally insane, and you are not, you are definitely guilty of murder if you kill him, even if he was willing to die.
I mean, of course, anyone who is willing to die in such a manner as this. There certainly are plenty of people who are willing to die under other kinds of circumstances.
I don’t want to get too far from GQ territory, but even with your clarification, I don’t think we can presume this. For instance, the “victim” in this or a similar case may well do such a thing in exchange for money (paid to his heirs). This might seem like a bad decision, but it is a rational one.
However, at least in the USA, murder is generally defined without reference to the defense of the victim (hence why Dr. Kevorkian is in jail). I assume the law in Germany is similar.
Wow, I had just put the soundtrack to Cannibal the Musical on (which I highly recommend). Its about Alfred PAcker, the only man to ever be convicted of cannibalism in the US, it was later overturned. So I suppose techinically it is, although its hard to make it stick. Incidentally, the cafeteria at a university in Colorado is the Alferd Packer Grill.
-PSM
Amazing. Presumably then, if I were so minded (which believe me I ain’t!), I could cheerfully dine on the remains of my relatives, were they to die of natural causes and had left me in charge of all funeral arrangements.
Of course, there’s an element of cannibalism in many religions, not least Christianity, with its ritual feasting on the body of its founder.
Aren’t there laws about doing undignified stuff to human remains (er, to paraphrase quite loosely)? I would expect that if there were no other specific cannibalism laws, the “don’t mess with human remains” law might cover some of it.
(Didn’t the Georgia crematorium guy get charged with some of those laws?)
The law in most countries makes no distinction between a ‘willing’ victim and an unwilling one, whether or not they are of a sound state of mind (it does not necessarily follow that someone who wants to be killed is insane).
He may have spelled it Alferd (the guy was practically illiterate, and actually usually signed his name “A. G. Packer”). What was overturned was his murder conviction - downgraded to manslaughter - though he contested that, claiming self defense for killing one guy. Given the situation, I think Packer’s various stories were plausible enough to constitute reasonable doubt, and any cannibalism he and the others in his party may have engaged in was a case of survival. Some recent work tends to corroborate Packer:
Of course, the Packer case always gets semi-comic treatment (“Dadburn it, Packer, there weren’t but seven Demmycrats in Hinsdale County, and you went and et five of 'em.”). The Donner case is generally treated as a great tragedy. I guess it’s the difference between something happening to a bunch of settler families versus a bunch of would-be gold prospectors.
murder is killing illegally another human being by a human being
if they are drugged or even dying it is still murder
murder can be effected without being present
Actually, it was legally spelled Alfred, but a tatto artist mispelled it, and ol’ Al took a liking to it so other than legal documents, he spelled it Alferd, but on legal ones it was still Alfred.
In Canada, at least, I don’t believe there are any laws against eating human meat per se. Attention-hound Rick Gibson, of Sniffy the Rat fame, once ate a (legally acquired) human testicle on the steps of the VAG. Like the Sniffy incident, the poor schmucks who got worked up into a state of entertaining indignation, (not realizing that their reaction was the whole point,) were flummoxed when attempts to get police to “do something about it” went nowhere- because no laws were being broken.