# "Cannibal Cop" faces life sentence over fantasy role-play **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738 "2013-03-12T18:23:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/41 "2013-03-13T13:57:48Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I was going to mock the idea of lasagna fetish sites where people rollplay kidnapping and eating pasta. But there’s enough weird stuff on the internet that I’m not 100% sure your joking. > > I’d google to make sure, but I don’t want to see anything I can’t unsee. Smart thinking, rule 34 has no exceptions. [Rule 34 on tanks](http://www.moddb.com/groups/tanks/images/rule-34). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/42 "2013-03-13T15:01:23Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Smart thinking, rule 34 has no exceptions. [Rule 34 on tanks](http://www.moddb.com/groups/tanks/images/rule-34). That’s worse than cannibalism. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/43 "2013-03-13T15:44:03Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > This NYT article goes into the jurors’ reasoning in a bit more detail. Apparently they were conflicted and it was certain specific messages that pushed them into a guilty verdict. > [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/nyregion/gilberto-valle-is-found-guilty-in-cannibal-case.html?pagewanted=1&\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/nyregion/gilberto-valle-is-found-guilty-in-cannibal-case.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0) Thanks for the article. It’s certainly more detailed than the one I linked in the OP. I’m glad the jury at least seems to have thought quite hard about things; I was probably wrong to assume they just tore him up for being a pervert. Too much _Law & Order_, I guess. Also, if eating brunch with someone constitutes “surveillance” I’ve been using the word incorrectly. Am I the only person who assumed it had to be at least a little bit covert? ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/44 "2013-03-13T15:50:34Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Murder and cannibalism aren’t taboos that society thinks are icky and gets all squeamish about. They are actual, serious crimes, so yes, I’ll take the brave stance that in convicting him for plotting to commit these acts the jury wasn’t convicting him for sexualizing taboos. Just to clarify again: I wasn’t offering that murder and cannibalism are acceptable behavior or that it is wrong to react to them with hostility. I was offering that it’s abso-freakin-lutely reasonable to assume people would be set against the guy simply because he found murder and cannibalism erotic. I’m sure people are convicted for murder conspiracies all the time but this is the one we’re talking about. Could it be because of “ick” factor? I think you could make that case. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/45 "2013-03-13T16:00:29Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > Not to be argumentative, but do you really find it so hard to believe that the guy was convicted for sexualizing two of humanity’s greatest taboos at the same time just as much as he was convicted on the merits of the arguments involved? So, to get this straight: your plan for this debate is to set forth your position, invite rebuttals, and than address those rebuttals with an earnestly-pled, “Yeah, but, don’t you think my position is right though?” In other words, yes, he sincerely does not believe “that the guy was convicted for sexualizing two of humanity’s greatest taboos at the same time just as much as he was convicted on the merits of the arguments involved?” Do you have a substantive rejoinder? Or just more disbelief that other POVs exist in the world? All that said, I do think the conspiracy case was insufficient and hope that it gets overturned on appeal. I think the error has less to do with shocked sexual sensibilities and more to do with the poorly defined nature of what separates innocuous imagining a scenario from the inchoate crimes of attempt and conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/46 "2013-03-13T16:16:31Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > So, to get this straight: your plan for this debate is to set forth your position, invite rebuttals, and than address those rebuttals with an earnestly-pled, “Yeah, but, don’t you think my position is right though?” > > In other words, yes, he sincerely does not believe “that the guy was convicted for sexualizing two of humanity’s greatest taboos at the same time just as much as he was convicted on the merits of the arguments involved?” > > Do you have a substantive rejoinder? Or just more disbelief that other POVs exist in the world? I’m sorry my incredulity chafes you so much, but put some lotion on it and bear with me for a moment: I’m really comfortable with POV; I just think **Hamlet’s** was wrong and, hey, that’s my POV. Fortunately, POV doesn’t have to (and may not be able to) reflect an objective reality. My apologies for not offering a _substantive rejoinder_ demonstrating that my opinion is beyond reproach while his is a waste of disk space. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > All that said, I do think the conspiracy case was insufficient and hope that it gets overturned on appeal. I think the error has less to do with shocked sexual sensibilities and more to do with the poorly defined nature of what separates innocuous imagining a scenario from the inchoate crimes of attempt and conspiracy. I agree completely. Thank you for this most adequate and, perhaps, better phrased declaration of a feeling I’ve failed to articulate appropriately. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/47 "2013-03-13T16:22:00Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I think the error has less to do with shocked sexual sensibilities and more to do with the poorly defined nature of what separates innocuous imagining a scenario from the inchoate crimes of attempt and conspiracy. Actually, now that we agree with each other, I have a follow up on this point: Could one reasonably argue-within the confines of the law- that discussing your murderous plot on a public forum on the internet kind of discredits the notion that he thought he was secretly planning something? As regards the legal definition of conspiracy, is secrecy required? If I went on Facebook and said, “Hey everyone, I’m going to murder Steve tomorrow and you can all come watch!”, have I conspired to commit murder in the legal sense? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/48 "2013-03-13T17:58:10Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > Actually, now that we agree with each other, I have a follow up on this point: Could one reasonably argue-within the confines of the law- that discussing your murderous plot on a public forum on the internet kind of discredits the notion that he thought he was secretly planning something? As regards the legal definition of conspiracy, is secrecy required? > > If I went on Facebook and said, “Hey everyone, I’m going to murder Steve tomorrow and you can all come watch!”, have I conspired to commit murder in the legal sense? To me, it’s still a thought crime and I believe it will be overturned. The “bright line” that everyone says is hard to distinguish is the actual crime for which he has been convicted. He is guilty of collecting information in an illegal way. He has yet to commit another offense (from the little we know) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/49 "2013-03-13T18:09:23Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > To me, it’s still a thought crime and I believe it will be overturned. > > The “bright line” that everyone says is hard to distinguish is the actual crime for which he has been convicted. > > He is guilty of collecting information in an illegal way. He has yet to commit another offense (from the little we know) Is “conspiracy to commit X” always an objectionable ‘thought crime’ charge, where X was not in fact committed? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/50 "2013-03-13T18:12:11Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > So, to get this straight: your plan for this debate is to set forth your position, invite rebuttals, and than address those rebuttals with an earnestly-pled, “Yeah, but, don’t you think my position is right though?” Be nice. He rescinded his claim in the post two before yours. The Dope could use more people willing to admit they were wrong (I would, but it never comes up). > [@Tarajambos](#): > > Also, if eating brunch with someone constitutes “surveillance” I’ve been using the word incorrectly. Am I the only person who assumed it had to be at least a little bit covert? The problem is the Defendant himself characterized what he was doing as surveillance. If he’d merely had brunch with the girl, I doubt it would be so damaging, but he told his internet buddies the purpose of the brunch was to find out more about the girl. (probably make sure she’s not a vegetarian, I’ve heard their so stringy its barely worth the effort to kill and eat them). ---
**Author:** ![kayT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayt/32/3633_2.png) [@kayT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayT)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/51 "2013-03-13T18:12:16Z")
I’m glad I’m not the only one who was hoping that you have to actually DO something illegal before you get sent to prison. I know it’s now acceptable for the government to tell me how much soda I can drink at one time or what kind of oil to fry my french fries in, but I don’t think we’ve reached the point where the government can tell me that what I am thinking is illegal. And I also think that if you discuss something on the internet, it’s no longer “covert” or “conspiring”. Unless you are extremely stupid/extremely naive, surely you know that your words are going to be used against you! I’m sorry, this whole case just seems so wrong to me. We don’t jail people for what they SAY they are going to do, damn it. We jail people for what they have done. Help me understand how he DID anything wrong except access a data base he wasn’t supposed to access. Words are not actions. I cannot for the life of me get my head around this whole case. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/52 "2013-03-13T18:13:59Z")
What you’re thinking is already legal or illegal, in a sense. It’s called “intent.” ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/53 "2013-03-13T18:17:23Z")
> [@kayT](#): > > I’m glad I’m not the only one who was hoping that you have to actually DO something illegal before you get sent to prison. Conspiracy to commit a crime is illegal. And its not a thought crime, it requires you to take concrete steps to enact the plan you’ve discussed with your Conspirators. If a bunch of Muslims were caught in Manhatten stockpiling (legally obtained) fertilizer, bomb making instructions, plans of the Empire States building and had hundreds of emails back and forth talking about how and why they were going to blow up said skyscraper, would you say we should be able to arrest them for a crime? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/54 "2013-03-13T18:23:30Z")
> [@kayT](#): > > I’m glad I’m not the only one who was hoping that you have to actually DO something illegal before you get sent to prison. I know it’s now acceptable for the government to tell me how much soda I can drink at one time or what kind of oil to fry my french fries in, but I don’t think we’ve reached the point where the government can tell me that what I am thinking is illegal. And I also think that if you discuss something on the internet, it’s no longer “covert” or “conspiring”. Unless you are extremely stupid/extremely naive, surely you know that your words are going to be used against you! > > I’m sorry, this whole case just seems so wrong to me. We don’t jail people for what they SAY they are going to do, damn it. We jail people for what they have done. Help me understand how he DID anything wrong except access a data base he wasn’t supposed to access. Words are not actions. I cannot for the life of me get my head around this whole case. “Stupidity”, last I checked, was not a legal defence. Words can be actions in many, many cases. Say the wrong words in the wrong context and you can be charged with uttering threats or treason. However, this is not a case about “uttering words”, it is one about whether the _words_ plus _other actions_ taken by this guy demonstrate he was, or was not, actually conspiring with others to commit a crime. He did not just talk about it, he planned for it - or at least, so the jury found. The jury may have been wrong - I haven’t seen the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/55 "2013-03-13T18:35:48Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Is “conspiracy to commit X” always an objectionable ‘thought crime’ charge, where X was not in fact committed? Of course it’s objectionable. The conspiracy charge needs to have two or more people and requires an “overt act”. I suppose that is where the bright line needs to be drawn. My little recollection of conspiracy charges is that they are usually the lesser of the crimes being committed. That isn’t the case here. Is there much conspiracy case law to base this thin of a connection? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/56 "2013-03-13T18:59:03Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > If I went on Facebook and said, “Hey everyone, I’m going to murder Steve tomorrow and you can all come watch!”, have I conspired to commit murder in the legal sense? Conspiracy law always requires an agreement between two parties to commit an illegal act. In some jurisdictions (New York is one IIRC, but _not_ in federal criminal law), it also requires an “act in furtherance.” By way of contrast, attempt usually requires that the act pass from “perparation” to “attempt.” The law talks about “res ipsa loquitur” (the activities have begun clearly to betoken a drive to commit a crime) or “dangerous proximity.” This is poetry-as-law; neither of these clarify even slightly the question “When does preparation pass into attempt?” It’s just evocative terminology masquerading as legal definition. “A mystifying cloud of words” as Cardozo might say. The harm that conspiracy is meant to avert, and thus the reason why it has a lesser threshold than attempt, is the worry that the co-conspirators will provide moral support/exert pressure on his counterpart and thus make it even more difficult for the parties to the conspiracy to abandon their attempt than would be the case if the person were acting alone. (Certain types of withdrawal are effective as defenses to conspiracy.) The “bad fact” for Valle is that the misappropriation of the database can be seen as an act in furtherance. I think the totality of the evidence shows that the criminal activity was always intended to stop at that point. In other words, I don’t think there was ever a genuine agreement between the two to commit the acts they discussed. And I don’t think “dangerous proximity” was reached. The officer should be punished for his misuse of police databases though. On a related point, my hunch is that without abusing his access to those databases, no prosecution would have occurred. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/57 "2013-03-13T19:29:48Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Of course it’s objectionable. > > The conspiracy charge needs to have two or more people and requires an “overt act”. I suppose that is where the bright line needs to be drawn. My little recollection of conspiracy charges is that they are usually the lesser of the crimes being committed. That isn’t the case here. > > Is there much conspiracy case law to base this thin of a connection? Huh? I asked whether a conspiracy to commit X charge was by definition unreasonable if X wasn’t committed. That is, for example, could a person be reasonably charged with conspiracy to commit murder if no-one was, in fact, murdered. Is your answer to that question (i.e., the one I asked) yes or no? I said nothing about other people and/or overt acts. For that matter, this case under discussion arguably had both of those features - the “other guy” was arguably this “meatman” dude, and there were any number of “overt acts” - to name one, the database-info-stealing. That doesn’t mean the jury got it right - have to have seen the evidence to know. Could be they were wrong. But IMO they weren’t clearly or obviously-on-its-face wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/58 "2013-03-13T21:07:06Z")
If this had played out differently and the authorities decided to keep an eye on the guy to see if he made a move, at what point would stronger charges have been appropriate? E.g. “attempted cannibalism” or some such. It seems like if he was looking to act alone, a conspiracy charge would not be inappropriate. I know there are some other “intent to commit crimes” type laws, like possession of burglary tools (had a rock-climber student get nabbed for that on his way to a protest in the car where he stored his gear :rolleyes:.) ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738/59 "2013-03-13T21:23:54Z")
I get the distinct impression you have more than a passing familiarity with Law, **Kimmy\_Gibbler**. Thank you for the illuminating response. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cannibal-cop-faces-life-sentence-over-fantasy-role-play/652738.md?page=2)