My mom and I just got into a discussion about this last night. Her problem with the action of the cannibal is essentially that, from what she had heard, the eatee was clinically depressed, and thus not in a position to make life and death decisions. If true, I find it pretty compelling; much more so than “the fact that he wanted to die in this way was itself indicative of being crazy,” which I don’t find compelling at all.
In any event, I’m surprised Germany doesn’t have laws against violation of a corpse, which (I thought) is what most people who do anything with dead bodies are charged with, in addition to other things. Still, it would be a lesser charge than manslaughter anyway. Is their “manslaughter” similar to our own classification?
Note that in Germany “the person entitled thereto” is almost exclusively the administration of a public cemetary (The only exception I can think of now would be scientific puposes by certified institutes.) e.g. being buried on private property or taking ashes home is illegal.
I’m with the folks above who feel giving consent to the murderer before being murdered does not make it OK, for the simple fact that the capacity to give such consent is a clear sign of an unsound mind. A sociopath should not be treated leniently because he happened to prey upon the emotionally disturbed. Quite the opposite. The fact the German courts seem not to have a mechanism to deal with this obvious problem leads me more than ever to beleive that something about the German judicial system must be seriously nuts.
Well, if wanting to be eaten is sufficent to be considered insane and not responsible for one’s actions, shouldn’t wanting to eat someone be considered similarly? I don’t see how one guy can be disturbed and incompetent and the other just disturbing.
That if someone wants to die (and in a certain way), they’re of “unsound” mind. That just seems like forcing down the perceived “base ethos” of humanity down all individuals. But this ethos is just the dominant one, not some universally fundamental one (obviously, else humanity as is known wouldn’t be as is known).
The only reason to deter such events is to stop someone abusing the precedent (i.e. make a crime look like it was voluntary).
The most disturbing thing of all is that Brandes was not the first volunteer to respond to Meiwes’ ad.
According to testimony there were two other men who responded to Meiwes’ ad and went to his house to be eaten. Both changed their mind at the last moment. One was already up on his “meat hook” in his “butcher room” when he changed his mind. Meiwes apparently had no problem that these men changed their mind as its stated that they then “fooled around” and watched a movie together.
So its not like it was some freak event, apparently there are a number of men in Germany with fantasies of being killed and eaten.
Many men would love to die in bed after making love to a beautiful woman. That is to die a certain way. I think that most would not think that most (including
minty green) would not find this insane.
It seems as if Meiwes took advantage of Brandes’ mental state and killed him (BTW Kevorkian did the same thing). That is murder IMHO. If Brandes had some painful terminal illness things might be different.
This overlooks my point, which is that Brandes’ possessing that mental state doesn’t automatically render him insane and thus “being taken advantage of” as opposed to any other activity. In fact, all voluntary activity requires taking advantage of an agreeable mental state.
Your third sentence exemplifies the third sentence in my first post here.
Don’t have a cite, but didn’t Anton LaVey claim that he and some other members of his Group of Happy People ate the flesh of someone who had given them permission to? Not that they killed him, I think the party was on after the guy’s “natural” death.
Anyway… Say I want to kill myself. No biggie - lots of people do it for various reasons. I then see an ad from a lone nut somewhere who wants to try Human meat. I think: “That’s very interesting, maybe I’ll help the bugger out.” If cannibalism is not illegal in that particular country, I have a problem with the eater being sentenced for murder, or even manslaughter for that matter.
Keep in mind that Army could have killed a vagrant (which I believe is more common in cases like these, which I think happen more often than you think - forbidden fruit and all that) and eaten him with very little chances of being found out. But, being the philanthropist (sp?) that he is, he couldn’t kill a fellow human being so he just put out an ad to find someone who would be interested in his shananigans (sp?). More than one man answered and of course he didn’t do anything to those who changed their minds.
Calling the German justice system “seriously nuts” for giving him 8,5 years for this is grossly over the top, although I fail to see why he wasn’t put in an asylum instead. Also: this could have happened anywhere, and I’m sure it does - why are so many of you treating this like a “German problem”? Remember Albert Fish? There is an example of a seriously deranged old man, you probably like his sentence more - he got the chair at 65 years old. Thank God that for every “seriously nuts” judicinal system in the world we have the fair and just American one that will happily kill an old man despite the fact that said old man epitomized insanity.
People take advantage of other people all of the time without insanity being an issue. Assuming that Brandes was in perfect health, it was wrong to kill him and Meiwes should be punished for it and not a lesser crime.
That’s interesting. So the fact that anyone wants to commit suicide is the problem, or the problem that since they’re going to die anyway they might as well be eaten? Because sane people would only stick their corpse in the ground to be ravaged by anerobic bacteria and/or creatures living in the ground, which is “obviously” much more wholesome. Minty, I’d like more clarification from you, as well, as to what exactly makes this guy crazy in your eyes.
Do you suppose Brandes could open a line of credit, signed a check, written a will, be party to a contract for labor, or any of the other things that involve a sound mind and consent?
Well the murder Meiwes committed was wrong regardless of his sanity. The one way the sanity of Meiwes would matter would be if he met the legal definition of being insane.
Well I do have a problem with people wanting to commit suicide but that is besides the point. The problem with this situation is that it was not suicide. The eating of the victim afterwards while gross and creepy only obscures that issue.
Actually, I’d say it was suicide and the eating of the body afterwards obscures the issue. The guy wanted to die. Isn’t that why he responded to the ad? Or do you suppose he said, “Wait, you mean I have to die to be consumed? No! No! Stop! Bad!” That would be evidence, to me, of insanity. Or at the very least chronic and severe stupidity.
I think the minimum requirement for those countries that allow assisted suicide is that the person wishing to die be of sound mind. I’m pretty sure the “soundness” of the person’s judgement must be determined by a licensced professional before the assisted suicide can proceed, and a licensed professional competent to render such serviced is the only sort of person with the vested power to render another human being dead per request.
Meiwes credentials wouldn’t pass muster in any country. Plus, eating the remains isn’t something even Kevorkian would have considered part of the whole bargain. Brandes was depressed, and, obviously, as the videotaped evidence clearly shows, the sort of person who would eat his own penis. I simply cannot imagine anyone in the field of psychiatry anywhere in the world who would be willing to attest to Brandes’ “soundness of mind”. Furthermore, although Meiwes could be called “competent” to stand trial, in that he understood the wrongness of his actions (he even apologized to Brandes’ lover), he’s not “sane”. I’m sorry, but a guy who eats another man’s penis with him, butchers human beings for culinary sport, hangs dates up on meat hooks as a prelude to the act, etc., is most certifiably in-fucking-sane. How this could be a debatable point is quite beyond me.
What is still way beyond my comprehension also is that, in the German courts, there was even room for debate.