Rough Justice?

[dingbat (imported)]

This is old news and may well have been discussed before but I'd like to know what people thought about it?

Armin Meiwes Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes)

In a nutshell, Meiwes belonged to an internet site, advertised for a willing participant in some type of BDSM. His advert said he was looking for "“a well-built 18 to 30-year-old to be slaughtered and then consumed.” Bernd Brandes responded to the advert. To cut a long story short, the pair met, both agreed. Meiwes then made a videotape in which it is clear that Brandes was a willing participant. Brandes instructed Meiwes to bite his penis off. Meiwes tried but couldn't do it and so he cut it off with a knife. They both tried to eat it but it was too 'tough' and so Meiwes cooked it. Meiwes then gave Brand painkillers and alcohol and proceeded to kill him. The entire thing is on videotape.

Meiwes was then arrested in 2002 because he was advertising for a new participant.

What interests me is this :

He was originally convicted of manslaughter and given 8 1/2 years. This was appealed by the prosecution in 2005. They won the appeal and he had a retrial, he was then sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 2006.

I don't pretend to even begin to understand what would make someone agree to this, or what would make anyone WANT to do this to someone else, but it seems fairly clear that Brandes was a willing participant and that Meiwes was entirely honest about his intentions.

I'm going to the US soon to take part in an appeal for a case (which has nothing to do with this or this type of thing) but my interest in the Meiwes sentencing stems from the fact that, in the appeal I'm involved with, the defendants were mainly convicted on public opinion, public disapproval of their lifestyles. In fact, in my case, there's NO other evidence THAN a disapproval of lifestyles of the defendants but it's similar in a way because it seems that people are allowed to judge others on the basis of collective morals.

I think this raises dodgy legal questions. If someone is over the age of consent (not a minor, however your country defines minor) and they are not incapable due to some other reason of making an informed decision, then do we have any right to judge that?

I might hate what Meiwes did (in fact, I do!) but that's not the point.

Did he have a right to do it?

Did Brandes have a RIGHT to allow himself to be killed?

Should it matter what lifestyle someone has?

The whole thing reminds me of 'The Outsider' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel)) by Albert Camus (sometimes known as 'The Stranger') where a man is convicted of the murder of a third party mostly because the jury thought he was a 'bad person' (he didn't cry at his mother's funeral, that was mainly what convicted him!), no actual evidence.

The case I'm involved with is a death penalty case, more or less up to the final appeals stage now. The guilt or innocence of the particular defendant seems irrelevant to many of the people involved, it's about 'right' and 'wrong', 'moral' Vs 'ammoral'.

Is that the kind of world we live in?

[Kangan (imported)]

The guilt or innocence of the particular defendant seems irrelevant to many of the people involved, it's about 'right' and 'wrong', 'moral' Vs 'ammoral'.

Is that the kind of world we live in?

Sadly, yes. I know from personal experience what can happen when you are accused of a "victimless crime" or a "consensual but prohibited act."

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

I will say once again: consent is not a defence recognized in law! A person can not consent to an act that is otherwise illegal. This is based on prescedent not on statute law and goes way, way back to English common law. In my opinion it has to do with the undermining of "proper authority" as much as with the possibility of coercion of the victim. --FLO--

[jemagirl (imported)]

It's good that you chose such an extreme example to consider in regard to your question. Had you simply asked about assisted suicide for some one who is terminally ill I would have said it should not be a crime. In contrast to the Armin Meiwes Case, my knee jerk reaction is that it should be illegal. So now I have to think about why I feel so differently about the two different scenarios.

If we take out the S&M sex factor both scenarios become more or less cases of assisted suicide. Also taking out the sex factor helps keep us from prejudicing our selves for or against the Armin Meiwes Case.

The main difference between to two cases then becomes the presence of a terminal illness. In this country it is generally illegal to assist some one in the act of Suicide. The state of Oregon is a notable exception with their assisted suicide law, which the federal government has been trying overturn since the law went into effect. Never the less the State of Oregon will allow assisted suicide under very narrowly defined circumstances.

I am not absolutely sure but I believe that suicide is considered a crime where the victim is the person committing suicide. I know that a person can be held for a period of time in a mental hospital under 5150 if they are considered to be a threat to themselves or others.

I suppose this all eventually boils down to the question - Does a person have the right to end their life in the time and manor of their own choosing. Apparently in this country the answer for no. Even in Oregon, the state asserts it's authority over life and death.

I think of the Armin Meiwes Case as being about suicide, and suicide is not in my opinion a life style. I think this is a good distinction although I could easily see how some one can play devils advocate.

Jema

[Blaise (imported)]

I will say once again: consent is not a defence recognized in law! A person can not consent to an act that is otherwise illegal. This is based on prescedent not on statute law and goes way, way back to English common law. In my opinion it has to do with the undermining of "proper authority" as much as with the possibility of coercion of the victim. --FLO--

Yes, that seems exactly the situation, at least, from my little common sense point-of-view. The initial question, however, is on target. Do we have ultimate control over whether we live or die as individual human beings? Your opinions intrigue me. I have no answer to the question--at time moment.

[jemagirl (imported)]

This is old news and may well have been discussed before but I'd like to know what people thought about it?

Armin Meiwes Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes)

The case I'm involved with is a death penalty case, more or less up to the final appeals stage now. The guilt or innocence of the particular defendant seems irrelevant to many of the people involved, it's about 'right' and 'wrong', 'moral' Vs 'ammoral'.

Is that the kind of world we live in?

Hi Dingbat,

I missed your your last question, but it in my opinion the answer is a definite yes, in some cases. Although at other times people can be more objective when the big three are not involved ( sex, religion, politics ). Traffic court seems go alright most of the time. You wouldn't be likely to hear "Did you run the red light on your way to commit adultery?"

Also I forgot to mention earlier that I am unalterably against the death penalty, first and foremost on moral grounds, but I am also deeply concerned about the innocent lives lost to the inherent imperfections of our justice system. Even if we were ever able to perfect our justice system, which seems highly unlikely, I would still be against the death penalty. Still I do think we can do a much better job than we are doing now, and for as long as we do have a death penalty in this country, we owe to ourselves to do our very best that it is not carried out improperly.

[Douglas Adams (imported)]

In order

to perfect our justice system, w

e would have to first perfect people. Since our justice system is dependent upon decisions made by judges or juries (people) those decisions will always be subject to human prejudice and personal bias.

[jemagirl (imported)]

In order [quote="jemagirl (imported)" tim

e=1177384740]
to perfect our justice system, w

e would have to first perfect people. Since our justice system is dependent upon decisions made by judges or juries (people) those decisions will
[/quote]
always be subject to human prejudice and personal bias.

Exactly

[sapient (imported)]

From a practical side I think one would have to admitt that even if consent would be universally recognized as a possible reason for aquittal, there would always be problems of acertaining consent.

The Netherlands, where the possibility of euthanasia exist, have a very, very strict protocol for this. I have read some of the rules and regulations, and studied some of the yearly follow up reports. And there are a lot of things that the doctors involved have to document. In the follow up reports, all documentation in every individual case is scrutinized.

And that seems fair to me. We are talking about things that could be twisted and bent to coerce and bully someone if such rules were not in place. Especially people who are vulnerable to coersion for one reason or other. (If an elderly person in the Netherlands is applying, a doctor specificly has to ask whether anyone has said to them that they are "a burden". If so, they have to meet with a counselor that has to establish that this is not the primary motive, if I remember correctly.)

There are a lot of laws that are made up to "foster" people in the proper way of life. Decency laws for certain. Familiy law usually contains bundles of moralistic decrees. And a fair part of the penal code may also be seen as at least partly moralistic. (But some of that is fairly reasonable since even if there may be nothing more then the collective norm that says certain things are objectionable - the "damage" to the individual may be quite real from a psychological point of view anyway.)

I think that in order to make these prohibitions obsolete, there's has to some big changes to society first, so that we would be able to handle life with out them. But then, of course, comes the question of how we as a society would be able to change if the laws remain as they are...

At least I think we can say that the direction we're going now (most countries in the west anyway) is good. The speed may differ, but to my mind the last decades has seen privacy and respect win over "moral" and "right" time and time again. Small victories sometimes, and not without a lot of fight (especially in the US), but nonetheless.

Let's hope then, that the case your involved in will be one more of those victories...

[dingbat (imported)]

Ooh gosh, thanks for all these replies!

I need to clarify something since there are at least two people here who know which case I'm involved with; my case has nothing to do with 'consent' or otherwise of the victim, my interest stems from the fact that guilt was decided upon based on the alleged perpetrators's lifestyles. As it happens, it's a straight murder case, but there really isn't any evidence against the convicted defendants (no forensics and not even any real circumstantial evidence), it's based on the fact that the local community didn't like the type of lifestyles that the defendants chose to have. (As a slight aside, there's another individual, whom the majority of people seem to agree probably DID commit the actual crime, but he's never been charged with it! Very confusing!) Two of the defendants have more time, they weren't given the death penalty, one was, that makes his case slightly different and slightly more urgent.

I'm interested though in the comparisons to suicide and the suicide laws. In point of fact, assisted suicide in the Netherlands isn't legal, it has been decriminalised and that's slightly different (same as the drug laws, dope isn't legal, but it IS decriminalised, it's a sort of legal loophole but it has a lot of restrictions as people have pointed out). I don't know about the laws in Oregon but if anybody can point me to anything which outlines them, I'd be really interested.

The thing which interests me isn't so much about how the law stands today, it's about WHY it stands that way.

Uncle Flo is right to head back to English common law. One of the reasons that we, in the UK, have so much problem adhering to European Union law is that English common law often contradicts it. In this country, English common law takes precedence over European law.

You see my concern is this (and jemagirl heightened this with her comment "

So now I have to think about why I feel so differently about the two different scenarios.

") :

Here is a scenario :

Let's say I live a lifestyle which my neighbours' assume includes shagging my neighbour's sheep (in a state where beastiality is frowned upon but not illegal), no-one has proof that I'm doing that but they think I probably am, painting those pentagram (five-sided polygonic symbols associated with witchcraft) symbols on my front door, reading Aleister Crowley's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley) books, listening to heavy metals records and rarely go out and mix with the community.

Apart from that, I'm a really nice person. Keep myself to myself, never actually hurt anyone.

Then, one day, a neighbour is murdered in a seemingly ritualistic way. I had nothing to do with it (trust me, I didn't, this is hypothetical but I really didn't! ). There is no evidence. But I am arrested because all my neighbours think I'm 'a bit odd'.

What are the chances that I will be convicted by 'twelve good men and true' if my lifestyle comes out in court?