3 more DUmmies in trouble

[Chris_]

MADISON, Wis. —  Wisconsin law bans sex with dead bodies, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in reinstating charges against three men accused of digging up a corpse to have sex with it.

The court waded into the grisly case after lower court judges ruled nothing in state law banned necrophilia. Those decisions prompted public outrage in Wisconsin and on the Internet, where one blogger wrote: "Doing the dirty with the dead OK in Wisconsin."

Not anymore, the court ruled in a 5-2 decision.

Justice Patience Roggensack, writing a majority opinion with three other justices, said state law bans sexual intercourse with anyone who does not give consent whether a victim is dead or alive at the time. Dead bodies obviously can't give consent, she said.

"A reasonably well-informed person would understand the statute to prohibit sexual intercourse with a dead person," she wrote.

MORE

[Chris_]

Justice Patience Roggensack, writing a majority opinion with three other justices, said state law bans sexual intercourse with anyone who does not give consent whether a victim is dead or alive at the time. Dead bodies obviously can't give consent, she said.

"A reasonably well-informed person would understand the statute to prohibit sexual intercourse with a dead person," she wrote.

Give that judge a pat on the head for that refreshing tidbit of logic from the bench!

[DumbAss Tanker]

The logic actually blows, dead bodies aren't "People" anymore, they are "Human remains."  That's why waivers aren't required for releasing personal information on them, for instance, which is something else to which they can't give consent post-mortem.  Not that I have a problem with the result factually, but ol' Patience is overstraining the reasoning so bad she has no room to get smarmy with the lower court judges over it.

[Chris_]

The logic actually blows, dead bodies aren't "People" anymore, they are "Human remains."  That's why waivers aren't required for releasing personal information on them, for instance, which is something else to which they can't give consent post-mortem.  Not that I have a problem with the result factually, but ol' Patience is overstraining the reasoning so bad she has no room to get smarmy with the lower court judges over it.

Unfortunately I agree with you, it is bad law.....and should be referred back to the legislature, but sometimes even a judge has to revert to "common sense".....

doc

[jinxmchue]

Frodo?!?!  NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, the guy on the right looks like Elijah Wood.

[Willow]

Well, I can see why the person needed to be dead!   

[Chris_]

The logic actually blows, dead bodies aren't "People" anymore, they are "Human remains."  That's why waivers aren't required for releasing personal information on them, for instance, which is something else to which they can't give consent post-mortem.  Not that I have a problem with the result factually, but ol' Patience is overstraining the reasoning so bad she has no room to get smarmy with the lower court judges over it.

Unfortunately I agree with you, it is bad law.....and should be referred back to the legislature, but sometimes even a judge has to revert to "common sense".....

doc

The name for that is Legislating From The Bench.

[dutch508]

The law in Wisconsin had been murky, and two dissenting justices insisted Wednesday that lawmakers did not mean to ban necrophilia but to allow assault charges when someone was raped and then killed.

The ruling reinstates attempted sexual assault charges against twin brothers Nicholas and Alexander Grunke and Dustin Radke, all 22. They face up to 10 years in prison if convicted.

Armed with shovels, a crowbar and a box of condoms, the men went to a cemetery in Cassville in southwestern Wisconsin in 2006 to remove the body of a 20-year-old woman killed the week before in a motorcycle crash, police said.

One of them had seen an obituary photo of the pretty nursing assistant and asked the others for help digging up her corpse so he could have sexual intercourse with it,  prosecutors said. They used the shovels to reach her grave  :beathorse:but were unable to pry the concrete vault open and fled after a car drove into the cemetery.

The men were discovered by a police officer responding to reports of a suspicious vehicle in the cemetery and charged with attempted sexual assault and theft. 

uh...

Now normally I would be saying: What were they thinking. However, in this case...

[Chris_]

The logic actually blows, dead bodies aren't "People" anymore, they are "Human remains."  That's why waivers aren't required for releasing personal information on them, for instance, which is something else to which they can't give consent post-mortem.  Not that I have a problem with the result factually, but ol' Patience is overstraining the reasoning so bad she has no room to get smarmy with the lower court judges over it.

If that were the case, then the state - or whoever else was interested - could harvest your organs, render your fat ass for the oil and process the rest of your "human remains" into Soylent Green; all without your permission, without seeking waivers, and without so much as consulting your next of kin.

Sorry, but I don't buy into your argument.

[Chris_]

The logic actually blows, dead bodies aren't "People" anymore, they are "Human remains."  That's why waivers aren't required for releasing personal information on them, for instance, which is something else to which they can't give consent post-mortem.  Not that I have a problem with the result factually, but ol' Patience is overstraining the reasoning so bad she has no room to get smarmy with the lower court judges over it.

If that were the case, then the state - or whoever else was interested - could harvest your organs, render your fat ass for the oil and process the rest of your "human remains" into Soylent Green; all without your permission, without seeking waivers, and without so much as consulting your next of kin.

Sorry, but I don't buy into your argument.

In the absence of legislation, that is exactly the situation.  Once the person dies, the body becomes property and control is given to someone.  Once it is in the ground, the body itself is no longer property unless there is legislation covering "molesting" the corpse -- which there is in many jurisdictions.  Digging a body up is a trespass and vandalism, that is about it.

And there are serious discussions underway to make organ donating the default in the absence of express wishes not to.  Such legislation is perfectly acceptable.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The logic actually blows, dead bodies aren't "People" anymore, they are "Human remains."  That's why waivers aren't required for releasing personal information on them, for instance, which is something else to which they can't give consent post-mortem.  Not that I have a problem with the result factually, but ol' Patience is overstraining the reasoning so bad she has no room to get smarmy with the lower court judges over it.

If that were the case, then the state - or whoever else was interested - could harvest your organs, render your fat ass for the oil and process the rest of your "human remains" into Soylent Green; all without your permission, without seeking waivers, and without so much as consulting your next of kin.

Sorry, but I don't buy into your argument.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.  My opinion is that they could do all those things if there was a statute passed allowing them, though I don't think any legislature would be nuts enough to pass them currently.  Except the organ harvesting, anyway, where there is already a move to go to "Presumed consent" laws where you would have to affirmatively opt out.

[Chris_]

The logic actually blows, dead bodies aren't "People" anymore, they are "Human remains."  That's why waivers aren't required for releasing personal information on them, for instance, which is something else to which they can't give consent post-mortem.  Not that I have a problem with the result factually, but ol' Patience is overstraining the reasoning so bad she has no room to get smarmy with the lower court judges over it.

If that were the case, then the state - or whoever else was interested - could harvest your organs, render your fat ass for the oil and process the rest of your "human remains" into Soylent Green; all without your permission, without seeking waivers, and without so much as consulting your next of kin.

Sorry, but I don't buy into your argument.

In the absence of legislation, that is exactly the situation.  Once the person dies, the body becomes property and control is given to someone.  Once it is in the ground, the body itself is no longer property unless there is legislation covering "molesting" the corpse -- which there is in many jurisdictions.  Digging a body up is a trespass and vandalism, that is about it.

And there are serious discussions underway to make organ donating the default in the absence of express wishes not to.  Such legislation is perfectly acceptable.

The essence of what you're saying though is that once you assume room temperature, you cede authority over everything that was you and yours.  God, the Progressives and NeoComs would love for that to be the case, because not only would they harvest every usable organ, render your fat and process your remains into Soylent green, but they would find that such a principle would void any will you had drawn up, and ensure that the state became sole posessor of all your property and assets, to dispose of - or not - as they saw fit.  Any thoughts of passing the fruits of the sweat of your brow to your survivors and descendents would be superceded by the government's claim to ALL your remains - once you're too dead to defend them.

[JohnnyReb]

"Eight to eighty, blind, crippled or crazy and hasn't been dead over 3 days".....DAMN, I thought that was a joke.