The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090227/NEWS0107/902270346/1055/NEWS


This is just sick. I don't know how someone could look at a corpse, and get aroused. The story says that they are considering increasing the penalty from one year to 5 years per conviction. I hope this guy gets locked away for a long time, and I also hope that once convicted, the families of the deceased get to address this guy in person.

Reading about this makes me wanna hurl. 

  Heard once that things like this happen far more often that what you think.  I knew the percentage at one time, but have forgotten it.  It was a high percentage though of coroners having sex with a patient.

I'm sure that the percentage of coroners bonking corpses is unsettling high. You have to wonder about the type of guy that a job like that attracts.

This is pretty sick and disturbing, but not entirely surprising.

However, I thought that it was interesting that the prosecutor was trying to get the maximum sentence raised.  Again, not to discount how disgusting this is, but frankly, I'm more concerned with the penalties for crimes against the living.

A year in jail for having sex with a cadaver sounds about right.  5 years makes me think, "what would this guy's sentence have been if he had mugged someone instead?"  I'm not going to say that crimes against the dead are victimless crimes, but they certainly aren't comparable to crimes against the living.

As an example, there have been several instances of crematoriums dumping bodies and giving fake ashes to the families; I think a crime like that should primarily be prosecuted as fraud against the living, not bodily abuse of the dead.

^^^

That's a good point.

Even though I don't believe in any afterlife, I still get the willies thinking of some dude ramming my corpse.

I think this is sort of like a form of vandalism.  A corpse is private property of the family, and banging the dead body is damaging that property, in an irreplaceable way.  It has lots of sentimental value.

It's such a weird blend of things, that I'm having trouble logically mapping it out.  Freaky weird, though, but nowhere near as bad as raping the living, IMO.

I'm making the most disgusted face right now and actually have no words. Whoa.

This is the interesting Part:   


As I tried to rationalize this sickness in my head somehow.........Here is a really lonely fellow, this hot 19 yr old dead chick was just alive a few hours before...........

Then I read these people were partially beheaded, strangled and mutilated. Whole new sicko picture here. This guy needs to be seperated from society forever.

I feel for the Victims families who now have to deal with thier loved ones being violated again.

I'd need to see pictures of the corpses before passing judgment here....

;D

That's only because you're alive.  If you were dead, you probably wouldn't mind.

Then I think it's fair to prosecute it as vandalism or some other sort of destruction-of-property statute.  But particularly when it comes to the dead, I think that having sex with them should (legally) be no worse than if he were to have mutilated them.

With a living person, raping them is arguably worse than just beating them up because of the complex psychological effects of being a victim of rape.  The dead have no such worries.

Let this guy bang your recently deceased daughter or loved one and then tell me you think the same punishment applies to the guy who just spry painted Fuck you on the side of the wall at 7-11............

Let that guy spray paint "Fuck you" on the side of your 7-11 and then tell me you think the same punishment doesn't apply.

Letting the victims determine what the proper punishment should be is the very opposite of objectiveness.

  Where did I say the Victim decided anything ?  You usually don't make alot of sense............today you outdid yourself.  ::)

I wonder if Ohio has a Sexually Violent Predators Act, similar to Florida's Jimmy Rice Act. If it does, and "abuse of a corpse" fits under the definition of "sexually violent offense," I have a feeling that Mr. Douglas will never see the light of day again.

Unless you're saying that you consider the dead person to be the "victim"?   (of... rape?)

Your entire point was that "if it happened to your family, you wouldn't think it's just vandalism."  Letting the victims determine the scope of a crime is among the worst ideas one can implement in a justice system.

He made total sense.

In the case you made, with my dead daughter, I would be the surviving victim of the crime you're suggesting, and you're asking ME (the aforementioned victim) to then decide what I think is fair punishment.

Spider Dan was correct to the letter.  If you're going to call someone out and make roll-eyes, at least make sure you're right.

 

I wouldn't want anyones daughters, mothers, grandmothers subjected to that after death.  Anyone dealing with the violent death , Sorry I didn't include the word ANYONE. But anyone dealing with that kind Trauma shouldn't have to again deal with the fact that there loved one's remains were now desecrated.  You guys make a hideous comparison.........comparing the Human Remains of a person to an object and equal to any "THING" that could be Vandalized. And You say That I'm letting the Victims decide the crime or punishment?  I'm sorry did this happen to me? Did it happen to you? Who here is a Victim?  It called Empathy.  Do you know what Empathy is?

The Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

Basically its putting yourselves into another's shoes. I was asking how you would feel if it was your relative or loved one would you like the Law or anyone representing them as an inanimate object? Just a thing?   

My Family your family Anyone's family.  Its sad that I have to actually point that out.  And Yes I consider a recently deceased person should be protected.  How about people in Brain dead coma's? Should they not be protected as well?  We have people here who go on and on about New Born fetuses...........but we don't respect the Body of a living person over an inanimate object? Is it equal to a living body with a soul and a memory?  Of course not.............but it is certainly higher on the list then a THING and it means a hell of alot to the families and Victims .

Using those rolling eyes again Dave.................. ::)   Your arguments deserve it.

"Putting yourself into another's shoes" is removing your objectivity.

You are asking how I would feel if it happened to someone in my family; of course I would be outraged.  But as I already said, letting the victims determine the scope of a crime (and therefore, the level of punishment) is one of the worst ideas you can implement in a justice system.

Once again: your entire argument is that this should be treated more seriously because the victimized families would think so.  How can this be anything BUT "letting the victims determine the punishment"?

If you really think that the punishment needs to be more severe, then you shouldn't need to invoke the feelings of the victimized families to substantiate your point.

Isn't that what creating Laws is about?  Why do we have laws that are enhanced for children , Pregnant women, handicapped people?  Because we try to protect those that can't protect themselves.  And I believe and I am trying to make the case that when you desecrate the remains of a persons loved ones.........especially a loved one that has past away within just a few hours, you deeply affect the people that that person has left behind.  At the very least..........its alot different then just the  vandalism of a piece of property.

This whole conversation was brought up because you and Dave suggested that the Raping of a Corpse is within the same realm as Vandalizing a piece of property.  Besides being completely uncaring and extremely insensitive you keep claiming I'm asking for this from a Victims point of view.

I ask you again..........Are you a Victim?  Has your departed loved one ever been raped?   No.  So you are NOT a Victim.

Now I ask your completely unbiased and unvictimized opinion then..............how would You feel if your recently deceased , daughter, wife, or mother were desecrated in such a fashion?   And do you believe that their remains are the same as any other inanimate object that might be vandalized by another?

If so Then I ask you again..............have you ever buried a loved one? Have you ever had a ceremony for a loved one?  Did you do that for a Car you might have lost? Or any Item or inanimate object you might have thats important to you that someone could Vandalize? Why is that?  So how can you say thats its the same as any inanimate object?

 

So to clarify:

You just confirmed that I am NOT a victim, but then ask me how I would feel if I were one.  If I were a victim, then my opinion would no longer be objective.  So your premise is fundamentally flawed.

If you want to ask me how I would feel if I were NOT a victim, it's not that hard.  Scroll up.

Ohhhhh I see now. So its about how I asked the question and not the actual content?  Give me a break and stop deflecting already.  You made a dumb statement. I explained why.  Is it so hard to just answer a fucking question without putting labels on your train of thought? Thats obviously what people do when they have nothing else.

Yes, it is about how you asked the question, because if you asked the question any differently, you'd get a completely different answer!

Once more: are you asking me what I think the consequences should be as someone that's not involved?  Of course you are not; I've already clearly stated that I don't think that the penalties should be increased.

The entire premise of your question is "put yourself in someone else's shoes...", which I refuse to do.  If you want to ask the question in a way that does NOT involve an emotional-victim-response, then I'll be happy to answer it.

I'll tell you what I'd like............how about an honest fucking answer ?  Either you believe that a persons corpse is as valuable as any inanimate object or you don't.  You refuse to do it becuase you made a dumb statement and you don't want to live up to it.  ::)

I don't even understand what you're asking for.  Are you seriously bashing me for being too cowardly to say what I've already said?  If so, the best response I can give is: try actually reading the thread.

Doesn't that clearly explain my position when I'm not being asked to pretend I'm the victim?

No it doesn't explain shit actually.   I've given several reasons why a corpse is more valuable then an inanimate object and why the comparison is absurd.  DUH. We all know your position .............but can you take a second and explain why?

What's to explain?  It's a dead body.  It is not a living person with rights and responsibilities.

Does this dead body carry a great amount of significance to the people who have legal custody of it?  Yes.  But that is no basis for wildly increasing sentences.

Again, to put this in perspective: the "victims" in this case are the family; the same people who were preparing to put this body in a hole in a ground to be eaten by worms while it rotted away.  Or maybe they were preparing to incinerate it.

In any case, my point is not that the families have not suffered an injustice, nor that the criminals should be let free.  My point is that crimes against the living should carry significantly stiffer penalties than crimes against those who are already dead.  It is utterly absurd for a criminal such as the person in the original post to go to jail for 5 years for having sex with a corpse... yet the drunk driver who MADE the corpse gets out in the same time frame.

Spider dan you are right.  you will just frustrate yourself arguing w someone who will never understand.

Just a hypothetical:

What about characterizing crimes against dead bodies as a crime against a living person, with the chose in action automatically transferring to the heirs at law at the moment knowledge of the crime is ascertained? Do you think it would be wise for a state to do this? Constitutional?

I can't speak to the constitutionality of it, but I think it would be a slap in the face to the living if such a change were to be implemented.

Agree, but just thinking of the possible consequences of saying that the abuse of a dead body can only be prosecuted if the family of the deceased files a complaint (which they'd have to, I think, unless the coroner were caught in the act by the authorities capable of immediate arrest). What if the deceased had no ascertainable family, like a drifter or an immigrant? Hypothetically, then, no charges could be brought against the perpetrator of the crime, because no one would be there to complain. But this seems inequitable.

However, if one treated the crime as though it (the chose in action to bring a complaint) were the the property of the deceased, acquired while living (and therefore devisable) then the state could still prosecute because it, even if the heirs at law were nowhere to be found, would receive the chose in action for the crime via escheat.

Can your IQ permit you to state why?  Just once I'd like to hear an intelligent argument out of you spongy.

Fair enough. At least you are acknowledging that a dead body is more then just some piece of property.

My Argument is that a person capable of doing this to a dead body might be capable of alot worse. So I think you made a good point about the drunk driver getting out before the person who desecrated the body.  However after the 1 year prison sentence I would like to see the person on at least 10 years Probation and possibly a sexual offender status for life mandatory.  This person needs to be monitored.

A dead body is personal property.

That sounds cold as hell, but it's the truth.  A dead body has no rights of any kind, but the family of that body (or the state) holds those rights.  A dead body is essentially extremely sentimental personal property.

There are many forms of vandalism, so picking out the cliche "spray painting a wall" (an object which holds no sentimentality and can be easily repaired) is terrible, terrible comparison. 

I am literally laughing my ass off right now.  This thread is completely useless due to this one instant classic, best one-liner of TDMMC EVER.

I beg to differ. Its Still the remains a living being that need to be protected.  Should pictures of a nude corpse be public knowledge then?  Isn't a person who is recently deceased allowed privacy? Why is that if its only property like you described? A persons body, especially a few hours after death needs to be protected and the persons rights of privacy and decency upheld.

And my comparison is spot on if you want to compare a crime like having sex with a corpse to vandalism. Vandalism includes mostly damage to property.  You can't have it both ways Dave.

Is it possible to commit arson on a property that has no legal owner?  That's the closest parallel I can think of.

^Is that possible?  From a title holder to a creditor...is it possible to have a burnable property that literally has NO owner?

I mean, I guess... if no individual owned the property, then the state would own it and could prosecute. However, I have no doubt that the state can prosecute only because it has an interest in future transfer or use of the property.

But with a dead body, it's different. Even if the state is said to "own" that property, what future interest does it have that is damaged by the body's mutilation? The state has no interest in the body other than quick, efficient disposal, I would imagine, and the mutilation of the body would not interfere with this interest. Without such a legally cognizable interest, I don't know that there'd be any standing to bring a complaint or prosecute.

Yes :

Florida S.S 806.01 (2)

Any person who willfully and unlawfully, in the commission of an felony, by fire or explosion , damages or causes damage to ANY structure , wheather the property of himself, herself or another , under ANY circumstances is guilty of Arson in the second degree.

 I also looked up the statutes for Criminal mischief as well.  damaging the Property of any person equals $200 or less its a Misdemeanor of the 2nd degree. Over $200 but less than $1000 and its a 1st degree misdemeanor. Over $1000 and its a Felony.
Just curious.........How would you put a price on a deceased body? Would a child be worth more then a 70 year old corpse?  ::)

From what I checked into......No.  Like stated above........if no one claims it from a bank or a person then its the cities or the county that's charged with its up keep and keeping it safe for the rest of the Population. (keeping it locked and boarded for example and not letting the grass and trees effect the rest of the block its on. So they would take it over.

Doesn't that bother you?  Would you want Nude photos of yourself or a loved one in a morgue made public?  My whole point is that a recently deceased body is more then just a piece of property like Dave and Spider said. Its much more and crimes to it should reflect that.

What are you talking about?  Pictures of private property aren't public property either.

The reason that your "spray painting a wall" example suck so bad is that 1) there is no sentimental attachment and 2) it is easily reversed whereas 1) a dead body is perhaps the most sentimental inanimate object in our society and 2) it is an un-reversible crime.  You can't up-rape a dead body, but you can wash off the paint.

A more appropriate example (and still not perfect) would be if you have a trinket (let's say a watch that doesn't work) passed down in your family for generations.  Your family fought for it, died for it, suffered extreme hardships, and it is the only thing passed on to you.  You have a great attachment to this otherwise valueless piece of junk.  One day, you will pass it on to your child.  ...then someone breaks into your house and maliciously and intentionally smashes it with a hammer until there is nothing left of it.

Pictures of that watch wouldn't be public knowledge anymore than pictures of a dead body. 


There is a range of severity in vandalism crimes, like I stated above.  You compared the least offensive kind, reversible damage to non-sentimental objects to the most severe, un-reversible damage to the most sentimental of objects.  Your example is coming two poles.

I don't know what you mean by "have it both ways".  I think you're using the wrong cliche.

I agree, I think calling a dead body "property" is somewhat misleading. But from the law's perspective, that's what it is.

I answered that right after that post.  The City is charged with keeping the property safe and up to date to code like any other property in the area if it becomes abandoned. Therefore the City or county becomes the owner and the Victim .  When this happens you will find a tresspass notice by the city or county somewhere on the premises stating that fact in the state of Florida.

^^

I saw. I deleted my post because I realized.