Coroner has sex with multiple corpses

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[SCFinfan]

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.

[Defense54]

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

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

[Defense54]

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.

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.

[Dave Gray]

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. 

[MaineDolFan]

I still get the willies thinking of some dude ramming my corpse.

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.

[Defense54]

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 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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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

[MaineDolFan]

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

[SCFinfan]

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

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.

[Defense54]

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

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?  

[Defense54]

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

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.

[Defense54]

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.

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[SCFinfan]

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.

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