Why is necrophilia illegal?

[reasonvemotion]

So gay sex should be illegal

So you are a gay boy, MisterMaggot?

[Gee]

I would assume that it would be illegal because there is no possibility of the corpse giving consent.

Of course, you could state that consent was given prior to death, but then one would have to assume that no significant change of circumstance would retract that consent. Death is usually considered a significant change of circumstance.

So at the least it is comparable to rape. I don't see why a legislature would have a problem calling this a crime no matter what morals were involved.

Gee

[chaz wyman]

I would assume that it would be illegal because there is no possibility of the corpse giving consent.

Of course, you could state that consent was given prior to death, but then one would have to assume that no significant change of circumstance would retract that consent. Death is usually considered a significant change of circumstance.

So at the least it is comparable to rape. I don't see why a legislature would have a problem calling this a crime no matter what morals were involved.

Gee

A corpse is not a person, so the question about consent does not apply. I'm not sure why there is a law against it. In the normal run of events, laws are only made in response to some need. First lawmakers would have to acknowledge that such a practice was happening enough for it to warrant a response. It will be noted that Lesbianism avoided illegality as no one was willing to acknowledge it as a practice, whereas male homosexuality was specifically made illegal.
Thus the case would be that at some point it was noticed that this practice upset someone enough for a statute to be addressed by Parliament. I would image that some bereaved husband got upset with a necrohiliac's activities??
The idea that the law was made "because a corpse cannot give consent" is probably a post hoc rationalisation.

[rantal]

Well here is one argument against it, imagine some time after it is legalised. Necrophiliacs petition parliment citing the case of a man who claims he was born a necrophiliac and since his passion does no harm to anyone it should be legalised. I have argued with him that his perversion is a choice but he will not have it, claiming that he feels no attraction to the living, only to the dead and that therefore he should be allowed to marry his corpse

all the best, rantal

[John K]

Poor women, what are they going to do?

[chaz wyman]

Well here is one argument against it, imagine some time after it is legalised. Necrophiliacs petition parliment citing the case of a man who claims he was born a necrophiliac and since his passion does no harm to anyone it should be legalised. I have argued with him that his perversion is a choice but he will not have it, claiming that he feels no attraction to the living, only to the dead and that therefore he should be allowed to marry his corpse

all the best, rantal

You seem to have made a case for it, not against it.

[rantal]

[/color]

Well here is one argument against it, imagine some time after it is legalised. Necrophiliacs petition parliment citing the case of a man who claims he was born a necrophiliac and since his passion does no harm to anyone it should be legalised. I have argued with him that his perversion is a choice but he will not have it, claiming that he feels no attraction to the living, only to the dead and that therefore he should be allowed to marry his corpse

all the best, rantal

You seem to have made a case for it, not against it.

My appologies for not making it clear, I had presumed the bainful effect on society of people marrying dead people would be self-evident

all the best, urban

[Gee]

I would assume that it would be illegal because there is no possibility of the corpse giving consent.

Of course, you could state that consent was given prior to death, but then one would have to assume that no significant change of circumstance would retract that consent. Death is usually considered a significant change of circumstance.

So at the least it is comparable to rape. I don't see why a legislature would have a problem calling this a crime no matter what morals were involved.

Gee

A corpse is not a person, so the question about consent does not apply. I'm not sure why there is a law against it. In the normal run of events, laws are only made in response to some need.

The idea that the law was made "because a corpse cannot give consent" is probably a post hoc rationalisation.

Yes. You are correct, it was a rationalization. Although many strange cases come up in law, I never had the experience of a case involving necrophilia. I can't even remember studying anything like it and was wondering which branch of law it would turn up in--Criminal law? Probate law? Imagine some really rich gal, who marries some guy, then gets bored after a couple of years, and gets a boyfriend. So if she dies a few months later and wills her money and rights to her body to the boyfriend, leaving her husband with a minimal allowance, could he fight it in Probate Court on grounds of adultery? Sometimes law is fun.

But seriously, it is not too difficult to understand where the criminal aspect of this comes from--think history. How many heads were put up on pikes? How many people were crucified and left to rot so that people would know not to defy some authority? How many bodies have been dismembered by the victor to ensure people's compliance? Defiling bodies has a long tradition in history, so it is not difficult to see where a law could be written to prevent the defiling of a body.

So the question is, does necrophilia defile a body? And whose opinion counts? Although we should not identify the deceased person with the body, we do. We see an attack on the body as an attack on the person, as illogical as that is. So the opinions of the person who leaves a Will counts, and their family counts, and any religion that may hold sway over the family counts, and the local government counts. Although each of these parties hold authority over the body, none hold exclusive authority, and can be challenged by the other parties.

So I think that all parties would have to agree that this is not a defiling of the body--and that is very unlikely--so the law would see this as defiling of the body. A crime.

Still a rationalization, but a more reasoned one.

Gee

[chaz wyman]

[/color]

Well here is one argument against it, imagine some time after it is legalised. Necrophiliacs petition parliment citing the case of a man who claims he was born a necrophiliac and since his passion does no harm to anyone it should be legalised. I have argued with him that his perversion is a choice but he will not have it, claiming that he feels no attraction to the living, only to the dead and that therefore he should be allowed to marry his corpse

all the best, rantal

You seem to have made a case for it, not against it.

My appologies for not making it clear, I had presumed the bainful effect on society of people marrying dead people would be self-evident

all the best, urban

Most people married people appear dead soon after the honeymoon!

[rantal]

Most people married people appear dead soon after the honeymoon!

You have met som strange married people then

all the best, rantal

[chaz wyman]

Most people married people appear dead soon after the honeymoon!

You have met som strange married people then

all the best, rantal

Have you heard of humour?

[rantal]

Most people married people appear dead soon after the honeymoon!

You have met som strange married people then

all the best, rantal

Have you heard of humour?

Have you?

all the best, rantal

[reasonvemotion]

This being the case what are the legal justifications for the criminalization of necrophilia?

Necrophilia is classified as a mental disease. The perpetrators are essentially males, who "need" to have access to newly deceased bodies, whether they be buried or the person has access to bodies in morgues or funeral homes. If the necrophiliac cannot have this kind of access, then it stands to reason sexually motivated murders will and do occur.

"Jeff Dahmer (the serial killer) was unable to conform his conduct at the time that he committed the crimes because he was suffering from Necrophilia. Dahmer's affliction was described as being a 'cancer of the mind', a 'broken mind', and to believe that the man could simply resolve to stop thinking of sex with dead bodies that the thoughts would go away is just not realistic. Necrophilia is not a matter of freewill".

My question is should these sexually motivated murders be charged as "murder" or should "criminally insane" be the main focus in determining the ruling for murder for necrophilic gain.

[chaz wyman]

This being the case what are the legal justifications for the criminalization of necrophilia?

Necrophilia is classified as a mental disease. The perpetrators are essentially males, who "need" to have access to newly deceased bodies, whether they be buried or the person has access to bodies in morgues or funeral homes. If the necrophiliac cannot have this kind of access, then it stands to reason sexually motivated murders will and do occur.

Homosexuality, anal sex, and oral sex were once classified as a mental disease too.
People who exhibit a disease are not 'perpetrators" but "victims".
It does not 'stand to reason' that any necrophiliac is a murderer.
Nor does the assumption of maleness hold.
You are full of misandry that you seem to be living in a world of your own definition.
Where is your "evidence"??


"Jeff Dahmer (the serial killer) was unable to conform his conduct at the time that he committed the crimes because he was suffering from Necrophilia. Dahmer's affliction was described as being a 'cancer of the mind', a 'broken mind', and to believe that the man could simply resolve to stop thinking of sex with dead bodies that the thoughts would go away is just not realistic. Necrophilia is not a matter of freewill".

There are billions of people in the word. Is this your only example?

My question is should these sexually motivated murders be charged as "murder" or should "criminally insane" be the main focus in determining the ruling for murder for necrophilic gain.

It's a question I do not think you are interested in, given the means by which you choose to describe this 'problem'; you have already made up your mind.
The fact that a thing is not a matter of freewill is not, nor ever can be a reason to withhold punishment.

[reasonvemotion]

reasonvemotion wrote:

This being the case what are the legal justifications for the criminalization of necrophilia?

Necrophilia is classified as a mental disease. The perpetrators are essentially males, who "need" to have access to newly deceased bodies, whether they be buried or the person has access to bodies in morgues or funeral homes. If the necrophiliac cannot have this kind of access, then it stands to reason sexually motivated murders will and do occur.

C.W. wrote:

Homosexuality, anal sex, and oral sex were once classified as a mental disease too.

RE wrote:

Similarly there are conditions that were accepted as “normal” in the past, but are now classified as mental disorders (e.g., hypoactive sexual desire, sexual aversion disorder, and female orgasmic disorder).

People who exhibit a disease are not 'perpetrators" but "victims".

In the context of my post, I am referring to necrophilia as being classified as illegal and as such the person would be both perpetrator and victim.

It does not 'stand to reason' that any necrophiliac is a murderer.

Research has determined an alarming rate of homicide in order to obtain a body for subsequent sexual violation. Rosman and Resnick (1988) found that 42% of their study sample of necrophiles had murdered in order to obtain a body.

Nor does the assumption of maleness hold.

According to Forensic Psychiarty, the cases reported have actually involved males between the ages of 20 and 50 with occupations that provide ready access to corpses: gravediggers, mortuary attendants, orderlies, etc.

You are full of misandry that you seem to be living in a world of your own definition.
Where is your "evidence"??

Misandry? Where does that come into it? I am presenting fact after research.


"Jeff Dahmer (the serial killer) was unable to conform his conduct at the time that he committed the crimes because he was suffering from Necrophilia. Dahmer's affliction was described as being a 'cancer of the mind', a 'broken mind', and to believe that the man could simply resolve to stop thinking of sex with dead bodies that the thoughts would go away is just not realistic. Necrophilia is not a matter of freewill".

There are billions of people in the word. Is this your only example?

Although assumed rare, many have argued that necrophilia may be more prevalent than statistics imply, given that the act would be carried out in secret with a victim unable to complain and given the length of time which the necrophilia has been recognized.


My question is should these sexually motivated murders be charged as "murder" or should "criminally insane" be the main focus in determining the ruling for murder for necrophilic gain.

It's a question I do not think you are interested in, given the means by which you choose to describe this 'problem'; you have already made up your mind.

Your assumption.

The fact that a thing is not a matter of freewill is not, nor ever can be a reason to withhold punishment.

I disagree. According to the Criminal Justice System, if a mental illness has caused the "loss of free will" the perpetrator/victim has lost the ability to freely choose whether or not to recommit the offense, and therefore undeterrable through punishment. Theirs is not a moral defect, but instead a mental disease in need of medical treament.