Public Defense

Corpse and (grave)robbers

By Gideon

The story, ofcourse, is about the three yoots from Wisconsin who were charged with sexually assaulting a 20 year old girl. Problem was, she was already dead.

The Appellate Court in Wisconsin got it right (as appellate courts are wont to do) and declared that this, obviously, cannot be a crime, since the woman was not alive.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in all their wisdom (as is their wont) reversed. [I guess I should be happy that this phenomenon doesn't seem limited to CT, but I ain't crackin' a smile.]

The sheer stupidity of the decision itself aside, the Supreme Court once again ignored the forest for the trees (as is their fundamental birthright). I’ll let Scott explain:

But there is a deeper failing in this decision.  While the Wisconsin Supreme Court focused on the question of whether a corpse can give consent (both an absurdity by definition and facile solution when faced with a hard choice), they failed to consider the far broader ramifications of the definition of a “person”.

If the word “person” is to include corpses, it opens a wide world of criminal conduct that no one intends.  Consider the criminal liability of the anthropologist in Wisconsin, messing around with people’s bones.  A “person” can be the victim of a homicide.  A corpse cannot, at least before this decisions.  What now?

Scott is absolutely correct. Wisconsonians (please don’t correct me if that’s wrong, I don’t give a damn), prepare to be convicted of murder for killing a dead man. Does Wisconsin have the death penalty? That would be the ultimate ironic punishment. Put to death for killing a dead man.

Sometimes I wonder if these Supreme Court judges write such opinions just to give us fodder. It has to be. There can be no other rational explanation.

As to the act of necrophilia itself…eh, I don’t have an opinion either way. I mean, aren’t vampires supposed to be sexy?

ShareThis

Full post as published by A Public Defender on July 10, 2008 (boomark / email).