If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
German cannibal manslaughter retrial
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
\
0
Comments
You could call it euthanasia in a sense, but I think anybody who wants to be eaten alive can't be right in the head, at least in my opinion. If somebody helped to kill a teenager with depression because they were suicidal, would this also be "euthanasia" or murder?
Euthanasia can be the humane thing in some cases, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
In my opinion killing for pleasure can never be right in any circumstances.
Quite... he should ultimatley be locked away or shot, imho. We cannot let him out, even if we wish too and he says he has no desire to hurt innocent people... I mean, he just IS a risk. Look what has happened when we have let paedophiles who claim to and appear to be fine, out... they often offend again, or use the internet to find child pornography.
God, bad taste film making or what? I shouldn't be supprised, though, I suppose.
The main contention, by all accounts, is that Meiwes and his meal (nice terminology, eh) were consenting adults so by what right (and at what point) can the state interfere in their weird relationship? Say they'd been discovered before Brandes was dead, what would the charges be against Meiwes? Especially if the victim wouldn't press charges?
Course the obvious argument is that the victim was as mad as a hatter, and therefore he wasn't capable of judging what was in his own interests. Convention would tell us that he was mad...but there's no solid evidence that he was so (mainly because he's dead). The prosecution's evidence that he was mad was the fact that he wanted to be eaten. And why did Meiwes want to eat him? Because he, too, was mad.
If he'd kidnapped someone 'Silence of the Lambs' style, and then eaten their penis, it would be a straightforward case. The fact is that I think they were/are both seriously unhinged, which makes it a much more complex case than the scenario I just mentioned.
All said, I think they should throw away the key because it's sickening stuff. I'm just not sure for what crime he should have been imprisoned, and I don't think it's as black and white as people make out.
Nothing has been taken in this case.
Other people's business is no business of yours. You might think they are crazy, but so what?
When the guy becomes a danger to non volunteers then there are already procedures in place to deal with him.
Yes but did you read the bit at the bottom, saying that he was helping German filmakers make a film about it? I mean, come on!
Manslaughter almost never means 'accidentally killing' someone though - if you accidentally kill some one you shouldn't be charged with any crime. It is if you recklessly kill someone (rather than intending to do them serious harm) or kill them while committing another crime that most countries have a crime of 'manslaughter'. I don't know what the German law says. In the UK this would either be murder, or manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility if he could show that he was suffering from an 'abnormality of mind' that diminished his mental responsibility. Which seems in line with what he argued in his first trial.
Back firmly on topic... in English law, at least, the consent of the victim isn't a defence to a charge of serious assault, and so definately not to murder. The case that decided that concerned a sado-masochistic group who were convicted of committing actual bodily harm and wounding against each other. Whether that should be the law or not is often questioned but we've had a situation for a long time whereby the victim's consent doesn't stop the acts being considered criminal.