Dead Consent in Wisconsin

chulbert · 10th July 2008, 01:19 PM

In a 5-2 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that necrophilia is illegal in the Badger State under existing sexual assault statutes:

Quote:

Justice Patience Roggensack, writing a majority opinion with three other justices, said state law bans sexual intercourse with anyone who does not give consent "whether a victim is dead or alive at the time."

To my layman mind this seems an interesting precedent. It states that even a corpse is "someone" and implies that even a corpse still meets the legal definition of "person". If so, what else happens to a corpse to which it does not consent? Clearly a person's will gives consent to a vast array of activities but does it cover everything? Can someone while alive give consent to sex after they are dead?

I envision some future lawsuit based on a technicality of consent resulting from this precedent. Thoughts?

Link.

casebro · 10th July 2008, 01:22 PM

I guess Chicago leads the way. There, the dead can even vote.

ponderingturtle · 10th July 2008, 01:22 PM

Bodies the exibit must not go to wisconsin, imagine the outrage at such slavery and mutilation!

casebro · 10th July 2008, 01:28 PM

Okay, so using that concept, 'natural' condoms made from sheep intestines is beastiality?

And soon, bodies will be piling up all over, since so many of the dead haven't given consent to either cremate or bury.

Nah, necrophilia is illegal because it is illegal, not because of lack of consent. If it is a lack of consent, then will the heirs be able to allow it? Or what if it's in Mom's will? What a way to say good-bye.

mrbaracuda · 10th July 2008, 02:27 PM

5-2? -2? 2 vote against it being illegal? Or did they have some 'I vote against everything out of principle'-Paultard?

quixotecoyote · 10th July 2008, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

5-2? -2? 2 vote against it being illegal? Or did they have some 'I vote against everything out of principle'-Paultard?

2 voted against necrophilia being categorized as sexual assault. You believe it is, I take it.

mrbaracuda · 10th July 2008, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

2 voted against necrophilia being categorized as sexual assault. You believe it is, I take it.

Hard to say whether to restrict it to living people or not, but I am surprised this issue comes up in 2008 anyway.

And excuse my inability to comprehend; I shouldn't do this so late.

Drudgewire · 10th July 2008, 03:28 PM

As of this ruling, necrophilia is only illegal in 19 states, and I was surprised to see Florida on there. Must be recent, since it used to be considered an underground tourist attraction right down to tour guides who could get people to "friendly" funeral homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia

fuelair · 10th July 2008, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

I guess Chicago leads the way. There, the dead can even vote.

But, in Chicago that is a tradition - grandfathered in from time past memory!!

TragicMonkey · 10th July 2008, 04:19 PM

How sad that in Wisconsin all the boys and ghouls can't have a good time.

Beerina · 11th July 2008, 07:05 AM

I suppose we have to keep digging up necrophelia stories for the titilation value alone.

In any case, you know what this decision means? Someone, somewhere, is gonna give consent for their body to be slammed after they die, and the laws thus can't stop it.

Be careful what you wish for, judges. You may just get it.

Drudgewire · 11th July 2008, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

I suppose we have to keep digging up necrophelia stories...

WildCat · 11th July 2008, 07:24 AM

This ruling will hit Wisconsin residents hard, especially with deer season so many months away. I mean, what resident of the badger state doesn't like a bit of fun with a cute little corpse after swilling a case of beer and downing some brats and cheese?

eta: oh well, those cheese hats have holes in them for a reason.

Ysidro · 11th July 2008, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Bodies the exibit must not go to wisconsin, imagine the outrage at such slavery and mutilation!

There's already outrage over the exhibit in regards to the possiblity of bodies belonging to executed Chinese prisoners who didn't give consent to be used as an exhibit in the first place!

But at least if it does get there they'll be safe from lechers!

Wolfman · 11th July 2008, 07:49 AM

I dunno...as weird as it sounds, I think I may agree somewhat with the principle of 'consent'.

Consider a situation where someone explicitly, prior to their death, states their willingness/desire to let someone engage in sexual acts with their body after their death. It is sick, it is disgusting...but should it be illegal? It doesn't hurt anybody at all. And the body belongs to the person who gave the permission for that act.

Whereas making illegal on the basis of consent -- ie. the perpetrator cannot prove that explicit consent was given prior to death -- avoids this issue.

I don't know...besides a general (and understandable) revulsion for such an act, can anyone give actual reasons why it should be illegal? (If, that is, consent were explicitly granted prior to death)

ponderingturtle · 12th July 2008, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

Hard to say whether to restrict it to living people or not, but I am surprised this issue comes up in 2008 anyway.

And excuse my inability to comprehend; I shouldn't do this so late.

So as pre death consent does not give any weight here, what sort of sexual crimes have been comitted against a corpse if you plasticize it and place their reproductive organs on display?

That must be some kind of highly illegal sexual assault.

ponderingturtle · 12th July 2008, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Ysidro

There's already outrage over the exhibit in regards to the possiblity of bodies belonging to executed Chinese prisoners who didn't give consent to be used as an exhibit in the first place!

But at least if it does get there they'll be safe from lechers!

There are two sets of exhibits, one with donated bodies from the west, one with legaly purchased bodies from china.

It is not that unusual that unclaimed bodies be sold.

ponderingturtle · 12th July 2008, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I dunno...as weird as it sounds, I think I may agree somewhat with the principle of 'consent'.

Consider a situation where someone explicitly, prior to their death, states their willingness/desire to let someone engage in sexual acts with their body after their death. It is sick, it is disgusting...but should it be illegal? It doesn't hurt anybody at all. And the body belongs to the person who gave the permission for that act.

Whereas making illegal on the basis of consent -- ie. the perpetrator cannot prove that explicit consent was given prior to death -- avoids this issue.

I don't know...besides a general (and understandable) revulsion for such an act, can anyone give actual reasons why it should be illegal? (If, that is, consent were explicitly granted prior to death)

I don't see any reason why it should be treated that differently from the many other things that people have done to their bodies after death.

From testing munitions, to being made into art, I don't see why sexual gratification is something so beyond the pale compared to those other things.

10th July 2008, 01:19 PM	#1
chulbert Muse Join Date: May 2002 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 725	Dead Consent in Wisconsin In a 5-2 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that necrophilia is illegal in the Badger State under existing sexual assault statutes: Quote: Justice Patience Roggensack, writing a majority opinion with three other justices, said state law bans sexual intercourse with anyone who does not give consent "whether a victim is dead or alive at the time." To my layman mind this seems an interesting precedent. It states that even a corpse is "someone" and implies that even a corpse still meets the legal definition of "person". If so, what else happens to a corpse to which it does not consent? Clearly a person's will gives consent to a vast array of activities but does it cover everything? Can someone while alive give consent to sex after they are dead? I envision some future lawsuit based on a technicality of consent resulting from this precedent. Thoughts? Link.
	Last edited by chulbert; 10th July 2008 at 01:21 PM.

10th July 2008, 01:22 PM	#2
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,797	I guess Chicago leads the way. There, the dead can even vote.
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,797	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

10th July 2008, 01:22 PM	#3
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,433	Bodies the exibit must not go to wisconsin, imagine the outrage at such slavery and mutilation!
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

10th July 2008, 01:28 PM	#4
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,797	Okay, so using that concept, 'natural' condoms made from sheep intestines is beastiality? And soon, bodies will be piling up all over, since so many of the dead haven't given consent to either cremate or bury. Nah, necrophilia is illegal because it is illegal, not because of lack of consent. If it is a lack of consent, then will the heirs be able to allow it? Or what if it's in Mom's will? What a way to say good-bye.
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,797	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

10th July 2008, 02:30 PM	#6
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Originally Posted by mrbaracuda 5-2? -2? 2 vote against it being illegal? Or did they have some 'I vote against everything out of principle'-Paultard? 2 voted against necrophilia being categorized as sexual assault. You believe it is, I take it.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

10th July 2008, 02:27 PM	#5
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	5-2? -2? 2 vote against it being illegal? Or did they have some 'I vote against everything out of principle'-Paultard?

10th July 2008, 03:15 PM	#7
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote 2 voted against necrophilia being categorized as sexual assault. You believe it is, I take it. Hard to say whether to restrict it to living people or not, but I am surprised this issue comes up in 2008 anyway. And excuse my inability to comprehend; I shouldn't do this so late.

10th July 2008, 03:28 PM	#8
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	As of this ruling, necrophilia is only illegal in 19 states, and I was surprised to see Florida on there. Must be recent, since it used to be considered an underground tourist attraction right down to tour guides who could get people to "friendly" funeral homes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

10th July 2008, 03:54 PM	#9
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by casebro I guess Chicago leads the way. There, the dead can even vote. But, in Chicago that is a tradition - grandfathered in from time past memory!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961

10th July 2008, 04:19 PM	#10
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,112	How sad that in Wisconsin all the boys and ghouls can't have a good time.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

11th July 2008, 07:05 AM	#11
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	I suppose we have to keep digging up necrophelia stories for the titilation value alone. In any case, you know what this decision means? Someone, somewhere, is gonna give consent for their body to be slammed after they die, and the laws thus can't stop it. Be careful what you wish for, judges. You may just get it.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

11th July 2008, 07:11 AM	#12
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by Beerina I suppose we have to keep digging up necrophelia stories...
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

11th July 2008, 07:24 AM	#13
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,101	This ruling will hit Wisconsin residents hard, especially with deer season so many months away. I mean, what resident of the badger state doesn't like a bit of fun with a cute little corpse after swilling a case of beer and downing some brats and cheese? eta: oh well, those cheese hats have holes in them for a reason.
	Last edited by WildCat; 11th July 2008 at 07:30 AM.

11th July 2008, 07:33 AM	#14
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Bodies the exibit must not go to wisconsin, imagine the outrage at such slavery and mutilation! There's already outrage over the exhibit in regards to the possiblity of bodies belonging to executed Chinese prisoners who didn't give consent to be used as an exhibit in the first place! But at least if it does get there they'll be safe from lechers!
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	__________________ This is a sig file. Does anyone even read this stuff?

11th July 2008, 07:49 AM	#15
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,811	I dunno...as weird as it sounds, I think I may agree somewhat with the principle of 'consent'. Consider a situation where someone explicitly, prior to their death, states their willingness/desire to let someone engage in sexual acts with their body after their death. It is sick, it is disgusting...but should it be illegal? It doesn't hurt anybody at all. And the body belongs to the person who gave the permission for that act. Whereas making illegal on the basis of consent -- ie. the perpetrator cannot prove that explicit consent was given prior to death -- avoids this issue. I don't know...besides a general (and understandable) revulsion for such an act, can anyone give actual reasons why it should be illegal? (If, that is, consent were explicitly granted prior to death)
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

12th July 2008, 09:49 AM	#16
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,433	Originally Posted by mrbaracuda Hard to say whether to restrict it to living people or not, but I am surprised this issue comes up in 2008 anyway. And excuse my inability to comprehend; I shouldn't do this so late. So as pre death consent does not give any weight here, what sort of sexual crimes have been comitted against a corpse if you plasticize it and place their reproductive organs on display? That must be some kind of highly illegal sexual assault.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

12th July 2008, 09:52 AM	#17
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,433	Originally Posted by Ysidro There's already outrage over the exhibit in regards to the possiblity of bodies belonging to executed Chinese prisoners who didn't give consent to be used as an exhibit in the first place! But at least if it does get there they'll be safe from lechers! There are two sets of exhibits, one with donated bodies from the west, one with legaly purchased bodies from china. It is not that unusual that unclaimed bodies be sold.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

12th July 2008, 09:54 AM	#18
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,433	Originally Posted by Wolfman I dunno...as weird as it sounds, I think I may agree somewhat with the principle of 'consent'. Consider a situation where someone explicitly, prior to their death, states their willingness/desire to let someone engage in sexual acts with their body after their death. It is sick, it is disgusting...but should it be illegal? It doesn't hurt anybody at all. And the body belongs to the person who gave the permission for that act. Whereas making illegal on the basis of consent -- ie. the perpetrator cannot prove that explicit consent was given prior to death -- avoids this issue. I don't know...besides a general (and understandable) revulsion for such an act, can anyone give actual reasons why it should be illegal? (If, that is, consent were explicitly granted prior to death) I don't see any reason why it should be treated that differently from the many other things that people have done to their bodies after death. From testing munitions, to being made into art, I don't see why sexual gratification is something so beyond the pale compared to those other things.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin