Posted on 02/07/2004 11:55:07 AM PST by Bob J
On first reading, the opening paragraph of an Associated Press article this past weekend was too bizarre to comprehend:
“KASSEL, Germany (AP) – A computer expert who killed, dismembered and ate another man was convicted Friday of manslaughter and sentenced to 8 ½ years in prison after a court rejected a murder charge because the victim had asked to be eaten.” As I read this story, I wondered how civilized people were supposed to process such information. Is this really the future of justice? Will common sense ever again prevail in a world where anything goes?
Granted, the case in question was a German case, decided in a German court, with the sentence handed down by a German judge. What, you may ask, does that have to do with the American criminal justice system?
A great deal, as it happens. An increasing number of American judges are now willing to supplant the U.S. Constitution with precedents based on rulings handed down by foreign courts. For example, in Lawrence vs. Texas, the case decided last summer by the U.S. Supreme Court, the five-justice majority relied, at least in part, on just such an “international” rationale. Citing European precedents and international law, the high court ruled that Americans now have a constitutionally protected “right” to perform homosexual acts.
In the case of the German cannibal (also a homosexual, as it happens), it seems that the perpetrator had advertised on the Internet for a volunteer for “slaughter and consumption” – and found one. This, the defense claimed, made the crime a mercy killing, not a murder.
Incredibly, the court found that the perpetrator, who had confessed to the crime, had “no base motives.” According to the judge, the man’s primary motive was “the wish to make another man part of himself, and reached this bonding experience through the consumption of the flesh. He was simply acting out his fantasy.” Explaining the verdict, the judge said perpetrator and victim used each other as a means to an “ultimate climax.”
The victim became an entree. The perpetrator will be eligible to make his next dinner reservation in a mere 5 ½ years.
What American courts have failed to address is the issue of what will be done with the individual who claims that privacy dictates he be allowed to commit acts heretofore unthinkable: pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia or even cannibalism. Who is to say that these are not simply alternate lifestyles, fantasies acted our by people with different “orientations”?
How might some of our federal judges have ruled in a case like that of the German cannibal? With debauchery and deviancy becoming “rights,” we may soon find out. If a judge anywhere in the civilized world can rule that a cannibal is not guilty of murder because the victim “volunteered” to be slaughtered, then such a decision could just as easily emanate from the mind of an American jurist. How long will it be before such a decision is forced upon us by a federal judge appointed by Bill Clinton?
It is time for a serious civics lesson in America. An alarming number of people of voting age in the United States have concluded that they are powerless to affect change or that the electoral process has nothing to do with their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The President of the United States appoints nominees to federal judgeships, and the United States Senate provides advice and consent. In other words, the Senate has to approve the president’s nominees. These 101 individuals – our president and our 100 senators, have the power to affect our lives for the next forty years.
And that is why this could be the most important election of our lifetime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a speechwriter and policy advisor for federal, state and local candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country, and on selected Internet web sites, including www.GOPUSA.com, where he serves as the Nebraska Editor. He also writes for Talon News Service (www.TalonNews.com). Readers can e-mail him at dpatton@neonramp.com.
There is no problem here. This was all done very tastefully with a generous portion of Fava beans and a very nice Chianti.
Yes. Apparently so.
If there is any issue that sounds like conservatives need to seize it as their own, it is that only American law affects American law, and that the rest of the world can go stuff themselves.
(Robert Bork, where are you now?)
Seemed to me, the cage would surely imply that he anticipated that the person might change his mind; and most likely did.
If this insanity was totally consensual; then a cage and restraints would never have been necessary.
Could not imagine anyone finding this deviant not guilty of murder-most-heinous.
ANYone, of course, except for a Liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.