[ModelBreaker]

Get real. The guy would have been prosecuted and punished just like anyone else who committed a heinous crime such as this, even under a Libertarian administration.

I was being real. This was apparently consensual behavior between two adults. Assuming it was consensual (which the article strongly suggests), why would Libertarians regard it being different than prostitution. What am I missing?

I understand that you think it is different. What I would like to know is why.

I think this case is interesting in this regard just because it pushes the Libertarian principle of no state interference in consensual behavior between two adults to its extreme.

I think that the principled Libertarian answer is that the state has no business criminalizing this private consensual behavior. If that is not your answer--and if you are a Libertarian--I am really curious to know why you (or any other Libertarians lurking) would make an exception to the general principle in this case.

[Ramius]

Taking unfair advantage of a mental illness could be considered 'fraud in the inducement'. Willingly agreeing to die so that someone can satisfy some prurient desire is clearly evidence of mental incapacity, on its face. This does not fall within the boundaries of "consenting adults". It would be closer to someone claiming consent to abuse of a minor or a mentally retarded person. No such consent can be granted.