Miewes Poll: Sentence for cannibalism

[Pure]

Miewes, a German man, advertised for a man to eat. A man turned up, and by agreement was drugged, then killed, and eaten. Prosecutors asked for life. Defense argued it was a 'mercy killing,' since the victim had clearly wanted to be killed.

Sentence 8 1/2 years.

ADDED 1/06: Link posted by Rebecca below, thanks!

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=15761438&postcount=17

ADDED MAY 10, 2006
The prosecution appealed and won, resulting in a conviction for murder for sexual satisfaction, and resulting in a much longer sentence.
Here is a link

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,415313,00.htm

 

[Netzach]

I think the manslaughter sentence was appropriate.

It wasn't euthanasia, but it certainly was *avidly* sought out by the victim, which I would consider a heavily mitigating factor. However, mitigation aside, I don't think it's ok from a legal viewpoint to go killing and eating one another for sexual gratification.

Some fantasies should stay fantasies.

 

[James G 5]

I think the manslaughter sentence was appropriate.

It wasn't euthanasia, but it certainly was *avidly* sought out by the victim, which I would consider a heavily mitigating factor. However, mitigation aside, I don't think it's ok from a legal viewpoint to go killing and eating one another for sexual gratification.

Some fantasies should stay fantasies.

My concern here is protecting society
You start hitting that murky line of how far do you go to protect people from themselves
If you let Miewes out of prioson in 5-7 years (with parole), what, if anything, do you do to protect others who might go to him wanting to be killed & eaten?
Is the solution to keep him locked up to prevent potential future harm?

 

[Netzach]

I agree with the protection of society, but it's not like he's plucking boy scouts off the street and eating them...that's kind of the next level.

 

[James G 5]

I agree with the protection of society, but it's not like he's plucking boy scouts off the street and eating them...that's kind of the next level.

right...he said he got his thrill & wouldn't be doing it again
which leves me shuddering to think of how far he might have to go to get "thrilled" next time
I mean, once you've killed a guy consensually after a shared snack on his penis, how much further do you have to go for kicks, and do we want you wandering the streets to find out?

 

[incubus_dark]

Of course one has to wonder, when the young fellow originally answered the add asking for a well built gentleman who wished to be eaten, did he initially expect to be consumed or felated?

 

[Pure]

Hey, no one's saying how they voted!!

I agreed with the judge. But with reservations.

James G 5 said,

If you let Miewes out of prison in 5-7 years (with parole), what, if anything, do you do to protect others who might go to him wanting to be killed & eaten?

I'm not that keen on the government protecting people from themselves, provided the person is mentally competent.

Do you think the gov should try to stand in the way of a suicide, for instance?

So want to go out with a bang; others with a munch. What's it to ya?

I don't know much about M, but he says he's learned his lesson (dont be so public???).

How about Kevorkian. He has no regrets. Remains willing (if he's out of prison). Is he a danger?

 

[Safphyre]

I agree completely with you Netzach ...

I can't say whether I agree with the sentancing one way or the other yet ...were the drugs illegal? If so maybe a drug charge should be added.

I certainly don't condone it but ...but the fact remains ... he received...WILLINGLY ...what he asked for ....

 

[catalina_francisco]

So this case is to be tried again....interesting situation, especially given the recent discussions here on consent and the law.

Catalina http://home.scarlet.be/~lr980043/new/eten/eten02.gif

 

[RJMasters]

Voted life.

Saying that I do see a difference in the killing of a person and cannabalism.

If the person showed up and killed themselves, then Miewes ate him, then I would see this differently. The facts are he took a knife and killed this person. That act regardless of consent is murder and should carry the full weight of the sentence.

I do have differing views about mercy killing and such for people who are facing extreme pain and have no hope for a better quality of life. However I do not get this from the case presented. Obviously the person who volenteered for this had some problems, and I think it could be argued that a person who has suicidal thoughts is not in their right mind or in any condition to consent via a decision of sanity.

Miewes fantasy was not just to eat a person...if that was the case I am sure there are other ways he might have been able to fulfill this without killing someone. He could have had aadvertise that he was seeking someone to put this in their will. The fact that he was willing to actually kill this person, makes him dangerious and should be made to face the consequences of his actions. If for no other reason than to protect society from him fulfilling other fantasies and what he might be willing to do to see them occur.

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

There is a quite a bit more information here from the News Bulletin posted about 9 hours ago..........

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=15761438&postcount=17

 

[catalina_francisco]

I don't see it quite so black and white. He had many who answered his adverts and were willing victims, but chose only one who immediately before going to meet him, sold many of his possessions such as car etc., tidied up his affairs, and wrote a will leaving all he had to his de facto lover. That to me is not what most people not in their right mind or at least capable of knowing what they were doing, would do. Add to that he and Meiwes spent several hours together talking and indulging in SM play and sex, before taking the first step by cutting off the guy's penis and cooking it and sitting down together to try and eat it. This was all video taped and at no point did the victim indicate he was not happy with the situation and what was to come. In many aspects it seemed to answer both their individual fantasies, and from what I have read in various places, the victim's was not that unusual.

Similarly, Miewes did only chose one victim out of the many asking to be considered, and after the event, which was not discovered for 3 years I think, it is thought he did not seek to repeat the act with anyone else. That could indicate that as he said, he does not intend to repeat it as he has already satisfied his need and desire. It is a complicated case, and one which does rely heavily on whether the proven act of consent is acceptable in a court of law. What concerns me is that by ordering it to be retrialed because the Supreme Court thought the judges were too lenient, IOW's did not give the verdict and sentence they wanted, it is acceptable to bring it back for another go. Does this mean that if once again they do not get the sentence they want, it will be retrialed again and again until the sentence meetw what the Supreme Court powers have decided they personally agree with? If so, what is the point of having a court system if it is reliant on delivering the verdict and sentence pre-decided by those in power? IMHO, it sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the community.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

There is a quite a bit more information here from the News Bulletin posted about 9 hours ago..........

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=15761438&postcount=17

LOL, don't worry, you will find weeks, perhaps months worth of reading on this one. Coincidentally I was reading some of the reports a couple of weeks ago before I knew this was even in the works..I stopped when I felt it was getting to overload with a lot of repitition.

C

 

[FurryFury]

I don't know about Germany but the average sentence for murder here in the States is about five years.

I don't consider this a mercy killing at all. Why? Because many people who want to die very, very much are often happy later that they did not. A mercy killing on the other hand in my mind happens when the person is in physical pain with a terminal degenerative condition.

I don't believe the "eaten" man had that. I believe he might have been considered mentally ill or clinically depressed. One can recover from such a challenge, therefore mercy killing does not apply.

Fury

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

LOL, don't worry, you will find weeks, perhaps months worth of reading on this one. Coincidentally I was reading some of the reports a couple of weeks ago before I knew this was even in the works..I stopped when I felt it was getting to overload with a lot of repitition.

C

Thanks catalina, be assured worry was not even in contention when I posted the link. Just figured whats deemed news worthy to update by Editors of major Newspapers from Sydney to New York it was good enough for Lit.

 

[snowy ciara]

from the wikipedia article on Double Jeopardy

All members of the Council of Europe (which includes nearly all European countries, and all members of the European Union) have signed the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects against double jeopardy. The Seventh Protocol, Article Four, says:

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.

This specific optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except six (namely Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom). Those members states may still have the provision in their respective constitutions (if any) providing a prohibition against double jeopardy.



I realize that German law, and Canadian Law and US Law are all different, but for some reason, I'm more concerned about the fact that the Higher Court threw out the verdict they didn't like. The only information I could find on "double jeopardy" that made sense to a layperson is on Wikipedia. There are a few cases where someone can be retried for something in the event of a mistrial or a hung jury, but generally, in Canada and the US, a person cannot be tried twice for a crime if they have already been convicted or acquitted of the crime. (An appeal of a conviction is usually not considered a new trial, it's viewed as a continuation of the trial.)

Maybe the reason I'm paranoid about human rights in our hemisphere is from watching the Alito hearings today, but at this time, the human rights issues above are more on my mind right now than Miewes. I expect that'll change when I have more time to read up on the trial...

 

[Pure]

Thanks for the heads up, Catalina!

There is a definite problem of 'double jeopardy' here. I don't believe this could happen in the US, though iirc, it could in Canada.

One issue is 'Can you consent to your own death?" This has to do with legality, not what is said. It's like the question, "Can a 10 year old girl consent to intercourse with her 30 year old, grade 5 teacher?"

It does not matter if the girl said "yes" or even 'do me.' It a legal construction designed for protection.

By parallel reasoning, it does not matter if Brandes said, "I agree" or even "Kill me." A) A person, legally, cannot consent to his own death, regardless of the words spoken.

BUT what are the exceptions to this rule of thumb? As has been mentioned, a) terrible pain, esp. with no hope of its ceasing;
b) degenerative conditions already bringing one into proximity to death.

In most other situations, for instance those involving persons with moderate depression, the persons are likely to 'bail out', in my opinion, if they have a chance. In Miewes defense: he apparently 1) Let several people bail; and 2) Gave Brandes a chance to.

So I still believe a moderate penalty is in order, as a deterrent to those who might capitalize on the misery of someone, for a 'thrill kill' or 'sadistic killing.'

All this comes home to BDSM because of the sister principle, affirmed in British law, and used in the 'Spanner' case. B) "A person cannot consent to grave bodily harm." The level of 'grave' has to be defined, of course.

For domestic abuse cases. B) suggests that the wife's words or even defense (of hubby) cannot legally be given any weight, e.g, her saying "I deserved it, so I consented to it [a nasty beating]."

As much as consensual sadists might want to recognize 'consent' wherever it's spoken by a sane adult, I think there have to be limits. and B) is not a bad one.

Those are my updated thoughts and I would like to hear others'.

 

[chris9]

There is a definite problem of 'double jeopardy' here. I don't believe this could happen in the US, though iirc, it could in Canada.

So far I have never seen the German court system as double jeopardy, I will do some more research on it though. I'll try some explanation, not sure I'll be able to do so very well as I don't know the right 'legal' words or the differences in system.
In Germany, as in most other countries, too, it is possible to appeal on a point of law to a higher court. The highest court for penalty law can only check for legal mistakes the first court(s) made. However they may not decide anything but *right* or *wrong* of the first court's decision. If they say *wrong* the decision is gone. But there needs to be a decision, the mistakes need to be corrected. So it goes back to the first court (another senat of the court). The high court may not gather any proofs or anything.
They may not negate a decision, because they feel the penalty is too small however. They need legal reasons.
In our law there are three different forms of killing another person, murder, manslaughter, and manslaughter with consent. The first and the last include manslaughter, for a murder there need to be something worse (like killing for sexual satisfaction, for money, to commit another crime, being cruel...), for manslaughter with consent serious consent needs to be expressed. For this last it's not necessary to be seriously sick without hope of recovery/in pain.
In this case the first court didn't check if ther are any of the reasons that make manslaughter murder which they need to test to make the decision *right*.
Problem here is that consent is stronger than the murder reasons, so if they still think it's manslaughter with consent, it doesn't matter if he also fulfills any of the murder reasons.
I haven't read the decision of either court, but the penalty he got from the first court of 8 1/2 years shows that he was not convicted for manslaughter with consent, because then there would be a maximum of 5 years.
I'll see if I can find those two decisions though, then I might explain more about how it happened.

One issue is 'Can you consent to your own death?" This has to do with legality, not what is said. It's like the question, "Can a 10 year old girl consent to intercourse with her 30 year old, grade 5 teacher?"

It does not matter if the girl said "yes" or even 'do me.' It a legal construction designed for protection.

By parallel reasoning, it does not matter if Brandes said, "I agree" or even "Kill me." A) A person, legally, cannot consent to his own death, regardless of the words spoken.

BUT what are the exceptions to this rule of thumb? As has been mentioned, a) terrible pain, esp. with no hope of its ceasing;
b) degenerative conditions already bringing one into proximity to death.

In Germany a person cannot consent to their own death, not even for the reasons you mentioned here. Or rather: they can consent, but the killer can still be convicted, with the sentence ranging from 6 months to five years.
But in that case it doesn't matter if the consent was given for those two reasons or for any other.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Legal aspects aside, I do have moral problems with this case. I am a great believer in consent, and personal freedom. To me it is also clear that personal freedom should always be restricted by the personal freedom of others. My opinion has always been as long as two parties agree to something and the effects of the agreement only influence the involved parties, it is not my business nor do I find anything wrong with it.

Although both parties involved consented to this, taking another persons life and using that person for diner just reminds me of Hannibal Lector. Somewhere we need to draw the line, and human life is too precious to be spilled on a nice boeuf bourguignon.

Do I think we need to consider mitigating circumstances?

On punishment level I agree. But what we need to focus on is not the punishment, what is important is that as a society we need to make sure that this does not happen again. Intensive counseling is only the first step of what I consider to be the correct approach. Cannibalism under any circumstance (with maybe the exception of a rugby team on a frozen mountain top) can not be considered by me to be a mentally healthy sane action.

Until a team of psychiatrist and counselors unanimously agree that there is no more possibility that he will repeat his gastronomical adventure he should simply not be allowed back into society.

However Trial has passed and a verdict has been spoken. That should have closed the case.

Francisco.

 

[brioche]

from the wikipedia article on Double Jeopardy

All members of the Council of Europe (which includes nearly all European countries, and all members of the European Union) have signed the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects against double jeopardy. The Seventh Protocol, Article Four, says:

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.

This specific optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except six (namely Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom). Those members states may still have the provision in their respective constitutions (if any) providing a prohibition against double jeopardy.



I realize that German law, and Canadian Law and US Law are all different, but for some reason, I'm more concerned about the fact that the Higher Court threw out the verdict they didn't like. The only information I could find on "double jeopardy" that made sense to a layperson is on Wikipedia. There are a few cases where someone can be retried for something in the event of a mistrial or a hung jury, but generally, in Canada and the US, a person cannot be tried twice for a crime if they have already been convicted or acquitted of the crime. (An appeal of a conviction is usually not considered a new trial, it's viewed as a continuation of the trial.)

Maybe the reason I'm paranoid about human rights in our hemisphere is from watching the Alito hearings today, but at this time, the human rights issues above are more on my mind right now than Miewes. I expect that'll change when I have more time to read up on the trial...

Thank you, snowy, I was thinking about this too.

There is a definite problem of 'double jeopardy' here. I don't believe this could happen in the US, though iirc, it could in Canada.

Canada has double jeopardy too, though it might be called something else. I think most places regard it as unfair persucution and an abuse of power.

Once you've been acquitted here, you've been acquitted. We do not retry either.

In my view, he received his sentence and that should be it.

I just blanked on the name, but there is a pig farmer from Penticton that killed scads of women. Their DNA, though not their bodies, has been found on his pig farm. There is great speculation over what exactly he did with their bodies.

I have trouble with the concept that this man should get the same sentence as a man who advertised for a single man, who then came and agreed to this act.

 

[graceanne]

I personally think he should have been in jail for life. *shrugs* He took a life, it's pretty simple. The man he killed wasn't in physical pain, he wasn't dying anyway. As already stated (and I was thinking it as I read this thread - lol ) children can consent to sex, doesn't make it ok. Their are some things that are just not ok! Tolerance only extends so far, and whether you agree with me or now if a pedophile showed up on lit I know I wouldn't be the only one to give them the cold sholder (or worse). If someone showed up here, advertising for their next meal I'm pretty sure that s/he'd get a cold reception, too.

 

[chris9]

Canada has double jeopardy too, though it might be called something else. I think most places regard it as unfair persucution and an abuse of power.

Once you've been acquitted here, you've been acquitted. We do not retry either.

In my view, he received his sentence and that should be it.

We do not retry. But we have higher courts that check the decision for mistakes. The trial only ends when there is no more possibility to apply to a higher court, when the decision is final.

 

[indianPilot]

I think before anyone decides if the gaol term for this individual is appropriate or not - we need to know a few extra facts.

What is the normal gaol term for premeditated murder - Or even possibly manslaughter, due to the unusual aspects of the crime what was he actually charged with.

Lets say the average term is 15 years for murder - we can safely assume that the legal situation has recognised mitagating circumstances and hence reduced the gaol term accordingly.

Appeals through higher courts need to meet the following criteria. Either new evidence, unknown at the time of the orginal trial needs to be introduced. Either prosecution or defense believe the penalty was either to light or to strong. Finally the defense believes a point of law has not be followed.

Double jepardy is only applicable if an individual is found not guilty. This is to stop harrasment of an individual by the state - and makes the state accept responsibilty for building a strong enough case.

Yes there are ways around it. Example a murderer that the police know murdered 15 people. The state will only go to trial on say 10 of the charges. This way, just in case something goes wrong, they have 5 other murders up their sleeves.

If they get a conviction on the orginal 10 - they will go back to trial of the remaining 5, just to close the cases and give closure to the victims families.

indianPilot

 

[Pure]

Update

Miewes got a life sentence for murder.

The defense effort to have the act labeled 'mercy killing' was overturned on appeal.

MORAL: WHEN IS CONSENT NOT CONSENT?

WHEN THERE IS SERIOUS BODILY HARM.

If, for example, you cut off, at the request of a self labeled 'sub', his or her fingertip, ear, testicle, clitoris, you can and will be charged, and charges will proceed even if said 'sub' does NOT wish to see you prosecuted, and even if said 'sub' refuses to testify.


THE APPARENT AGREEMENT OR ACTUAL REQUEST IS NOT A DEFENSE; YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO WHAT'S ASKED, NOR SHOULD YOU, NOR DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO.

The same applies even if you assist or facilitate such an act, i.e., if you 'help' someone cut off some part of their anatomy.

IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME, DON'T DO THE CRIME (OF SERIOUSLY INJURING ANOTHER), REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAY THEY WANT

The victim's wanting or requesting serious injury or something likely to lead to it, is evidence of a mental problem, in the eyes of psychiatry and the law. Or, if you like, SAFE and SANE always trump 'CONSENSUAL.'

IF IT'S UNSAFE TO THE POINT OF SERIOUS INJURY OR INSANE IN ITS GOALS, IT CANNOT BE CONSENSUAL.

NOTE: I see that 11 out of 17 responders to the poll, did not reach the same conclusion as the judges--that it's murder. Question: Guess whose opinion will carry more weight in court?

 

[Guest]

The REALLY annoying thing about this case..

I remember, that at the time of this original trial...It was not that he killed and ate someone..(Not exactly the first time that has happened is it?)
It's not a lot of different things that cloud the issue..

It's that when he did this...The government in question really had no law against what he did..(for a variety of reasons)
Seems odd eh.. Well the Germans thought it was... It threw the whole thing into a series of legal grey areas..

A near and dear principal to U.S. law is a concept called Expos Facto (spelling?)
Simply put.. If you do something that is legal at the time of the act.. If they change the law later, they can't prosecute you for it..

I wonder if German jurisprudence follows this principle?

{Don't confuse the above with my personal opinion as to what they should do with the fellow in question...MUCH different}