Originally posted by ZadadkaWhat that b*****d did was truly disgraceful.
Some of you will recall the whipper-snapper in England who was jailed for "Outraging Public Decency" after peeing on a dying woman.
I think necrophilia falls nicely into this slot.
Sado-necro-bestiality is flogging a dead horse though.
Originally posted by uzlessPerhaps you need to read the conversation line by line. If someone doesn't want to google something, but the evidence is there... I'm not going to bother giving a link.
classic well backed up phlabibit post 😴
One link won't prove anything anyway, google search clearly shows that the deceased do in FACT have rights.
or
YOUR WRONG TWO!
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitI did the google search and didn't find anything.
Perhaps you need to read the conversation line by line. If someone doesn't want to google something, but the evidence is there... I'm not going to bother giving a link.
One link won't prove anything anyway, google search clearly shows that the deceased do in FACT have rights.
or
YOUR WRONG TWO!
P-
It seems the man in question was charged with desecrating a dead body in the second degree. I wonder what you have to do to get a first degree charge!! 🙄
I don't believe that dead people have rights in general, although in some countries they may have a few (although I would envision this as problematic). However, I doubt that those rights were ever extended to the extent that a person buggering a stiffie could be charged with rape. Desecrating a dead body seems like the appropriate charge in this case.
So why is this a crime? My guess is that due to the universal cultural practice of mourning the dead, people see respect for the dead as something valuable. Desecrating a dead body by manipulating it in a manner which could be deemed offensive to the memory of the deceased would then be something to be discouraged. As to what is offensive, the definition tends to change. In the case of autopsies, many cultures deem them to be desecration of the dead body, but in these cases the right of the mourners to care for their dead in their particular manner must be weighed against societies right to determine the cause of death in order to catch a killer, prevent an outbreak, etc...
Originally posted by PhlabibitSooooooo WEAK.
Here's a page where someone was denied information about a deceased person because it violated their rights.
http://www.accessandprivacy.gov.on.ca/english/order/mun/m-426.html
P-
Did you even read the order or understand FIPPA (an Act which uzless and I work with on a daily basis)?
FIPPA is about the RIGHT TO ACCESS PUBLIC INFORMATION and the obligations of public servants to disclose that information.
The action of the police withholding information about the deceased persons (from someone who had permission from that person's estate, no less) was overturned by the appeal board with the exception of documents that were compiled by Police as part of investigations into other criminal acts - NOT because it "violated their rights".
SLOPPY, Phlab.
So dead people have no rights... we can dig them up, take a leak on them... you can go through their medical records, etc.
Right gang?
The dead do have rights.
There is a dead guy in room 3.
Did he ever say he didn't want us to take his organs?
No, he said nothing about it. Go harvest them.
P-
Originally posted by Phlabibitwhether they have rights or not is irrelevant here. This question is what to do with a guy who tickles the tunnel of a dead person.
The fact that it's a fact that the dead do in fact have rights is what makes it a fact.
P-
Rather than send him to the taxpayer's jail, i'd send necroman to the county psychologist