• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prosecutor certain convict abused more than three corpses.

scourge99

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090227/NEWS0107/902270346/1055/NEWS

Deters: 'This is off-the-charts weird' Prosecutor certain convict abused more than three corpses

But if Douglas is to be believed, he could have had sex with as many as "over a hundred" bodies in the 16 years he worked as night attendant at the Hamilton County morgue."I am sure there are more (victims). I'm certain of it," Deters said Thursday in announcing new indictments against Douglas."This guy's just a pig. I can't explain why someone would do something like this. ... This is off-the-charts weird.
Click to expand...

This is gross and weird but beyond that, why is it criminal? I've never understood why necrophelia is a criminal offense; I'm dead serious :)lol:). A civil matter I can understand. But who exactly is "the victim"? Why does the state believe it needs to prosecute such a thing? Just seems like another American law created from an obsession with dictating sexual morality.
 
Last edited:
Does the family own the body after someone dies? If so, it could be considered trespassing or something.:lol:
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Does the family own the body after someone dies? If so, it could be considered trespassing or something.:lol:
Click to expand...

That makes sense to me.

This is a stretch but what if I own the corpse? (I know, weird and highly unlikely)

I wonder what the punishment is? If its anything like other sex offenses its probably harsh.
 
Wessexman said:
Presumably, and this a wild guess, it is because society does not want their dead to be abused in this way.
Click to expand...

So the dead are victims? Or the living relatives of the dead are victims? What are they victims of? Property violation/ trespassing of the bodily type?
 
Civil damages would be most appropriate. As a society we do not have to condone such behavior, but the state has no pressing interest in the matter. The police have more important matters to deal with.
 
scourge99 said:
So the dead are victims? Or the living relatives of the dead are victims? What are they victims of? Property violation/ trespassing of the bodily type?
Click to expand...

The living are victims of having their relative defiled and the dead are victims of being defiled.

It is pretty much common sense, Jesus Christ what is the world coming to.
 
Wessexman said:
The living are victims of having their relative defiled and the dead are victims of being defiled.

It is pretty much common sense, Jesus Christ what is the world coming to.
Click to expand...

So we allow cremation? What makes that less 'defiling'? It may seem like common sense, but it makes an interesting question to try and answer seriously.
 
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
So we allow cremation? What makes that less 'defiling'? It may seem like common sense, but it makes an interesting question to try and answer seriously.
Click to expand...

Not really, it is absurd to even ask it, only completely libertine morons would seriously entertain such a notion that sex with the dead is an acceptable behaviour.

It is more defiling because it is showing a contempt for the dead and thier relatives and degradation and lack of respect for socially acceptable, evolved funerary rites of our society which are part of the way we both honour the dead and socially cope with grief.
 
Last edited:
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
So we allow cremation? What makes that less 'defiling'? It may seem like common sense, but it makes an interesting question to try and answer seriously.
Click to expand...

The underlying legal question is whether dead bodies are property, and who's property, and how long?

If I die and donate my body to science I could care less if some guy ****s my corpse. I'm dead afterall. At first thought such a notion is repulsive. Someone is violating YOUR body but.... you are dead! Why do you care about anything regarding the material world?
 
scourge99 said:
The underlying legal question is whether dead bodies are property, and who's property, and how long?
Click to expand...
Yes that is of course the obvious underlying question :roll:.

I mean when we think of the dead we always think about who owns them naturally don't we?

I mean there they are just lying there being defiled while some enterprising individual could be benefiting society by turning them into lampshades or interesting head gear. Outrageous isn't it.:cool:

Is this the democratic party's new platform?

I can imagine the slogans now: "Obama 2012: Not even the dead are safe".
 
Last edited:
What if I request that my corpse gets ****ed by strippers after I die? Would it be illegal then?
 
First off, lighten up captain serious! :mrgreen:

Wessexman said:
I mean when we think of the dead we always think about who owns them naturally don't we?
Click to expand...
when we are discussing laws and consistency, yes, such aspects are of relevance. Most people don't willy-nilly make laws up from knee jerk reactions. But sometimes they do.

I mean there they are just lying there being defiled while some enterprising individual could be benefiting society by turning them into lampshades or interesting head gear.
Click to expand...
I think you are onto something.

If I ever become rich I should demand that when I die I be stuffed and placed in the living room in a position like an attacking grizzly bear. Otherwise the inheritance goes to charities. How ****ed up would that be for your relatives?

Is this the democratic party's new platform?
Click to expand...
Cuz I'm a democrat?
 
scourge99 said:
when we are discussing laws and consistency, yes, such aspects are of relevance. Most people don't willy-nilly make laws up from knee jerk reactions. But sometimes they do.
Click to expand...
Consistency is not always good, particularly when taken to simplistic lengths.


Cuz I'm a democrat?
Click to expand...
You're certainly not a Conservative.
 
Wessexman said:
Consistency is not always good, particularly when taken to simplistic lengths.
Click to expand...
Probably. Now care to explain why that's the case here?

You're certainly not a Conservative.
Click to expand...
I'm not a liberal either. :shock:

OMG, what's left for me to be!!?? :mrgreen:
 
Wessexman said:
I already did, pay attention.
Click to expand...
oh ok. Well since I can't seem to find it I guess we can end it here.

You're a lot closer to liberalism than Conservatism.
Click to expand...
The conservatives call me a bleeding heart liberal and the liberals call me a neocon. :lol:

Labeling is so passe.
 
scourge99 said:
oh ok. Well since I can't seem to find it I guess we can end it here.
Click to expand...
Yes if your eyes are troubling you so, I suggest glasses.

The conservatives call me a bleeding heart liberal and the liberals call me a neocon. :lol:

Labeling is so passe.
Click to expand...
Not really, only liberals say that. I don't know whether you are liberal in strict policy sense but you certainly do not have the mentality of a traditionalist.
 
Wessexman said:
Not really, only liberals say that. I don't know whether you are liberal in strict policy sense but you certainly do not have the mentality of a traditionalist.
Click to expand...

And you determined this all because I curiously question the rationale and logic behind necrophilia laws?

You are amazing! :shock:
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
And you determined this all because I curiously question the rationale and logic behind necrophilia laws?
Click to expand...
Certainly, it only takes that much to decide in many cases. One can see how people reason and view politics and society sometimes to enough of a degree to make such usually accurate estimates.
You are amazing! :shock:
Click to expand...
I try.
 
Wessexman said:
Certainly, it only takes that much to decide in many cases. One can see how people reason and view politics and society sometimes to enough of a degree to make such usually accurate estimates.
Click to expand...
So what in my arguments here reflects my liberal tendencies to the extent of such certainty on your part?

Curiosity engenders anticonservatism?
I try.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, but I know something you do not know! I am not left handed!
 
I think the law against defiling the dead has to do with respecting funeral rites and the beliefs of the families. Many cultures have very specific requirements for what the body must go through before it is finally put to rest. Also, it is illegal in North America to burn the body in the open (like on a pyre)... you pretty much have to be burried or sent to a crematorium. Depends on the culture and country though. In the West we place a lot of importance on dead bodies... elsewhere, they believe the person is long gone and the body can be tossed wherever.
 
This is the part that really doesn't make sense to me:

Deters' office contacted the family members of Edwards and Hicks to tell them of the new accusations against Douglas.

"It's fair to say they were devastated by this news," Deters said. "I feel badly for the families who are never going to know."
Click to expand...

Why in the world would one feel bad for the people who are never going to know? This is a textbook example of what you don't know isn't going to hurt you. I feel bad for the families whom Joe Deters told about this. He's an ass and always has been.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom