The other five say get their permission, first. It’s the civilized thing to do.
MADISON, WI [ LINK : Chicago Tribune ] In any normal American city, people would be repulsed by necrophilia as immoral and unthinkable. In Madison, it’s more of a minor legal technicality, and it’s one which can be circumvented with a little forethought and planning on the part of the perv-petrators.
They may dig chicks, but they’ll be having sex with men for a few years.
It seems that the only reason that some in the Capitol Court frowned upon these Three Sick Stooges and their rigid romancing is that they didn’t have a note from the deceased. Absent a specific “Sick Bastards” statute, our legal system is hesitant to lock up “sick bastards”. Lest you think I’m being melodramatic, I need to reiterate: the court was split 5 to 2.
The precedent has been set, and the ground rules (among other things) have been laid. You can bet that the next ghoulish gang of cadaver copulating cretins will go that extra mile and secure a release in advance of this sort of… um… undertaking.
Never underestimate the male libido. To do so can be a serious mistake. Dead serious…
0 responses so far ↓
1 Kathy // Jul 10, 2008 at 9:00 am
Who were the two?
You mean two people thought this was ok????
Maybe if someone dies in prison they can get first dibs.
2 steveegg // Jul 10, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Ann Walsh Bradley wrote the dissent, joined by the soon-to-be-ex Loophole Louis Butler (ex- as soon as the next term begins because he lost his run for a full term).
3 Jeni // Jul 10, 2008 at 11:01 pm
How anyone (the two) can condone this in any respect is utterly shocking; it is so incredibly sick and perveted it’s difficult for me to comprehend.
4 HeatherRadish // Jul 11, 2008 at 6:34 pm
They’re not saying “sex with dead people is OK”, they’re saying the law in question was about sexual assaults where the victim died before/during/after, and didn’t apply to sex with a interred corpse.
Should take about five minutes for the Legislature to pass a law making sex with dead people illegal irrespective of circumstance. If they’re interested in creating such a law, that is.
5 Saturday Afternoon - Why Does My Dryer Smell Like Burnt Cat Fur - Laundry Time , An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings // Jul 12, 2008 at 5:08 pm
[...] 2 Judges Say Sex w/ Dead People OK – The Daily Scoff [...]
6 Shoebox // Jul 12, 2008 at 7:54 pm
It would be a good idea to read the opinions before offering your own. The two dissenting argued that the law was not written to apply to necrophilia and they were correct. If we’re OK with laws being written by the judges with things we happen to agree with, we should not be surprised when they do the same things for things we don’t like. Even the WI legislature thought the law as written was a problem.
7 J. Gravelle // Jul 12, 2008 at 8:53 pm
It would be a good idea to read the opinions before offering your own.
Phhht. Too busy typing to read.
The two dissenting argued that the law was not written to apply to necrophilia and they were correct.
That sort of thinking is precisely the reason we have multi-storied law libraries, and the need to tailor a bazillion different statutes to apply to the same crime done different ways (e.g. assault, assault with a deadly weapon, criminal assault, assault and battery, assault and pepper, etc.).
Five of the seven thought “Hey, I betcha somewhere within our eight hundred and fifty three thousand pages of laws it allows the courts to punish guys who dig up the bodies of young girls to have sex with them”.
And they were right…
-jjg
8 Shoebox // Jul 13, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Five of the seven thought “Hey, I betcha somewhere within our eight hundred and fifty three thousand pages of laws it allows the courts to punish guys who dig up the bodies of young girls to have sex with them”.
Yup, that’s certainly one way to go about establishing laws. We just shouldn’t complain the next time one of the “Law givers in black” decide to take a look at the impact of a comma and conclude that we have enough laws and somewhere in them, nasty things like guns should have been eliminated.
9 J. Gravelle // Jul 13, 2008 at 1:26 pm
It’s hardly judicial activism to say that the illegality of raping people extends to dead people. Comparing the explicit right of gun ownership to the implicit illegality of rape is beyond “apples to oranges”. At least those are both fruit.
I don’t fret that my right to posthumous intercourse has been infringed upon, but I respect your right to do so…
Leave a Comment