This was a very gruesome and unique case in Germany. Just be warned- it's a disturbing and graphic case including mutilation, cannibalism and murder- so- if you're upset by such things- probably stop reading now!
I find it interesting though because it raises many issues around the idea of autonomy vs. our rights to survive and be protected- even if we don't want that for ourselves. It very much touches on the idea of assisted suicide with (unofficial and arguably mentally deficiant) consent.
Here is an article about it:
www.theguardian.com
To summarize- In March 2001, Armin Meiwes advertised on the internet for a "young well-built man, who wanted to be eaten". His invitation was accepted by Bernd Brandes. Brandes came to Meiwes' farmhouse. He supposedly participated in a video which showed him clearly consenting to all that was done to him. Trying not to be too graphic- this included swallowing 20 sleeping tablets with half a bottle of Schapps before Meiwes cut off a part of him (you can guess which part) and then fried it for them both to eat. He finally killed him in the early hours of the morning, stabbing him in the neck. Meiwes then continued to dismember and eat parts of him until he was caught.
Bearing in mind, ALL of this was known and consented to by Brandes. So- was this assisted suicide or murder?
Meiwes was actually convicted of manslaughter in 2004 and then convicted of murder in a retrial in 2006.
Still- I want to pose the question: What's the difference: a mentally ill person- or a sane person agreeing to be killed by N. Or, a mentally ill person agreeing to be mutilated, cannibalised and brutally killed? Is it the nature of the killing part that makes the second person 'more' mentally ill? So- vulnerable?
I imagine the sentence would actually be the same though- even if he had used N and buried the body- we're not allowed to go around killing one another- even if they are 'mercy' killings that are authorised by the victim.
I suppose this mainly goes out to people here that seem to believe ALL requests to die should be granted- and with maybe next to no 'gatekeeping' or perhaps even structure. (ie. Assessment on whether the person is mentally capable.) When SHOULD people be protected? Do you really think a bunch of uncredited clinics popping up here and there would be a good thing? Do you really think their families wouldn't prosecute if they didn't know about their intentions?
Regarding this case, I have to agree with the second judgement. This seems more like murder to me. The desire to murder is certainly there anyway- even if the act technically was consented to. I don't think Meiwes' motivation was to assist in a suicide. I think he wanted to kill and eat someone. I think Meiwes seems like a dangerous person that ought to be kept away from the public.
The life sentence conviction in order to protect the public seems wise. Still- is it right to convict someone to avenge the life of someone who wanted to die? Perhaps still yes- if that person is considered vulnerable. Still- this HAS to be ascertained surely- which means some sort of formal structure. Not an assisted suicide free for all.
What are your thoughts?
I find it interesting though because it raises many issues around the idea of autonomy vs. our rights to survive and be protected- even if we don't want that for ourselves. It very much touches on the idea of assisted suicide with (unofficial and arguably mentally deficiant) consent.
Here is an article about it:
Victim of cannibal agreed to be eaten
In one of the most extraordinary trials in German criminal history, a self-confessed cannibal admitted that he had met a Berlin engineer after advertising on the internet, and had chopped him up and eaten him.
To summarize- In March 2001, Armin Meiwes advertised on the internet for a "young well-built man, who wanted to be eaten". His invitation was accepted by Bernd Brandes. Brandes came to Meiwes' farmhouse. He supposedly participated in a video which showed him clearly consenting to all that was done to him. Trying not to be too graphic- this included swallowing 20 sleeping tablets with half a bottle of Schapps before Meiwes cut off a part of him (you can guess which part) and then fried it for them both to eat. He finally killed him in the early hours of the morning, stabbing him in the neck. Meiwes then continued to dismember and eat parts of him until he was caught.
Bearing in mind, ALL of this was known and consented to by Brandes. So- was this assisted suicide or murder?
Meiwes was actually convicted of manslaughter in 2004 and then convicted of murder in a retrial in 2006.
Still- I want to pose the question: What's the difference: a mentally ill person- or a sane person agreeing to be killed by N. Or, a mentally ill person agreeing to be mutilated, cannibalised and brutally killed? Is it the nature of the killing part that makes the second person 'more' mentally ill? So- vulnerable?
I imagine the sentence would actually be the same though- even if he had used N and buried the body- we're not allowed to go around killing one another- even if they are 'mercy' killings that are authorised by the victim.
I suppose this mainly goes out to people here that seem to believe ALL requests to die should be granted- and with maybe next to no 'gatekeeping' or perhaps even structure. (ie. Assessment on whether the person is mentally capable.) When SHOULD people be protected? Do you really think a bunch of uncredited clinics popping up here and there would be a good thing? Do you really think their families wouldn't prosecute if they didn't know about their intentions?
Regarding this case, I have to agree with the second judgement. This seems more like murder to me. The desire to murder is certainly there anyway- even if the act technically was consented to. I don't think Meiwes' motivation was to assist in a suicide. I think he wanted to kill and eat someone. I think Meiwes seems like a dangerous person that ought to be kept away from the public.
The life sentence conviction in order to protect the public seems wise. Still- is it right to convict someone to avenge the life of someone who wanted to die? Perhaps still yes- if that person is considered vulnerable. Still- this HAS to be ascertained surely- which means some sort of formal structure. Not an assisted suicide free for all.
What are your thoughts?
