This last week my history professor cited a German 2002 story that my aussie friends had told me about last year: a cannibal, Armin Meiwes, advertised on the web for a young victim to eat. and got a willing response, 43-year-old Bernd-Jurgen Brandes. they met, cut off Brandes' penis and ate it together, before Meiwes stabbed Brandes to death and put his remains in the freezer. the whole ordeal was willingly videotaped...2 hours long.
Meiwes plans to write a book and has already sold rights for a television documentary about himself. Several movies have already been made, including the American horror film, "Butterfly -- A Grimm Love Story," which Meiwes successfully blocked from being shown in Germany, since it would bias people during his criminal re-trial. In 2004, Meiwes was convicted and sentenced to 8.5 years in prison. However, prosecutors wanted a harder sentence and began a retrial two monthes ago. German prosecutors will try to show that Meiwes killed Brandes, not as a 5-year penalty euthenasia offense, but as a sexual kick, and therefore deserves a life sentence.
Let me just say that Meiwes is a twisted cannibal with narcissistic tendencies. If that's true, it's only a matter of time before he turns on himself...
11 comments:
I think it's interesting to look at the life that Miewes was leading as well ~ he seems to have been a very confused and socially inept man, particularly with his upbringing.
Sort of makes the character of Norman Bates in Psycho look like someone you'd invite to look after your small children, almost.
I dunno... I think insanity in a rather sane kind of way would explain it. It's like he would make it all sound so reasonable and normal, if it weren't for the fact that it was something taboo/forbidden by Western societies. Cannibalism generally is a strange sort of area ~ in cultures that have long done it, it was perfectly "normal" and generally done to get the powers or abilities or to honour those they were eating ("Here, have a bit of Grandpa, delicious with this yam").
Cannibalism in Western cultures doesn't seem to be associated with any of that... Bizarre.
This is a particularly difficult case to decide what the just outcome is. On the one hand we have a person who mutilated, ate and then killed another human being; and it's possible that he will re-offend. On the other hand we have the fact that the person who was eaten and killed consented to it, on video.
That's not to say that what was done was right, or that video is the ultimate form of evidence (it has many flaws in its own right) but how should you, with all the ideals of justice in mind, approach a case where the victim has consented to what is happening?
The question remains as to whether Meiwes is being locked up for the public good or for his own good. Psychologists found him sane enough to stand trial, although with schizoid tendancies, and he was smart enough to pick someone who would consent to the act, and while on trial he said he regreted comitting the act (although it's reported in such a way that it sounds like he made the statement under pressure from his legal counsel); a situation in which he should be locked up for public safety (which means prison). On the other hand we have a man who has these schizoid tendencies, who can't differentiate between reality or fantasy and right or wrong (at least societies concepts there-of), who as you pointed out has narcussistic tendencies, and is likely to turn on himself; which indicates he should be put in an institute for the insane for his own good. It's more a matter of where he should go than if he should go.
Unfortunatly for him he's committed a criminal act and he's now in stasis while the state decides what should happen to him. It's almost gaurenteed that he will go to prison but is that where he should be, or should he go somewhere that he can recieve help... away from the ability to harm others as well as himself?
Cannables....[shudder] nasty buggers...
Taylor said-
"This is a particularly difficult case to decide what the just outcome is. On the one hand we have a person who mutilated, ate and then killed another human being; and it's possible that he will re-offend. On the other hand we have the fact that the person who was eaten and killed consented to it, on video."
Let me ask a simple question...If you wanted a million dollars, and it wasn't given to you, would it be right for you to go and steal it?
If your answer is no, why not? You want the million dollars...so why cant you have it?
That should answer the question of the man who wanted to be eaten.
Now for a short story...
There was a left handed man who could only turn left on an even numbered turns....Consequently, he found himself either going back the way he came from or going in circles....Someone asked him why he didn't just go left on odd numbered turns, and he found himself answering, "That just wouldn't be right!"
Hmm... sorry admiral, but I don't really follow that kind of argument. But then again it's early in the morning here and I need much more sleep.
If the "million dollars" is the act of cannibalism or consenting to it (for either party), this wasn't really a case of either side not being able to have what they wanted - they were both consenting and giving each other what they individually and collectively desired, as twisted as that might be.
I don't think this comes down to having a need or want satisfied in this case - it comes to what should or should not have been done, more of something associated with ethics, morals, perceptions and what is and is not socially acceptable. Maybe whether society would be giving that "million dollars" is the question.
Preach it Della girl,
If we're going to talk in terms of a million dollars then surely we should be assuming that in this case Armin WAS given the million dollars. In which case, as per my point in my original comment, we wouldn't, with the interests of justice at heart, be able to convict him of the theft (or murder). Now we could charge him with misappropriation of funds or gain under false pretences (not the same as out-right Armed Robbery, with consequently different sentences).
I never meant for it to be construed that I was saying what was done was right, but rather that it's a difficult case to judge (we have consent which in other crimes is enough to acquit, but in this case to defendent needs help and should be recieving it, but not in a prison). If we want to have an outcome that truly sees justice served, if this man has the psycological problems it's implied he has then he shouldn't be put in prison he should be put somewhere that he can recieve the sort of attention he needs.
personally, i think it's kinda odd that Meiwes is being punished for something the victim willing participated in and volunteered for. however, i do believe that as a global society, it's important to say, 'this is a wrong act. this is not acceptable behavior.' though, for a willing victim, i'm not sure the guy should get life. i do agree with the getting help...though i wonder how effective that will be. especially when Meiwes is making money off his offense.
i don't think he's making money. as far as i know it is illegal to make money off of criminal acts...no matter which country you reside.
I agree on the issue of effectiveness of help. That's part of the thing I guess, he would possibly end up in an institution for longer than they could lock him up as a criminal. Of course the environment is completely different, and there's psychiatrists to monitor him... and possibly his medication (which will probably distract him from the money) :p.
lol!
good point!
Curious situation... It does sound more like a euthenasia case to me though. The victim wanted to die and Armin assisted.
Cannibalism may seem offensive to us, but is that just a cultural thing? It could be argued that punching a living human is more *wrong* than eating a dead one...
Post a Comment