The German “Hannabal Lector”, one Armin Meiwes, was convictedthis month only of manslaughter and given less than eight years b

This piece was first posted on “The Policy Think Site”

Set your Bookmark to: www.jaygaskill.com

Contact:

Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail: office@jaygaskill.com

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THAT GERMAN CANNIBAL?

HE’S BACK!

Update: May 9, 2006

On retrial, Mr. Meiwes was convicted of murder, and sentenced to “life” in prison.

Kudos to the German legal system for rectifying an obvious miscarriage of justice, using a review process unavailable in the U.S.

Of course, “life” in prison means “a very long confinement”, possibly less than actual life imprisonment.

Still the German system resulted in successfully fitting the (available) punishment to the crime. Congratulations are in order.

JBG.

The background follows in reverse chronological order….

]

Update: April 1, 2006

Armin Meiwes, the infamous torture-killer cannibal (see story below), who was given a short prison term for a torture murder mislabeled as manslaughter, is now being retried…

From a press report dateline FRANKFURT, we now learn that the “Cannibal of Rotenburg”, who ate and murdered a putatively “willing” victim, a man Armin Meiwes solicited though an internet site, has won an injunction from the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court barring distribution of the English-language film, “Butterfly: A Grimm Love Story.” The court ruled with Meiwes (who may hope to profit later from a movie made on his own terms). The decision was based on the morally questionable theory that the movie violated Meiwes’s “privacy rights”.

Sure.

Since Meiwes was arrested in December 2002, he has confessed to the lurid murder that took place in March 2001, and has willingly basked in the light of publicity. A more appropriate moral basis to enjoin the movie would be to spare us from the spectacle of outright evil. But that would be …. wrong.

JBG

Update: January 19, 2006

Armin Meiwes, the infamous torture-killer cannibal (see story below), who was given a short prison term for a torture murder mislabeled as manslaughter, is now being retried after a German appellate court agreed with the prosecution’s argument that the evidence supported the greater offence. Of course it was murder, in spite of the deranged victim’s alleged “willing participation.”[1]

This outcome was ordered by the German reviewing court because Mr. Meiwes’ bizarre and grisly crime was committed to obtain sexual gratification. The reality: The prosecution’s appeal succeeded on legal and moral grounds. The new Germany might not be regressing to Weimar moral ambivalence after all – at least not lately.

We can be grateful that the German court system found a way to undo the earlier outrage. An American court would have been unable to correct the mistake. We Yanks are constrained by our constitutional limitations barring retrial for a greater offense than the original conviction; when the same criminal transaction is re-prosecuted, after a conviction on a lesser offense sharing common legal elements with the greater offense, the retrial has been held to violate the double jeopardy prohibition.

This grave miscarriage of justice (and moral outrage) may yet be overwritten by a murder conviction and a life sentence.

The death penalty (highly appropriate in my opinion for calculated murders imbued with overt, dangerous evil[2]) is not happening for Mr. Meiwes. The Europeans no longer do that[3] -- at least not until the impact of their IIslamist sub-populations works a cultural reconstruction[4].

The case, complete with Mr. Meiwes’ repellant video tapes, has (thankfully) been just a European media circus so far. But Hollywood can’t be far behind.

My earlier comments about spreading moral ambivalence, and the moral deterioration of the popular culture should not be confined to the continent.

JBG

My earlier column follows below:

As it appeared in the February 7, 2004

OAKLAND TRIBUNE

MY WORD

About That German Cannibal Case

Jay B. Gaskill

Most news junkies already know about the German cannibal, Armin Meiwes, convicted this month of manslaughter and given less than eight years by a German Judge for a premeditated torture murder in which the victim was actually conscious and videotaped for part of the butchery and cooking.

I omit the details of Meiwes’ sickening conduct and ask: Should society give any moral or legal weight whatsoever to the supposed “consent of the victim” in this case (a man mentally disturbed enough to respond to an internet invitation to be eaten)? To do so would be to sanction authentic evil.

But evil is a problem for the “modern” mind in part, because the recognition of evil requires an act of judgment, an increasingly difficult exercise for those trapped in politically correct thinking. True evil entails the response of implacable resistance, unambiguous condemnation, and relentless opposition. These are not “PC” responses. In any culture crippled by a facile and fashionable ethos of political correctness, evil is not to be confronted.

Many writers have weighed in on this bizarre case, blaming the German Jurist, mocking the defense arguments, and so on. No one seems yet to have fully gotten it. The central problem is the law. Specifically, this horrid outcome was ordained by German law, the product of a mindset weakened by moral ambivalence. This dangerous social condition is eerily reminiscent of the Weimar Republic.

Contrast this with a healthier culture. As a California attorney, I believe the following scenario would unfold had the cannibal murder been committed here:

The Charges:

Murder (Penal Code 187, (a)) in the First Degree “perpetrated by lying in wait, torture” or a “deliberate, premeditated killing committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate…mayhem.” (P.C. 189).
Special Circumstances in that “the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel” (P.C. 190.2 (a) (14),
Special Circumstances in that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in…or attempting to commit” … mayhem. (P.C. 190.2 (a) (17) (J),
Special Circumstances in that the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture.

Penalty Range:

For first degree murder, alone, 25 years to life.
For special circumstances murder, life without the possibility of parole or death by lethal injection.

Penalty Factors:

Two penalty factors that a jury weighing a possible death sentence would be asked to consider:

1. “The circumstances of the crime…” (P.C. 190.3 (a))

2. “Whether or not the victim consented to the homicidal act.” (P.C. 190.3(e)).

Likely Outcome:

On these facts, it’s a safe bet that most California juries, most of the time, would sentence the cannibal to death. Were the defendant somehow to escape substantial justice via a loophole of any kind, it’s an equally safe bet that the California voters would race to close that loophole.

Edmund Burke warned us that evil triumphs when good people do nothing to oppose it. I would add that evil tends to grow stronger wherever its worst manifestations go unrecognized, excused or tolerated.

[]

Jay Gaskill is the former Alameda County Public Defender

[1] See: Impaired Consent: Drugs as Chemical Slavery http://www.jaygaskill.com/narc.htm

[2] See: Reflection on Evil and the Modern Mind http://www.jaygaskill.com/evil2l.htm