Talk:Consensual crime

Blasphemy
I've put blasphemy back in. This is a free speech related offence. The fact that someone chooses to be offended by it, should not be the responsibility of the blasphemer. In a slander it is the person slandered that has the right of action. Since blasphemy is a slander against God, then only God should have the right to bring legal action, and not his self-appointed defenders. Eclecticology, Monday, April 29, 2002


 * In my system, but I believe that the same should happen in other latin systems too, there is a victim for this crime, that is against the respect of the religious sentiment, a human value and a moral patrimony. It has its victims in the persons that are offended, morally injured by such a behaviour.
 * Better if we try to define what we do intend for "blasphemy", before getting into an equivocal talk: it is for me (and for my vocabulary too) an unrespectful expression or action, most typically in oral form, that brings insult to a god, a saint, a religious entity or symbol in general.
 * This of course has nothing to do with the right of free speech. No one (in theory, perhaps) would ever prosecute me if I publicly discuss a religion, its dogmas, its members, its rules of conduct, whatever I like, with the sole limit that this has to be a discussion, therefore it cannot contain anything that could offend anyone (which is already a general rule). Good manners are not required (even if always welcome), only the fact that we respect the fact that other people believe in what we are discussing about.  My freedom of speech would end where the freedom of cult of other people begins.  They can profess and even preach, proclaim, predicate their religion as long as they don't offend me.  And I can discuss their religion and whatsoever as long as I respect their beliefs and don't offend them. This is freedom of speech, on both sides, as long as no one has an intention of insulting anyone or anything else.
 * The crime is not against God, for strange it might seem. We don't have virtual personalities other than the personality of the State that can be passive subjects of a crime, and we cannot consider God as a person or a personality. If you offend me because of my nationality, it won't be the Italian Republic to have a right of action against you, it would be my only simple person, the really offended subject (unless you were representing your State or another political or collective entity). Yet, the State has a personality that God has not. So, God is merely regarded as the object of religion of the citizens (of some of them) and not directly considered because by paradox He has no... legal relevance in Himself, He cannot be party in any procedure. This doesn't automatically mean that everyone is free to curse just because there is no available evident (legal) counter-party. And since the state in this case can be interested only by a very weak hypothesis of generical injury to the public order, we are not seriously talking about the State as offended personality, even if a rough element of this position could also be true.
 * The point is: the faithful is the ordinary victim of this crime/violation. The faithful in this case is not protected as a "defender" of God, because the eventual subsequent action is not a subrogation, nor a constitution of civil (?) party (I obviously refer to my system, I hope terms are comprehensible and that you can find corresponding elements in your system): the faithful is protected because of his essential right to live his religion in peace and without external troubles.
 * I have to know, because it it can be ordinarily foreseen, that if I curse against a certain God in front of a faithful, he will be offended by my words. So, if I curse, I have to take all my responsibility for the moral damage that I can cause. I cannot just simply offend and then go on completely uncensored. Note that at a general regard, not necessarily the listener has to be a faithful of what I am insulting, to be offended: a sensible person might be offended just the same. Just to make a precise case, if you curse against the jewish religion, which here is professed by a well known but really a very little community, most people, starting by me, would feel offended by a public blasphemy against jewish entities or symbols, even if they are not faithfuls of jewish religion - I would be offended, and I am not even a faithful at all. Could I deserve a protection by the legal system? Or do you expect the system should allow a factual freedom of insult?
 * We do agree (I'm sure) that everyone has the right to profess the religion he likes (and this is often a constitutional right); I also think that we can agree on the fact that the respect of the religious sentiment is a relevant part of the constitutional right of freedom of religion (and if a right is not protected by the system, there's no need of keeping it into the system).
 * I can just imagine, from your words, that this is quite far from the common mentality in other systems (we should perhaps find a place in Wikipedia for these crossing points, that are becoming many and interesting), and I was perhaps culturally biased (or still am now) in considering the respect of religious sentiments as a general value (juridical value; of juridical relevance; at a legal regard - I know perfectly well that we still have much to learn in this field!). But I tend to consider that something of these notes will certainly regard the systems in use in other great civilisations too.
 * So, I believe that a victim, an offended person exists in your system too, therefore blasphemy cannot be listed in the article.
 * My two eurocents :-) --Gianfranco
 * For the length of that there were more than two euro cents involved. I will wait a couple of days before I can give it fair and proper consideration.  My dictionary does specifically define blasphemy as a slander of God.  Is bestemmiare as narrow in its meanings as that?  I would like to make sure at least, that we are referring to the same act. Eclecticology


 * Sorry for length, Wikipedia often makes me exhume ancient arguments that were object of many long, very long academical debates in my youth. :-)
 * Well, on my side I have for "slander" some meanings that seem to sound as lighter than what bestemmiare describes. Bestémmia completely coincides in Italian with Blasfemìa, the only equivalent I have found for "blasphemy". And I have for bestemmia: oath, curse, swear. Sorry to get into details, but typically a bestemmia is a vulgar expression that unrespectfully puts into relationship God (or another religious figure) with animals or with sexual or otherwise scandalous arguments. So, it is a real offence like what one could say, in vulgar terms, about his worst enemy and... his mother. I hope the note wasn't too direct. --Gianfranco


 * The question of whether blasphemy is victimless or not can be settled rather easily: if you say "God sucks" in front of an atheist policeman with nobody else present, will he be required to arrest you? AxelBoldt

Alex, your test determines whether or not the act is a crime, not whether it is victimless. To test the latter, you simply ask everyone who complains, "Are you God"? If they cannot prove that they are, then they have no standing to complain. --LDC


 * (evidently) I am not God, and this I can prove, but I could however be offended by a sentence like the one above reported. I could suffer for it, I could be disturbed by the needless expression. Legally speaking, I could receive a moral damage as the consequence of that action.
 * Let's suppose I have a religious sentiment: I can consider it as an insult to my freedom of cult, directly, and I couldn't stand it.
 * Let's suppose I don't have a religious sentiment: I can consider it as an insult to someone else's freedom of cult and I can find that this would be not tolerable, and without even being biased by my own religious beliefs, because it is generally known that no real faithful would be joyful in hearing his most important beliefs being derided.
 * Am I really too sensible, do I suffer from a superiority complex, or in the place you live in I could insult everyone without ever suffering any consequence? I believe you have in your system both a crime for the simple insult and a law for protecting the freedom of cult. If your system has these two elements, your system should respect the religious sentiment. This doesn't force you to have one, if you don't want to have one. This only forces you to respect the beliefs of other people. The offended persons of a not victimless crime.
 * If I don't believe in your God, I don't need to laugh at what you deeply consider so serious for your soul. I could discuss, respectfully, not sneer at your beliefs. The contrary being a conduct that causes damage (moral damage), therefore creating a passive subject of the crime.
 * Just a detail about the victims and a POV about your test: I'd preferably simply ask everyone who complains: "Are you a faithful"? But whatever it might be, I wouldn't wait for the answer, because it makes no difference to me. --Gianfranco

Hrmmm... Maybe I'm just weird, but don't have to actually believe in a given religion to blaspheme it? Otherwise it's just plain disrespect, which is another matter entirely. I could say "may God rot in Hell"; if I were Christian, this would be blasphemy; if I were an atheist, this would simply be an ironic and disrespectful description of attitude towards the Judeo-Christian god. One can also slander, libel, or defame the followers of a religion or cult, in which case injury does occur, and is prosecutable. But simply performing an act of blasphemy would be an internal matter for the religion in question, would it not? pgdudda


 * In a free country like the US, sure. But try calling the prophet Muhammed a fat whoremonger in an Islamic country and see if the local government thinks you're just being "disrespectful".  Blasphemy against a state-sanctioned religion has been and is today a punishable crime regardless of what the speaker personally believes.  And that's what this article is about--criminal offenses. --LDC


 * Depends on the country; while their legal term for it may be "blasphemy", it actually falls under the heading of "insulting (insert religion here)" - which is still, IMO, a "victimless" crime. Of course, the subject of blasphemy falls under the general heading of "freedom of (and from) religion" principle outlined, for example, in the U.S. Constitution.  Islamic states do not have the same sorts of legal protections, although the freedom of religious practice varies from country to country.  Just my extra 2 US cents' worth of thought.  pgdudda

Blasphemy to the state
I'm not totally sure about it, but I think that in some countries it is a crime to offend the state itself, or the flag, the himn (not to stand up while it sounds), or the king, the president, etc. Shouldn't they be considered Consensual crime, just the same as blasphemy? --Pinzo 09:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Some countries have laws protecting national institutions and culture. I think it would make sense to change the 'religion' section to 'religion and culture', and move 1 or 2 examples accordingly. --Townmouse 03:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights and patents
I'm removing mention of IP law from here. I happen to be a non-believer in those laws as well, but they are an entirely separate category since there is a clearly identifiable plaintiff in those cases (i.e., the author or inventor). Whether or not such a plaintiff has the right to complain about the use of his work is another matter, but it's not the same as the case of a crime in which the only plaintiff is the state. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
 * Very well, I can see that point.
 * There's still no explanation, however, for removing seatbelt laws! Eclecticology
 * Seatbelt law violations are not victimless, in some senses (though perhaps not in the sense of this article, I'm not sure). In a society with either health insurance or a public health scheme it costs the funders of the health scheme a great deal of money (because the injuries to unbelted passengers are more substantial, on average, and require more expensive medical treatment, and they are also more likely to die).  Secondly, it means that other road users have a greater risk of causing death and injury from a driving mistake.  --Robert Merkel

I didn't remove seatbelt laws, and they clearly do belong here. One can make thin arguments for "harm" to third parties caused by all of these things--that doesn't change their essential nature as consensual activities. Yes, in a society with public health spending, risky behaviors can harm others--but one could argue that that's a good reason not to have public spending on health care just as well as a reason to criminalize risky behavior. -- Lee Daniel Crocker

If no copyright owner can be identified, as in the case of a work of corporate authorship after several mergers and bankruptcies, then who is the victim of criminal copyright infringement? And if the author has been dead for 60 years, who is the victim? --Damian Yerrick 03:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also orphan works. --Damian Yerrick 16:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gambling and recreational drugs
As far as gambling and drugs concerned, one of the major arguments for laws prohibiting or regulating them is that indulging in them can harm others (for instance, a gambler losing all their money and thus lacking the ability to purchase essential items for their family), and the easiest and most humane way to protect people from this harm is to restrict access to the activity that can cause this consequential harm. --Robert Merkel

I think the article should make clear that there are two entirely different ways to justify consensual crime laws: Virtually all consensual crime laws are justified in both ways. Opponents of consensual crime laws discard the first type of justification as irrelevant and argue against the second justification by either AxelBoldt
 * the proscribed activities are immoral
 * the proscribed activities lead to harmful effects to third parties in the future.
 * denying the harmful effects, or
 * arguing for proscribing activities "closer to the harm".

...and also that laws against such things often cause more harm than the things themselves. --LDC

"Denying" sounds too negative. I'd say "showing evidence against the harmful effects." --Damian Yerrick

Statutory rape
I removed: ..and will replace it with "statutory rape", which is what I think you have in mind. First, "pedophilia" is a psychological condition, not an act. It is not, in itself, a crime to be attracted to children--just to act on that attraction by actually molesting one. Second, the "pedo-" prefix assumes that the victim, even though giving apparent consent, is truly a "child", and therefore incapable of informed consent. "Statutory rape" is a better example here, because even the word itself makes clear that the reason it's considered rape is that the law says so. It is often prosecuted for relations among teenagers who are quite obviously not "children" in any meaningful sense, and who are quite worldly and experienced enough that their consent is fully informed and real, yet it is a crime anyway.
 * Pedophilia, where the minor participant is a willing actor.
 * ...oops, you beat me to it. Yes, I think that's much better. --Unknown
 * In analysis of this issue, we're looking only at legal consent. As we know, all ages for voting, sexual consent, drinking and smoking are not actually founded in a direct attribute of the person. They are arbitrary, though likely based in good statistical averages of maturity. That a child cannot give legal consent does not mean they don't aren't able to give informed mature consent, but that they are not of the proper age recognized by the law as being able to give it. In the future it's more sensible to base this cognitive attribute on testing rather than chronology, wouldn't you agree? --Tyciol 07:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed statutory rape as it is not fit for inclusion in the article. The article states in the introduction that the activities take place between consenting adults. This is, by definition, untrue for the case of statutory rape. --Dante Alighieri 10:48 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Only if you define "adult" as "over the legal age of consent in the country you happen to be living in". However, in this context, "adult" means "capable of giving consent". For example, if they set the age of consent for anal sex to 70, then anal sex under the age of 70 would be statutory rape and a consensual crime. It's certainly controversial whether statutory rape should be regarded as a consensual crime, and we need to take care over a NPOV, but it is on topic and can be discussed in the article. Martin 16:34 10 Jul 2003 (UTC) (edited - I wasn't clear)


 * I didn't say that it wasn't on topic or shouldn't be discussed, just that, given the definition given for consenual crimes, it was ineligible on its face from inclusion. I still feel that way. You are, of course, welcome to tidy up the definition of consenual crime to make stautory rape fit the definition. --Dante Alighieri 19:50 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's important to note that there's a difference between "legal consent", and "consent" in a non-legal sense (ie, agreement). The problem with saying that statutory rape isn't a consensual crime is that the same argument could be made for cases involving adults - most notably, sadomasochism. In the UK at least, you cannot consent to assault, which is why it is illegal - but by the above logic, this is not a consensual crime! However, at the same time it should surely be noted that people do consent, in a non-legal sense, and that many people consider it to be a consensual crime. Mdwh 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added this back in - it's a perfect example of a consensual crime. (That the person can't legally be considered consent is true of all consensual crimes - the whole point of a consensual crime is one where the state decides that a person's consent is not legally valid.) Mdwh 03:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Human cloning
"Human reproduction outside ordinary methods, such as chemical or genetic interventions, birth control (illegal in many places), human cloning."

Cloning creates a human who has not (of course) given his/her consent to being a clone. It could have negative effects on this persons life and he/she could be considered a victim. I am not sure what is the meaning of "chemical or genetic interventions" and maybe it should be clarified.

Black market and trade in dangerous items
"The black market, or trade in general in such things as unapproved products or unlicensed services (to willing and fully informed buyers)."

The term black market may involve trading with stolen goods or dangerous materials that the person buying them might not be able to handle properly. This is a risk for other people.

"Simple ownership of certain inanimate objects, such as guns, or substances such as plutonium or nerve gas."

The owner may not again be able to handle these objects properly. -XeoX


 * There is a big difference between guns and plutonium or nerve gas, and they shouldn't be listed right next to each other. Modern firearms are totally inanimate and incapable of causing harm without some person or other animate entity being involved. But plutonium and nerve gas can cause harm without any one's active involvement. (But I can't think of a good way to split them right at this instant, so I'm not doing anything about it.) -Jay Kominek
 * Guns can be discharged accidentally, so they are a legitimate example of a dangerous object. As far as I know, there are no laws distinguishing between guns being accidentally discharged by 'animate entities' like people and animals, and otherwise (e.g. in a fire, or due to defects in the weapon).  (Actually I'm a bit surprised by your qualifier that only modern firearms are inanimate.  Unless you're including the horses in horse-drawn artillery.)
 * However, firearms and other weapons are also sometimes banned as devices used to commit crimes, which I've added as a separate category. I've substituted fireworks as a better example of objects banned due to the danger of accidents.
 * --Townmouse 03:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abortion
Many people would disagree that this is a "victimless crime". There are enough examples already without heading into murky territory.
 * This would be dependant upon what constitutes a 'victim' and generally, the rationalization of what constitutes human. Generally, in it's embryonic stage, the killing of the embryo IS a victimless crime. I am unsure of what stage is generally accepted as defining conciousness, but it is beyond that. Where to draw the line (I know some clinics have a cutoff of how many months they'll do) would be the issue to judge here, and I'm sure we could draw upon the abortion wiki and related ones to help us here. --Tyciol 07:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensual kidnap
Do we know enough about consensual kidnap to put that in the list, or is it already covered under other sections? 21:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even lead to an article. Is consensual kidnapping even a crime? It sounds like going on a trpi with me. If you report a kidnapping to the police and they both went along with it, that would be more of obstructing justice for both parties. It is interesting to think of how this might be dealt with.--Tyciol 07:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with victimless crime?
Should this article be merged with the article on victimless crime? --Serge 02:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think so. Let's put up tags and start a vote. I'll do that in a couple of days if nobody objects (or does it first). Jules LT 21:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Why bother with a vote if no one is objecting? I suggest that if no one objects, with good reason, by, say the end of November 2005, just do it. --Serge 05:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Somebody appaears to already have copy-and-pasted an older version of victimless crime into this article. But they pasted the rendered text, NOT the wikitext source, and it looks pretty bad.  I'm going to delete that part, and perhaps start a proper merge.  Jamie 11:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. While "consensual crime" is more technically correct as a label for what is being described, "victimless crime" is a much better-known and more widely used phrase.  They should remain separate, but linked. -- User:  Marc


 * I think a merge would be good, to avoid duplicating content, and discussions (eg, whether or not consensual crimes should involve those who can't legally consent, such as children - currently, the two articles are taking different sides on this issue). But I think it should be noted that victimless and consensual are not necessarily equivalent. Consensual crimes would be things like sadomasochism, but in some cases there may be hurt done. A victimless crime would be things like speeding or drink driving, where no one is actually hurt - the issue of consent either doesn't apply, or you could say that the other drivers who are put at risk never consent to this situation. Mdwh 22:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Both articles state the terms as interchangable, and the content seems to be very similar. I'm not sure which should be merged into which though - I agree that "victimless crime" is the more well-known term, even if "consensual crime" is technically correct. --Seanlavelle 13:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. They are completely different concepts and ideas. In a consensual crime, all the participants will be liable whether as joint principals or as principals and accessories, whereas a crime is victimless when it cannot be committed by the victim even though he or she may be a consensual participant in its commission. David91 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your definition of a victimless crime, "when it cannot be committed by the victim even though he or she may be a consensual participant in its commission". How can you refer to "the victim" of a "victimless crime" when such a crime has no victim, by definition?  --Serge 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe a large dividing point between consensual and victim would be people's perception of what can constitute a victim and if one can be a victim even when giving consent, or not give consent yet not be a victim. For example, are we using LEGAL consent? Would we apply a similar legal status to 'victim'? I'm not aware that exists, it's a much more interpretive term, generally when someone is victimized, they are hurt. Issues like legal consent exist to prevent victamization, but because legal consent is violated it does not necessarily mean someone is victimized, meaning hurt or disadvantaged. Age of consent, for example. It might be an intellectually or emotionall consensual act, but certainly not a legal one, and yet it could be a victimless crime. It would still be prosecuted in respect of the law to protect minors from becoming victims which is very frequent with underaged sex. --Tyciol 07:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean slate
I have separated the two pages and now leave it to others to build on consensual crime and rewrite victimless crime so that it is not NPOV. David91 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sleep sex and necrophilia material removed
I have removed the following material:
 * Sticky issues of consensual crime involve sleep sex and necrophilia. People who are asleep or dead (unconcious) cannot consent to sex as it is happening, or object to it during the act. Even so, consent can be given prior to becoming unconcious. During sex between trusting partners, permission does not need to be asked for every single act or position throughout the act, as there is mutual trust and understanding, and in an ongoing physical relationship, sex may happen without any verbal or physical communication at all, simply through inferred consent. For issues like sleep and death, generally a written contract or proof of permission is a good idea since lack of resistance or refusal is not grounds for believing there is permission and acceptance.

As far as I know, there are no such crimes as sleep sex and necrophilia. Hence, the inserted passage starts off with a false step. If the sleeping partner is alive and there was no prior consent, e.g. by virtue of a subsisting sexual relationship, this would be rape or an indecent assault and so covered under the ordinary offences. I suppose there are offences involving the desecration of the dead in various jurisdictions, but since the "victim" is dead before, during and after the event, consent cannot be an issue. Thus, there are no sticky issues of any sort here. Unless you know better that is. As an aside, the links to assisted suicide and euthanasia both direct to euthansia, and euthanasia itself is not, so far as I know, an identified offence whereas complicity in suicide is, but... David91 17:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As of 2003, necrophilia is a crime in the UK, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't illegal in at least some other places. I doubt that someone consenting whilst alive would change this.


 * And there is no crime labelled "euthanasia", but the act of euthanasia is most certainly a crime. See my points below - not every word we use is used in the sense of "a crime with this name". After all, there isn't a specific crime for say, sadism and masochism, but we still list that as an example of a consensual crime. Mdwh 23:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing me up to date. It is remarkable what young legislators think is important these days. Necrophilia: s70 creates an offence for A intentionally to penetrate sexually any part of the body of a corpse with A's penis, any other body part or any other object, knowing or being reckless as to whether he is penetrating any part of a corpse. A commits no offence if B dies during intercourse unless A realises and continues to penetrate her/him. But this is not a consensual crime. It is a victimless crime. The policy of the offence is to prevent conduct deemd disrespectful to a corpse. For the record, the law treats a dead body as property to be protected from damage and not as a person capable of giving consent. As I said above, the issue of consent is irrelevant in dealing with necrophilia. I have added a sentence or two on rape to reinstate your point about sleep.
 * The whole point of this article is to identify conventional crimes and to show whether or not consent by the participants will excuse the behaviour. Hence, it does not matter what the lay public may or may not call the offences, in law, rape is rape, murder is murder, assault is assault. etc. Thus, the format we have adopted is to begin with the offence and then, by way of example of the situation we have in mind, use the lay terms to make things more clear to the reading public. We may properly start off with assault, and then mention S&M. And I have not removed the reference to euthansia because, despite the technical offence under the classificatrion of homicide, lay people think of some situations as euthanasia even though not all deaths are good ones (literal translation). David91 02:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to apologize for my presumptuousness in adding these two before discussing the proposal here, I had neglected to read and recognize that the talk section was well patrolled by people who feel strongly about the issue. As such, I will attempt to define my opinion more clearly:


 * Sleep sex, even with a prior romantic relationship, is something that should in good a good conservative stance, be discussed beforehand. Consenting to any variety of sexual intercourse while awake does not imply that someone would like sexual activity while unconcious. It is something that should be asked beforehand, and if the person requests notification upon waking of what has transpired, they should also be told or it should be considered rape as well. Necrophilia, similarly should be contemplated under those circumstances of getting prior approval. As you have shown, there are examples of necrophilia being specifically outlawed as a crime. Furthermore, instances such as Schwarzenneggar's corpse defilement are shady get-arounds that skip about the issue. My knowledge of law is limited, but is it generally acceptable for a person to decide on how they allow their remains to be 'vandalized'? If a person states in their will that they consent to their remains being used by certain parties for necrophilia, it sounds reasonable to assume that this would be legal. Obviously, if consent is not given, then a crime is commited. Even under that situation, it would be one of vandalization rather than 'necrophilia' as a specific crime, although mental anguish by surviving relatives/caretakers of the deceased' corpse could be taken into account for their property having been damaged. --Tyciol 07:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I indicated above, a corpse is property owned by a nominated beneficiary in a will (e.g. a hospital) or by the next-of-kin or, by default, the owners of the cemetery where it has been buried. No provision in a will for the sexual treatment of the corpse would be valid or relevant. Theoretically, only the owners of the body could consent. No issue of consent by the corpse as victim can arise and any reference to it falls outside the terms of this page except in the extreme situation of one partner dying during sexual intercourse and the other continuing knowing of the death. As to the nature of the offence, it might be vandalism in the U.S. but there is a specific offence in the UK. David91 09:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If they continue knowing of the death (that'd be hard to prove though) that would definately be necrophilia, the minute someone dies their corpse would become property of the nominated beneficiary. That... or when the doctor declares them dead... does the law recognize estimated time of death or the doctor's death statement? That sure is a sticky issue, I guess the only way it could occur without it being property vandalization and outside interference is if: 1. The perpetrator of necro is the beneficiary. 2. A clause in the will stating possession of nominated beneficiary status based upon the clause that prosecution not be charged against said persons engaged in sexual violation of the corpse. I wonder how that would work... if the clause negated their ownership upon the moment of pressing suit against necro-perpetrator, would the suit still hold up because before that clause took effect they were still owners? Very confusing legalities... Tyciol 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the offender is the beneficiary is irrelevant because no-one can give a consent that would prevent this from being a crime. The crime is committed when penetration occurs with the relevant knowledge of death. Anyway, I fear that this discussion is original research. I do not think that any of the standard textbooks on criminal law would explore this detail. That said, it is quite interesting to think about the technicalities of it. Law can be fun. David91 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Murder vs assisted suicide
Regarding David91's changes, I think the disagreement is that you are looking at strictly legal terms, whilst I am not. I said "i.e., Assisted Suicide", you moved this to later on to say it is only called that in certain countries. However, even in countries where this is considered murder, it is still known as "assisted suicide". This is not the legal crime, but the concept, and I feel that the article assisted suicide is far more specific and relevant that that of murder (which mostly covers it as a non-consensual crime).

Consider the difference between these two examples:
 * Assault, where both parties consent. Some countries have characterised some of the possible situations as sadism and masochism.
 * Sexual and non-sexual conduct involving the use or threatened use of violence which causes injuries (e.g., sadism and masochism), which would be considered assault.

In the first case, we start off with the legal criminal definition, in the second, we start off with a non-legal description (which applies whether it is legal or not), and then specify that it could be considered illegal.

I believe that the first case carries the implication that these things are immoral (referring to S&M as "assault", referring to assisted suicide as "murder"). Also, terms like assisted suicide and sadism and masochim are used in all countries, and are nothing to do with the legal situation. Since we go with the second case for the other examples, I don't see why assisted suicide should be different. At the least, even if we start off with "Murder", I'd like to revert my "i.e. assisted suicide" nearer the top, since that is what we are talking about. Mdwh 23:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally, see my comments above. I agree about the example of sexual and nonsexual conduct. It is inconsistent. I have amended it, David91 07:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Incest
Incest between 2 consenting adults in various countries is a crime. Refer to the Incest page for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.222.12.252 (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples section is written in an non-encnclopedic way
The last section of the 'Examples' section is written in a discussionary rather than factual way, asking if the reader agrees. It should be written in a more objective, citation-driven style Fones4jenke (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedic* Fones4jenke (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Criminal transmission of HIV
I've significantly modified this section under examples. Regarding the edits I made, treatment options for HIV have improved enough that calling it a terminal disease equivalent to homicide doesn't feel right. I also removed the part about how partners "should" expect a warning for two reasons: 1.) it felt inappropriate to speak on behalf of others and 2.) the U=U debate makes this more complicated. Additionally, I'm not quite sure if this example should be on the list at all, since it's unclear to me if being a consensual crime would require consenting to the act resulting in a crime (sexual activity) or the crime itself (transmission). Someone with more legal knowledge would need to look into it. (P.S. I'm still figuring out the watchlist, ping if you want my attention.) Duckduckgoop (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)