Research Paper Intro Although Necrophilia is a widely controversial topic, it is also one that is very unheard of: or is it? According to Katherine Ramsland’s “Necrophiles”, it’s a more common crime than it seems. She tells the stories of a variety of necrophiliac serial killers. In “A True Necrophile” by Katherine Ramsland, she also tells the story of the most popular mad men of them all, Ed Gein. As Katherine describes, Ed “apparently just loved bodies”. He used body parts to make ordinary household items such as skin for lampshades and bowls made from human skulls. Eventually, he used his own dead mother’s skin to create a female body suit and mask, using it to cross-dress. Ed was a serial killer, a cannibal, and he got pleasure from …show more content…
the bodies of the dead, also making him a necrophile. He killed a number of other women for this purpose until he eventually got caught. In this situation, Ed’s necrophilia made him a criminal. However, does this happen in every case? Necrophilia, whether considered a crime or a mental illness, should be illegal. As seen in the example given to us by Ed, necrophilia is, as defined by Merriam Webster dictionary, “an obsession with and usually erotic interest in or stimulation of corpses”.
We are not particularly familiar with citizens who take part in this type of activity with corpses, the reason being because as a society we are not accepting of it. It is one thing to have an infatuation with a living breathing person, but why the dead? Indeed we as humans seek love and affection from others, however, a dead corpse does not have the capability to offer any of that. A person who feels the need to seek pleasure from a corpse is considered to be suffering from some type of trauma. Dr. Griffiths presents these important statistics that describe what type of people become necrophiliacs and what drives them to this insane state of …show more content…
being. According to Dr.
Mark Griffiths, “Dead strange: A brief psychological overview of necrophilia” (2012), necrophiliacs usually seek employment in funeral parlors or morgues where they would have easy access to the dead bodies. Dr. Griffith also cites an important study from 1989 by Dr. Jonathan Rosman and Dr. Philip Resnick. These psychiatrists examined a number of cases from around the world. The most significant results studied the motivations for necrophiliacs. According to their studies (1989), two-thirds of the cases studied consisted of necrophiliacs who felt the need to seek a partner that would not be able to resist or reject them. Other interesting results concluded that in 21% of cases examined, the person committed necrophilia to a loved ones’ body because they were not ready to let go emotionally. Other motivations found were the desire to have power over someone, the need for company because of loneliness, and in the rarest cases, the sexual attraction to corpses. Perhaps due to the feeling of being neglected by other human beings, these people yearn for someone who cannot walk out on them. These studies were able to determine the motives and leading factors of
necrophilia.
Necrophilia might seem harmless but people who suffer from this illness can actually be a threat to society. The typical necrophiliac is thought to only engage with the dead. However, many go to the extent of killing a living person in order to gain possession of a corpse. In some cases the body is mutilated. Bodies are usually dug up from cemeteries, taken from morgues, or were lovers whom recently passed away. Now imagine the trauma this must cause to the family members of the deceased when they find out their loved ones body has been used for the self-interest of another and in most cases, mutilated beyond repair. In Western society and many religions we are taught not to disturb the dead, mainly to respect them and preserve their living image. But necrophilia goes against those beliefs. It is thought to be a broad topic by many psychologists and scholars because of the many different causes that exist. There are even scholars who have classified necrophiles under the danger region.
Anil Agrawal’s, “A New Classification of Necrophilia”, argues that there are many causes and different types of necrophiliacs. In his article he discusses the different types of necrophilia and divides them in 10 separate sub-categories. These sub categories are chosen by distinguishing the acts in which the necrophile takes part in. Some only fantasize while others like role playing. In the most extreme cases, we find fetishistic necrophiles who cut up and mummify dead body parts, and homicidal necrophiles who are willing to kill in order to obtain a dead body to engage in intercourse with (2009). This evidence is crucial in understanding that necrophiles can be, although not in all cases, a threat to society. As any threat to society, the actions of these insane people should be illegal. According to the description mentioned, our dear friend Ed would certainly fall under this category.
Your body is your property and you alone can choose what to do with it, with the exception of prostitution of course. However, in a case such as necrophilia, the victim is dead. He or she cannot give consent for the actions of the necrophile. Logically speaking we can agree that that this would fall under non-consensual sex (2009). The victim has no means of defending him or herself and thus should be considered unconstitutional. It is not enough to say it is unconstitutional or immoral. The government should be able to agree and outlaw this crime. Beaglescout‘s “Why Necrophilia is wrong” (2009), claims that necrophilia is wrong because it is nonconsensual sex, abuse of a corpse, and ethically wrong. He states that by abusing a corpse you violate its rights and disregard its consent. The author also mentions, as I had above, private property rights. These rights are illustrated under the Declaration of Independence, as follows; Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Property rights fall under the liberty category (2009) according to the anonymous author, beaglescout. He claims that an infringement upon someone’s liberty rights would be almost like making them your slave. He makes this analogy and suggests that in a necrophilia case, the body of the deceased would act as a sexual slave to the perpetrator. According to his analogy and the Declaration of Independence, we can conclude that each and every one of us has the right to prevent this kind of slavery (2009). So why is it that we have property rights, including our body, but federal law doesn’t acknowledge this when dealing with the bodies of the dead?
Even with ample reasoning there will always be people who suggest the opposite. The same is true with necrophilia. Some don’t think there is anything wrong with it, of course there is a very good chance that the people who present this opposing argument are necrophiliacs themselves. This isn’t gay marriage we are dealing with, or abortion, or the right to bear arms, what we are dealing with is something taboo and people are afraid to take action against it. Ones who agree that necrophilia is reasonable have lost reasoning completely. Is it not enough that it is already classified as a mental disorder? And like such mental disorders, it should be treated accordingly, not just brushed off or pushed off into the back of the mind. Necrophilia is indeed a real issue.
Next to those who are advocates for the rights of necrophiliacs, there are also those we claim that society clings onto the wrong reasoning, and that we in fact don’t have the ample amount of facts to really suggest why it is wrong. Such is the case of the writer and ethicist, Turiq Moosa.
In Tauriq Moosa’s, “Is Necrophilia Wrong (2011)”, he claims that we don’t rely on the correct reasoning against necrophilia. Moosa claims that we only think necrophilia is wrong because we see dead bodies as a sort of property or we think of them spiritually. He argues that we are not sacred or special beings and thus our instinct to resist against “violating others bodies” is poorly justified. Moosa compares necrophilia to our right of donating organs to science. He states that there still are people who strongly oppose to this because of the belief that humans are special and that we cling onto this belief when it comes to necrophilia as well. Moosa also argues that we allow the use and destruction of dead bodies for medical research but suddenly cringe when sex is involved.
I found this rather interesting, not because I agreed but because the two ideals are so distinctly different from each other that we couldn’t possibly compare one to the other. Yes, bodies are donated every day to science and we are given the choice to decide if we want our bodies to be used for medical research after we pass away, however, it is for the purpose of helping humanity. I am not going to address whether organ donation is right or wrong but rather I am stating that the ultimate goal is for good. The entire purpose of organ donation is to help save another life. It is thinking not in your own self- interest but in the well-being of others; it is humanity at its finest. Now let’s compare that to necrophilia. What good does necrophilia do to humanity? In what ways will it serve others? That’s right, none. Necrophilia is self-interested and thinking only out of lust or self-gratification. It serves no purpose and only helps fulfil the desires of a mentally ill individual.
In no way do I believe that these two topics coincide with one another however, since the author decided to compare organ donation to necrophilia, I will do the same by recognizing one important and critical factor. Organ donation, as I had stated previously, is consensual. This means we have the choice to do this. There it is, the key word consent, or choice. No one rips away our organs from our bodies without first obtaining permission from the individual before he/she dies, or the individuals’ next of kin, i.e. family. This is the most significant difference between the two. Necrophilia is immoral and un-constitutional because there is no consent from the victim. Perhaps, a solution to this ideal would be, as others have suggested, to allow a person to donate their body to love before he/she dies (Should necrophilia be legalized.Debate.org). Not only is this ridiculously absurd and petrifying but let’s stop to think about this logically for a minute. Love, according to Merriam Webster online dictionary is, “a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person”. However, when study cases were performed results proved that the main motivation for necrophiliacs was not love but lust (1989).
The purpose of Tauriq Moosa’s article is not to advocate for necrophilia but to provoke critical thinking and reflection (as stated by the author). He presents good ideas however, it is unclear why he feels the need to justify necrophilia without particularly being an advocate for this practice.
It is interesting to discover that although most of can agree that necrophilia is immoral, unconstitutional, and unethical, the U.S fails to recognize this. As of today there is no federal law that states necrophilia is illegal in the United States. Some states have created laws of their own however; this is not the case in the majority of the states.
In John Troyer’s work, “Abuse of a Corpse” (2008), he delivers a brief history and re-theorization of necrophilia laws in the USA. Troyer claims that most states in the U.S do not have laws against necrophilia and thus can cause legal discrepancies. He presents an example in which 3 men from Wisconsin could not be charged with attempt of necrophilia because their state had no specific laws prohibiting it. In 2006 three men were caught digging up the body of a corpse at a local cemetery in Wisconsin. When confronted by authorities they admitted to their purpose was to use engage in sexual intercourse with the body. However, like many other states, Wisconsin had no laws prohibiting necrophilia and thus the young men could not be charged for their crime. Instead they were only able to be charged for trespassing and attempted tempt for the removable of movable property, i.e. the dead body. The law does not recognize a dead body as a person, instead they are recognized as human remains and therefore the men could not be charged for attempt of sexual assault. The purpose of Troyer’s article is to point out these flaws in our legal system in order to raise awareness on laws dealing with the dead and their rights.
According to Troyer, only four states use the word “necrophilia” and have made it illegal. In total 40 out of 50 states has some type of law protecting the dead such as, abuse of a corpse (2008). However, Troyer also mentions that because these laws no not explicitly mention or prohibit necrophilia, much debate can arise from certain cases. Discrepancies like these can cause a necrophiliac to walk away without charge. Dr. Troyer also added, “To legislate against this kind of abject behavior means acknowledging its existence, which some authorities may find difficult to deal with” (2008). So I suppose the law is just hesitant to address this rather taboo topic. Rape is illegal and punishable by law so why is it different when dealing with the bodies of the dead? Punishment should be equivalent for both atrocities. It is rather spin-tingling to realize that someone can mutilate our bodies, use them for their own self-interest or lust after we die, and federal law says nothing to protect us. I wouldn’t go as far as saying these individuals are deserving of the death penalty but I do strongly propose that federal law should acknowledge necrophilia as a crime.
The difficult decision would be to pin point the degree of punishment these necrophiliacs should receive. After all, they are considered mentally ill, but their acts are of criminal nature. So how exactly should they be recognized? In Ian Timberlake’s, “Should Necrophilia be Illegal” (2012), he attempts to come to a conclusion on how the government should punish necrophilia. He claims that the real question lies in weather the dead have rights. He states that to some necrophilia is wrong because of religious assumptions or harm to the deceased’s family, while to others it is a “victimless crime”. To add on to this already controversial debate, Timberlake states that necrophilia only harms the family of the deceased because they take severe offense by these acts, however the law can’t exactly punish offense. He also adds, “Offenses are not given, only taken” (2012). His stance on this whole debate is rather unclear seeing how later in his article, he attempts to put together a punishment of his own fit of the crime. Timberlake says that since necrophilia is considered a mental illness the person should undergo psychiatric evaluation and be treated accordingly. However, if the person is considered sane, they should be given a hefty fine or a maximum of five years in prison. Timberlake adds, “I don’t like the fact that circumstances in America exist where someone could either be put to prison for life or walk the streets only labelled a creep, simply on the basis of where someone lives” (2012).
Timberlake seems to agree with the idea of punishing necrophilia by law if the perpetrator is found to be sane. The opposing view point is presented to us by Sumaira Jajjia in her article “Give Necrophiles a chance to recover: Doctors” (2011). She claims that necrophilia is a mental disease and therefore should be treated as one. She states that according to the Diagnostic and Statistical manual of the American psychiatric association, necrophilia is classifies as a paraphilia. Therefore, the victims should be treated as mentally ill citizens instead of criminals. Jajjia’s purpose is not to be an advocate for necrophilia but rather, to eliminate violence against necrophiles and help them seek medical attention instead.
I agree that there should be a middle ground. America should not be a gateway to violence but rather justice. It would do no good to punish people for actions if they don’t seem to understand why they are immoral in the first place. The purpose is also not to aggravate those who on either side of the debate. We need to arrive to a well thought of conclusion. Necrophilia is both a crime and a mental illness. We cannot imprison the mentally ill; however we also can’t allow criminals to roam freely. The best conclusion would be Timberlake’s idea to seek help for those who are mentally ill but punish those who are found sane (2012). This is the only way to be just and not allow criminals to go without punishment, and the ill to go without attention and help. However, is necrophilia curable? Can we really seek help for those who find themselves in such cases and what do we do if it is deemed incurable; do we just put imprison them for their crimes?
Luckily this is not the case. According to Dr. Misty Hook PhD, in “Clinical Psychologist’s Reply to Overcoming Necrophilia” (2013) she claims that there are in fact ways to help individuals overcome this disorder. Dr. Misty PhD offers several suggestions and also mentions several therapies such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, to those who are suffering from this condition. She also states that counseling is the best approach to overcome what most believe to be, a shameful behavior. Dr. Misty assures that there are cures for necrophilia.
So yes there is hope. We must encourage those who suffer from this condition to seek help and encourage everyone to help those in situations like these. Necrophilia cannot be justified, but neither are violent acts against them. They too are human beings and have rights we must respect. We cannot think hypocritically and think less of these people. The best solution in necrophiliac cases is to make the perpetrator undergo psychiatric evaluation and then punish or treat the person accordingly. The law should reflect our rights as citizens, even after we pass away. If we turn our backs to this controversy or we turn our backs to people like Ed, whom was found to be a dangerous serial killer motivated by necrophilia, than we are turning our backs to justice. Necrophilia cannot be justified, it is a crime and a mental illness, and should be treated accordingly.
Works Cited
Troyer, John. "Abuse of a Corpse: A Brief History and Re-theorization of Necrophilia Laws in the USA." Mortality 13.2 (2008): 132-52. Web.
Griffiths, Mark, Dr. "Dead Strange: A Brief Psychological Overview of Necrophilia." Web log post. Wordpress.com. N.p., 20 Jan. 2012. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.
Hook, Misty, Dr. "Overcoming Necrophilia." Ask the Psychologist Online Clinical Psychologist RSS. N.p., 14 Jan. 2013. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.
Moosa, Tauriq. "Is Necrophilia Wrong?" Web log post. Bigthink.com. N.p., 30 Dec. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.
Beaglescout. "Why Is Necrophilia Wrong." Web log post. Wordpress.com. N.p., 02 Mar. 2009. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.
Jajja, Sumaira, ed. "Give Necrophiles a Chance to Recover: Doctors." Dawn. Dawn Media Group, 08 Dec. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.
Timberlake, Ian. "Should Necrophilia Be Illegal?" Insanity Is Just a State of Mind. Wordpress.com, 25 Aug. 2012. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.
Aggrawal, Anil, MBBS, MD. "A New Classification of Necrophilia." Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 16.6 (2009): 316-20. Clinical Key/Elsevier. Web. 21 Sept. 14.
The book I choose for the book talk is “Dead and gone” written by Norah McClintock, this book talks about a murder mystery of Tricey Howard. The main character of the story is Mike, an orphan whose parents got killed in a car crash. He lives with his foster father named John Riel, who was once a police officer. During a swim meet, Mike see Mr.Henderson is staring at a girl name Emily without stopping. Then he informs Emily about what happened in the community center. However, as return Emily blackmails Mike to investigate Mr. Henderson. During the investigation, Mike finds nothing suspicious, but realize Emily is the daughter of Tricey Howard. Tricey Howard was murdered years ago, but the police still haven’t find the real killer. At the meantime,
In The Murder of Helen Jewett, Patricia Cohen uses one of the most trivial murders during the 1800’s to illustrate the sexiest society accommodations to the privileged, hypocritical tunneled views toward sexual behavior, and the exploitation of legal codes, use of tabloid journalism, and politics. Taking the fact that woman was made from taking a rib from man was more than biblical knowledge, but incorporated into the male belief that a woman’s place is determined by the man. Helen had the proper rearing a maid servant, but how did she fall so far from grace. Judge Weston properly takes credit for rearing her with the proper strictness and education. Was Helen seduced at an early age and introduced to sexual perversions that were more persuasive that the bible belt life that the Weston’s tried to live? Was Helen simply a woman who knew how to use what she had to get what she wanted? Through personal correspondence, legal documentation, census reports, paintings, and newspapers we are able to make our own determinations. Cohen provides more than enough background and history to allow any one to make their own opinion how the murder of a woman could be turned into a side show at a circus.
Ann Rinaldi has written many books for young teenagers, she is an Award winning author who writes stories of American history and makes them become real to the readers. She has written many other books such as A Break with Charity, A Ride into Morning, and Cast two Shadows, etc. She was born in New York City on August 27, 1934. In 1979, at the age of 45, she finished her first book.
What would cause an individual to behave in this rather heinous and macabre manner? Using Robert Pickton as a case study, this paper will explore the phenomenon of serial murder and apply research literature to help explain his behaviour and examine issues such as psychopathy, mental disorder, and substance abuse relevant to the Pickton case. In addition, the paper will explore the sexually sadistic nature of Pickton’s murders. Finally, the paper will explore the reasoning behind Pickton’s selection of drug addicted prostitutes as victims that enabled him to conduct his murders in relative anonymity. ...
In a study conducted by Hickey, he discovered that out of thirty-four female serial killers, almost one in two had a male accomplice committing murders with them (Holmes et al., 1991). He also revealed that 97% were white and the average age the women started committing murders was thirty-three (Holmes et al., 1991). Women serial killers differ from men in that most women kill for material gain, such as money or insurance benefits, and they usually commit murder with pills or poison. Stephen Holmes, Ronald Holmes, and Eric Hickey developed a typology for female serial killers similar to the one developed by Holmes and Holmes, discussed earlier. They begin with visionary serial killers, who are compelled by some force, such as God, or spirits, to commit murders. The second type is the comfort killer, who usually kills acquaintances and does so for a material gain, money or real estate (Holmes et al., 1991). The third category is hedonistic female serial killers, which is similar to the earlier typology in that the offender connects murder with sexual gratification. This is the least represented category for female offenders, but evidence for this type of killer can be seen in the case of Carol Bundy (Holmes et al., 1991). Bundy allegedly helped her husband kidnap, murder, and decapitate the
Most of Mr. Dahmer's victims were young, homosexual black men whom Dahmer subjected to sexual assaults (wikipedia.org). Jeffrey Dahmer had one goal in mind; finding a completely compliant sexual partner, essentially making his motivation for killing necrophilia. Dahmer was a closet alcoholic and also suffered from low self-esteem. He is one of the most notorious serial killers in American true crime history.
...uld certainly lead to a desire to dig up the bodies of recently buried women and use them to create macabre artifacts around the house. “Necrophilia can best be described as sexual arousal stimulated by a dead body. The stimulation can be either in the form of fantasies or actual physical sexual contact with the corpse.” (Hucker, 2010)
Jeffery Dahmer is arguably the most notorious serial killer -cannibal in history. Targeting men and boys, Dahmer‘s life of crime began with drinking and sex offending. His murders were exceptionally gruesome, often involving rape, torture, necrophilia, dismemberment, and cannibalism. The media often commented on how “normal” Dahmer appeared. Jeffrey Dahmer made everyone question how one develops into such a monster. By the time of his apprehension, Dahmer had sodomized, murdered, and cannibalized at least seventeen men, mostly black, Hispanic or Asian, in the Milwaukee area between the years of 1978 until his arrest in 1991 (Williams pg.1).
Death and Grieving Imagine that the person you love most in the world dies. How would you cope with the loss? Death and grieving is an agonizing and inevitable part of life. No one is immune from death’s insidious and frigid grip. Individuals vary in their emotional reactions to loss.
"Taboos and Social Stigma - Rituals, Body, Life, History, Time, Person, Human, Traditional Views of Death Give Way to New Perceptions." Encyclopedia of Death and Dying. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. .
“My consuming lust was to experience their bodies. I viewed them as objects, as strangers. It is hard for me to believe a human being could have done what I've done”(Dahmer).
Just because he wasn’t displaying it openly doesn’t mean he didn’t feel anything. Also, Dahmer, might have been suffering from a mental illness as well as psychopathy. In the testimony of Dahmer’s Psychologist, she mentions that he was suffering from a mental illness called necrophilia. Which is sexual relations or attractions towards corpses. Although this may be true, I still don’t think that having this mental illness would cause a man to commit more than 15 crimes just for his need to have sexual relations with dead bodies because he did more than just kill them and have sex. He mutilated the bodies in various ways. Park Dietz, a highly regarded forensic psychiatrist, mentions that Dahmer wore condoms when having sexual relations with the bodies and many times was drunk which shows his lack of sexual desire and aversion to what he was doing (Adler 104-05). I don’t think any society anywhere would deem this behavior as normal, nor would they accept it as some kind of mental illness. These were deliberate acts he
Excerpt from "I Have Lived in the Monster" Robert Ressler: So you were aroused at just the physique? Dahmer: The internal organs. Jeffrey Dahmer was creating very disgusting acts to men some were even under the age of sixteen. He would pick them up and take them back to his house to take “pictures”. He would then give them alcohol that he drugged. The victims could not even speak clearly so there for they could not protect themselves from Dahmer. Dahmer killed a variety of people from different racial backgrounds. He also practiced necrophilia and cannibalism.
Mass Murderers and Serial Killers are nothing new to today’s society. These vicious killers are all violent, brutal monsters and have an abnormal urge to kill. What gives people these urges to kill? What motivates them to keep killing? Do these killers get satisfaction from killing? Is there a difference between mass murderers and serial killers or are they the same. How do they choose their victims and what are some of their characteristics? These questions and many more are reasons why I was eager to write my paper on mass murderers and serial killers. However, the most interesting and sought after questions are the ones that have always been controversial. One example is; what goes on inside the mind of a killer? In this paper I will try to develop a better understanding of these driven killers and their motives.
My favorite work of literature that I read this past semester was “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” by Edgar Allan Poe while I disliked Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Jacobs the most. For both pieces of literature, my respective opinions of them are due to their length, characters, and plot.