Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WookieeSteakIsChewie OP t1_iyto1ds wrote

Reply to comment by h3mip3nultim4te in Pitt students facing abuse of corpse charges for alleged class incident by WookieeSteakIsChewie

>According to the criminal complaints, witnesses told police that student Sonel Jimenez manually sexually assaulted a female cadaver while smirking and making comments.

>What the hell are “ordinary family sensibilities”

Well, for one I'd say "Not fingering my loved ones corpse."

15

h3mip3nultim4te t1_iytoqcx wrote

That’s all fine and well, but it blurs the line a bit when you’ve given them the right to literally dissect your loved one’s vagina.

Again, not defending this conduct morally, but I’m not sure what ordinary sensibilities are when you’ve given grandpa to the university for experiments and study.

−4

WookieeSteakIsChewie OP t1_iytpyr0 wrote

Dude, he was fingering the corpse and making lewd comments. It doesn't blur any lines.

If my wife goes in for an OB GYN appointment and the doctor starts trying to finger bang her, that's illegal. Just because he has permission to examine her vagina doesn't mean you're allowed to finger blast it.

7

h3mip3nultim4te t1_iytr0yo wrote

Of course it blurs the line. The families here gave license for the use of these bodies that literally includes the actual acts here. That fact is not different because the acts were accompanied by lewd comments. Maybe that’s legally significant or maybe it’s not, but it’s a hell of a thing to take 2 years of someone’s life for.
Maybe I just care less about what happens to my body when I die, but this just seems like grossly disproportionate.

And again, imagine a law that says it’s an M2 to “treat people in a way that would offend ordinary sensibilities.” That kind of vagueness is just an open door for arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement. “Don’t be awful” is a good enough personal code I guess, but it’s hardly a legal one built for our already trash legal system.

−7

h3mip3nultim4te t1_iytpun8 wrote

And perhaps more importantly how broad is “treats a corpse in a way that would offend ordinary family sensibilities”?

Imagine yourself in say, Greene County, and imagine all the things that, say, a funeral director does and how they could offend “ordinary family sensibilities” of people there. Embalming offends some “ordinary” families. Putting makeup or other appearance enhancements could offend others. Acknowledging that the person was divorced, or gay, or atheist, or in drug recovery, or so on, could come under the sweep of this statute, and the punishment is up to 2 years in jail.

For my part, I would think that these students are immature as fuck, and they need to learn, not be put into the carceral system. If prosecution leads to that, great. But our jail is full of actual dangerous people, and it shouldn’t be full of stupid ass kids.

−6

WookieeSteakIsChewie OP t1_iytqha3 wrote

I've read a lot of dumb things from a lot of stupid people on Reddit.

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever read from one of the dumbest mother fuckers on this platform.

11

h3mip3nultim4te t1_iytrmau wrote

Not sure why you feel a need to veer into personal attacks here man. Have a good night.

−4

cleanforever t1_iyv8c92 wrote

How the fuck does the professional work a funeral director does by request of the family having the funeral even remotely compare to the perversion that is sexual abuse of a corpse. Apples and potatoes. And yes it should be criminally just as it would for anyone NOT in a university that abuses a corpse.

3

h3mip3nultim4te t1_iyvltef wrote

There’s nothing in the statute that doesn’t apply to funereal requests, and there’s nothing in the statute that says if the (or some members of the) family request something, it’s not still a basis for liability.

Contrariwise, there is language in the comment to the statute that indicates that it’s reference to authorization by other law means to exempt those engaged in academic settings.

1

Illustrious_Air_1438 t1_iyx1e69 wrote

I agree that this law is very vague. "Ordinary family sensibilities" is practically meaningless.

3

h3mip3nultim4te t1_iyxb8ht wrote

And certainly different today than it was when the law was enacted. And different within families.

1