| James N. Markels | ||||
|
|
Personal
Information Constitutionalist
Party Political/Policy
Writing Creative
Writing Resume |
by
James N. Markels The first story is almost straight from the movie “Hannibal”: A man referred to as “Armin M.” by authorities was arrested last month for castrating another man (“Bernd Juergen B.”), flambéing the severed member, then feeding some of it to the victim before killing him, freezing some body parts for later, and burying the rest. Armin met Bernd through an online personals ad: “Gay male seeks hunks 18-30 for slaughter,” according to one newspaper. Authorities finally nabbed Armin when he placed more ads after Bernd disappeared. What’s most disturbing about this whole episode is that it is readily apparent that not only was Bernd aware of what Armin intended to do to him, he was a welcome participant. Armin videotaped the entire episode with Bernd, wherein investigators not only saw that Bernd happily consented to the castration and cannibalism, but he even suggested that his flambéed penis might taste better fried, which they then tried. In addition, Bernd had sold most of his personal belongings by the date of his death, and even signed and authorized his will the morning before he left to meet with Armin, telling his workplace that he had “personal matters” to attend to. Such disturbing facts raise a number of difficult questions, such as will I ever be able to eat anything flambéed again? But the most interesting question seemed to be: why is Armin considered a criminal? Don’t get me wrong. I think Armin is probably a very sick individual. An incident like this calls for a psychiatric evaluation and likely commitment to a mental institution. It’s also quite possible that Bernd wasn’t exactly right in the head, either. But Armin isn’t outwardly a threat to anybody who doesn’t want to die. He’s not all that much different than a really imaginative Dr. Kevorkian. And why are we bothering to lock up types like that? Because suicide is inherently wrong? I don’t think suicide is some wonderful thing, but human culture has certainly seen some good in the practice, even today. We wouldn’t think a man who jumps on the live grenade to save the lives of those around him to be crazy. Soldiers are pretty much trained to charge into sure-death situations to enable victory. The monks of Tibet that set themselves on fire to protest oppression were seen as heroes. The practice of hari-kari in Japan has ancient roots and was used to restore honor or avoid capture, even as recently as World War II. And Marcus Porcius Cato, a Roman senator who unsuccessfully opposed Julius Caesar, earned historical admiration for choosing to take his own life rather than fall into Caesar’s hands. Suicide can be considered reasonable in some instances, and to me it seems especially reasonable for people who are suffering from terrible terminal diseases and who have hardly any chance to improve to want to choose that route, and also reasonable to help those escaping such misery, as Kevorkian did. Perhaps Bernd had some grave personal tragedy that drove him to Armin. He may have been perfectly sane when he made his choices, even despite his chosen method of dying. We will probably never know. But it seems wrong to just assume suicide is wrong, or that those who help out are criminally dangerous by default. Speaking of making sane choices, last month a man who changed his name to Jack Ass sued Viacom, the makers of “Jackass: The Movie” and the popular MTV, for defamation of character. Mr. Ass is representing himself and asking $10 million “for injury to my reputation that I have built and defamation of my character which I have worked so hard to create.” See, Mr. Ass changed his name from Bob Craft in 1997 in order to raise awareness of the dangers of drunk driving, starting up the nonprofit Hearts Across America and the Web site www.andiass.com, which sells merchandise that promotes responsible drinking. He believes that the “importance of this work” is jeopardized by the show “Jackass,” which features a motley cast of characters performing various juvenile physical stunts and practical jokes. I would just love to read the briefs for Ass v. Viacom. I suppose if the makers of “Jackass” actually knew about Mr. Ass and were targeting their content at him, there would be a case here. But I just can’t see it being equitable to knowingly change one’s name to an epithet, and then suing others for using that epithet in its common usage for profit. But how about this: say the movie “Bridget Jones’ Diary” features a Bridget Jones that did all sorts of terrible, illegal things. A nun named Sister Bridget Jones brings suit, having lost a lot of reputation as a result of people associating her with the fictional Bridget Jones. By happenstance the nun and the actress look roughly alike, even though the creators of the movie had no knowledge of the nun. What should happen? Finally, two Democrats in the House of Representatives, Reps. Charles Rangel of New York and John Conyers of Michigan, proposed last week to re-institute the draft, mandating military service for men and women between the ages of 18 and 26, with no exceptions for college. Rangel and Conyers oppose war against Iraq and they think that more people would join their point of view if everyone had something to lose, as in a relative or friend who could be sent off to combat. Methinks the Democrats that were burning their draft cards in protest during the Vietnam War must be turning in their graves/BMWs at this turn of events. But besides the total abdication of traditional leftist principles, what’s really surprising is that Rangel and Conyers think this would actually work. On the contrary, making the military bigger via the draft will only encourage deployment of troops on foreign soil. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once encapsulated that mentality when she quipped, “What’s the point of having this superb military . . . if we can’t use it?” At minimum, draftees would be sent to man the safe bases, freeing the volunteer forces to dedicate themselves to a war. This helps reduce aggression how? And that’s not even considering the many issues of individual liberty involved. These three stories remind us that life can be stranger than fiction, but also that our profession gets closely involved with the most fascinating events. Somebody out there is representing Armin against murder charges, writing the brief for Viacom, and tinkering with the draft bill. Win or lose, agree or disagree, cases like these make being a lawyer truly interesting. |
||
