Yes, I have two children. I love them dearly. If either of my children died, or my wife, my mother, sister, father, etc. it would be a devastating situation to me. Once they are dead, however, I belive that they don't inhabit their body any longer. Their soul has moved on. The corpse is not them. Your response here is understandable and emotional, but it isn't a basis for law (unfortunately). According to the article that started this discussion, this situation has occurred (as far as we know) a handful of times in the last decade and yet the legislature spent two years to draft this law (instead of focusing on crimes that are really a big problem). I agree that this is a handful of times too much. Still, these people who are (by your own posts) sick, are going to be felons for this behavior, and yet there is no injury to a living person or to property in this situation (according to your statement above, you find this to be a sexual crime, California agrees, but sexual crimes are against living people, expect appeals on this basis).

The California law quoted specifies a penalty of up to 8 years in prison, not a mental facility. Additionally, since this is indeed classified as a sexual crime, that person will have to register as a sex offender wherever they live. Let me restate: the law specifies that a sexual activity with a non-living object is a felony that requires up to 8 years in prison, but doesn't require any counseling. Is this the right solution for an admittedly ill person? Since when did illness (even mental illness) become a crime? I'm with you, the action is reprehensible, but consider that these people have a specific and selective bent that endangers nobody except themselves. These people need doctors, granted, but do they need a felony record?

What is more disturbing about this is that the legislature has passed a law prohibiting a sexual practice that, having no living victim, could be considered to be consentual (all of the living partcipants consented). Recently, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that sodomy (another consentual act) could be outlawed because of privacy rights, so this opens the extreme likelihood that if someone performs necrophilia in a private place (such as their bedroom), especially with someone they knew and were involved with, that it will be protected, voiding this law. I'm pretty sure we all don't want the Supreme Court making this ruling, but mark my words, this law will result in the Supreme Court being petitioned to hear this case, and based on prior case law, they might have no choice but to overturn it.

It is interesting that you mention this. I agree that the family does suffer (if they find out about this). On the other hand, I suspect that funeral homes and the police would likely try to keep this sort of thing quiet precisely for the purpose of sparing the family. Legally, the body is not living. It has no rights and cannot be violated. This law, however gives the corpse rights. This raises the question of how far the rights of a corpse go. Does the corpse have a right to consent (in its will, perhaps)? If so, would such consent be a valid defense against this law? The law doesn't specify which leaves a huge legal issue to be resolved.

I would want these people to be under psychiatric treatment. I would want them to be considered mentally unfit to stand trial. The law, however, says that they are not mentally incapacitated. In other words, the law declares people who commit necrophilia to be sane and competent. That is, perhaps, the scariest part of this. If the law wasn't passed, a judge could (perhaps should) declare them insane and commit them until a psychiatrist could verify their sanity (decades or even their entire life, until they were "cured"). Instead, the judge now has to call them sane and declare them a felon which means prison and release after no more than 8 years (even if they are still necrophiliacs).

And I agree with you that necrophilia is a sick practice. It is one of the most disgusting things that people can do. It is evidence of a severe mental imbalance. It is immoral and, if a professional who works with corpses is involved, unethical.
That said, this law is the wrong way to fight it. We've turned this into a legal fight instead of a moral one. We've denied the criminals the treatment they need in favor of the prison cell. We've denied the judges the ability to make a good decision (committing these people until they can be declared sane) and limited them to a bad decision (incarceration).
I'm sorry that legislatures and people in general don't think things through this way. I wish that the California Judges involved had the guts to commit these offenders instead of simply throwing their hands in the air and saying "we can't do anything about this."

It appears, from your post that your biggest problem with this act is that the families learned that their loved ones were violated. To this I would state that the injury to these families was caused by the one who notified them, not by the necrophiliac. Let's face hard facts here. The necrophiliac committed the act, but if nobody ever told the families, would they have evern known? Who brought it up? I mean, really, if a funeral home worker finds a necrophiliac passed out on a corpse (as referenced in the article), calling the police is appropriate, but there is no human decency in notifying the family.
The person (be it the funeral home employee or a policeman) who notified the family instead of protecting them from this information that could do them no good, only harm is largely to blame for the suffering they endure. Please think about this. If the police or funeral home contacted the family and said "a crime was committed at the funeral home and your loved one's corpse is part of the crime scene, so the funeral will have to be delayed by one day", without going into any detail about the crime, the pain and suffering that you reference would be minimal. Sure there would be shock but not that violent horrific rage that you write about.

-- Jeff

ps I really want to be clear. I agree with your moralistic view on this issue and I share it and applaud you for sticking with it. I could not be more opposed to the practice of necrophilia. I just don't think this law was the right solution for this problem.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan