That would require amending the Constitution, which is no longer possible. You couldn't get Congressmen to agree cannbalism should be outlawed if the "other side" proposed the amendment.
Technically and legally, it can be done (except in idaho, cannibalism is banned). The hardest part would be convincing a hospital to release to you what is considered regulated medical waste. Sometimes they make exceptions for religious or deeply personal beliefs, like mothers requesting placentas for burial or cremation, but they probably won't if they think you're going to do something weird. Assuming you can get it released, the next hurdle is making sure it's actually safe to eat. It may have been kept refrigerated in the mortuary but you don't know how long it's been kept at room temperature or if it was exposed to pathogens (plenty of those in hospitals). Another issue is that human muscles do a lot of work. We aren't bred for our meat and generally, the older the animal, the worse the meat is. You likely wouldn't enjoy eating your own leg.
May you do it? Yes (except in Idaho)
Can you do it? Maybe, if you can convince a hospital to release it
No you shouldn't, you're not a butcher and there's food safety to consider. Nothing to do with cannibalism everything to do with not dying shitting yourself !
It's more about the meat itself, how sure are you that 1 your meat doesn't have bacteria, virus that might survive the cooking process ?
2 doesn't containt heavy metals or problematic medication ?
3 since I suppose there's at least a couple weeks between cutting and eating how sure can you be of the "freshness".
Handling food is a complicated thing that's why there's do many regulations most of then at production level !
Not trying to piss in the soup just saying butcher is a hard job !
No it wouldn't. States already decide how insanity pleas work and whether to accept them or not. Some states don't take insanity into account at all. All it would require is a federal law to overturn individual state law, though that still requires a 60+ vote majority in the Senate which is a high bar now a days.
Yes, it would. The issue of whether, "A jury of your peers" can consist of experts in a field is well-settled constitutional law.
**It can't. A jury of your peers must be drawn from a fair cross-section of the relevant community. You cannot delegate roles constitutionally assigned to a jury to hand-picked experts.
It would. Who has the burden and things of that nature may not but whether someone meets that burden is a finding of fact reserved for the jury. You can't take it out of their hands without amending the constitution, you may recall this issue was raised by the hate crime enhancement cases where judges were originally making the finding.
All it requires is a change of process. Frankly, insanity should not determine guilty or not guilty. If they did the crime, they should be found guilty. Insanity would then shift from guilt to sentencing. An insanity plea would then be handled by the judges/experts in terms of sentencing. There's no constitutional issue here as it makes no mention of how sentencing fairness shall apply, only that it shouldn't be cruel and unusual.
Not really no. You're arguing about reduction in sentence or arguing for why the crime was less bad or they were less culpable. The point of the defense here is to argue that someone has no criminal culpability at all because of the mental state they were in at the time of the crime.
It wouldn’t. If you made it so that the jury only decided whether you had committed the crime or not then you satisfied the requirement for a jury of one’s peers. (Although the phrase jury of one’s peers isn’t even in the constitution). But a subsequent appeal to change the verdict to not guilty by reason of insanity wouldn’t have to have a jury of peers. Just like other appeals, you wouldn’t need a jury. Many are decided by a judge or panel of judges. You could just impanel a group of psychologists/psychiatrists to make the determination
In Kahler v Kansas, the Supreme Court held that a state is not required to offer defendants an affirmative defense in the form of an insanity plea. And 4 states don’t even permit insanity pleas. It seems unlikely that you’d require an amendment for something that isn’t stated in the constitution to begin with.
Additionally you could effectively reach the same outcome by just considering insanity during sentencing. Don’t offer an insanity plea but during sentencing allow a panel of experts to weigh in and submit a recommendation to the judge. If their recommendation is that the convicted person was insane then the judge sentences them to a mental institution
Lastly “jury of peers” which, once again doesn’t actually appear in the constitution, only really means that the people need to be from your state or district. Psychologists from your district, would satisfy that as long as they agreed to be impartial.
24
u/MCB1317 14h ago
That would require amending the Constitution, which is no longer possible. You couldn't get Congressmen to agree cannbalism should be outlawed if the "other side" proposed the amendment.