There is a former cop who is going through the legal process over online posts. Apparently he fantasized about torturing and then killing and eating them. He was convicted of conspiracy and then it was overturned. So here is the question. Can you be put in prison for your fantasies that you post on a fetish website? People often talk about thought crimes when it comes to hate crimes. How is this not worse since no violence was done.
Let me get this straight, this guy wrote something at a blog about killing and eating someone but never did so? He made no attempt to carry out that fantasy, disgusting as it was, in real life and they are trying to jail him for it???
He shouldn't be put in a prison, but a psychiatric ward. As for the question, there are all types of fantasies and depending on what they are(and more importantly, where you place them) this question can be answered differently. EX: Sexual Fantasies, insofar as these are benevolent(generally speaking) and within consent, hopefully you wouldn't be persecuted for them. On the other hand, if there are violent fantasies and a lack of consent, and if someone's honestly that STUPID to post something like that, you follow it up. Actually, we can stream line it as such: Benevolent(or non-violent fantasies): Good. Violent fantasies: Keep them to yourself, don't act on them and if someone does one of the two, follow up.
No you should not be put into jail for your fantasies. In fact, if he just wrote down what he thought as a fictional character he probably could make a killing (pun intended) in authoring a horror novel.
Obviously nobody can be imprisoned for their thoughts because nobody else can know what you're thinking. As soon as you act on those thoughts though, including writing something down, you're doing more than just thinking and any punishment will be as a result of the acts, not the thoughts themselves (you might not even be writing exactly what you're thinking). Whether writing something is worthy of punishment or imprisonment should depend on the same thing as it would for any other act - whether it did, was intended to or was likely to cause some kind of harm or damage. In practice there can be a difficult fuzzy line to work around, as seems to be the case in the example you've given.
So should Steven King then to be honest. Some of the stuff King writes is pretty graphic. Some pages out of "It" and "Misery" go into some sexual and gory details. In the actual book "It" they discuss an underage girl basically getting gangbanged as an initiation. Personally I think this guy in the OP should just write the stuff down as a fictional character in a horror novel.
Was he talking about killing a real person or fictional person? I don't know the law on this but if someone says they plan on killing someone...that is surely a crime.
I was sure I posted the link: http://nymag.com/news/features/cannibal-cop-2014-1/index1.html http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/22/cannibal-cop-eating-women-dating
Depends on what it is. Might be a red flag for someone who needs help, or possibly monitored. In any case if they hadn't acted on the impulse, and kept it in the imaginary field, they haven't done anything really wrong. Threatening to blow real people up, is another story.
Thanks, It was more than just fantasy. I agree with the charges based on the following (from the first article you linked): IMHO, that goes far beyond fantasy.
The fact that it was a police officer, rather than a private citizen, may suggest why prison was warranted. Deprivation of civil rights under color of law is a serious offense.
Read the links. Goes a bit beyond fantasy, when specific people are mentioned, and specific amounts have been offered for kidnapping said person. http://nymag.com/news/features/canni...-1/index1.html http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...g-women-dating
Wow This one is a real head scratcher. As repulsive as some of his fantasies were, the fact there was never any real evidence of him even attempting to put any of this into action makes you pause. And while the juxtaposition of him being a police officer with these fantasies is disturbing, it clearly demonstrates that if he were serious about escalating these fantasies he would have had the know-how to eliminate traceable evidence, of which he obviously never even attempted to cover up. This is a case that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but something tells me we will keep seeing more of this in the years to come as the pulse of our terrorism paranoia increases.
So. That still doesn't make it right for this case. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think both cases (this Valles guy and the NBP) are guilty of crimes.
