no, because legal insanity is not knowing the difference between right and wrong, not that I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway because _____ .

I don't get the impression that this guy thinks killing people and eating them is wrong, though.

His defence lawyers argue that Brandes willingly agreed to Meiwes's plans, saying the original advert clearly stated that he was looking for a volunteer to be "slaughtered and eaten".

"This was not murder. His [Brandes's] goal was to be eaten and that meant being killed," defence lawyer Joachim Bremer told the court.

This and the "beautiful death" comment that Jessica quoted reads to me that he thought it was A-OK.

I don't get the impression that this guy thinks killing people and eating them is wrong, though.

perhaps, but the question is does he know that it's against the law?

does he know that it's against the law?

Is that the dividing line?

And now I have to go to four hours of meeting. At least there's food.

But why only part of a break? I feel very binary about this--either it's okay to kill someone willing, or it's really not.

I see your point. But, I doubt that anyone ever really thought about it. I suppose that a corollary would be a failed suicide pact (i.e. where two people are supposed to shoot each other and one misses)

I think a closer corollary would be euthanasia.

To my obviously unschooled eyes, he sounds like he's crazy by American standards. Isn't it about not being able to recognise what you're doing is wrong? Or is that Law & Order boiling it down and losing the nuance?

Like Vortex already noted, that's close enough definition for a discussion, since every state will be somewhat different. I think it's hard sometimes to separate out the already craziness you need to actually commit a crime, let alone a horrifying murder, and the craziness you need to not know that intentionally killing someone is wrong. I think this guy knew what he was doing was intentional homicide, whether the other guy wanted it or not. BUT this is a great 2-minute L&O legal question.

Is that the dividing line?

pretty much. My use of the "wrong" is synonymous with "illegal"

I think a closer corollary would be euthanasia.

oh, that's even better.

And now I have to go to four hours of meeting. At least there's food.

Your coworkers do not count as food. Unless there's ketchup.

Concept toaster.

Toasts between two pieces of heated glass so you can see when your toast is done. Brilliant!

Co-workers can be a good source for food--I just got a mini-Nestle bar from just down the aisle. First thing I've eaten since last night; I've got to finish unpacking the kitchen stuff tonight so I can make up some tuna casserole for dinner and lunch for the next few days.