Cannibalism in Canada: Divine Hunger or Sinister Urge?

Currently, there are no laws about cannibalism in Canada. When the case arises that there is a need for these laws, the judges that are dealing with these cases are forced to make due with the current laws reflecting homicide and the proper disposal of dead bodies. “Disorganized cannibalistic practices amongst criminals have been steadily increasing over the last century, especially in the Western Hemisphere. Lawmakers around the world have been forced to update laws pertaining to cannibalism or establish new laws where none existed before. Criminal cannibalism has become the concern of the future.” (Bell, 2005) Canada should have laws reflecting recent precedent, such as the German case of Armin Meiwes, in which he butchered and ate a willing participant and was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison for manslaughter. (Sunday Times, 2005) Canada’s laws on cannibalism should be fair, respect the nature of the crime and of the current sociological views on such an act.

The word “cannibalism” itself comes from a tribe that Christopher Columbus encountered during his travels in the West Indies called “Caribs”, which the explorers mispronounced as “Canibs”. (Bell 2005) “He Armin Meiwes learned that the term cannibalism was derived from the name of the West Indian Carib tribe, first documented by the explorer Christopher Columbus. The Carib tribe was alleged to supplement their fruit and fish diet with human flesh.” (Jones, 33) This was later changed to “canibales”, the Spanish word for thirsty and cruel and the English translation of this word was cannibalism. The Latin form of “cannibal” is anthropophagy, but this is mostly used in anthropology and archeology. (Bell, 2005)

There are several different types of cannibalism, and several factors which influence what type of crime it is, or even if it is a crime (in some cultures it is or was considered to be the norm!). There is endocannibalism (eating a member of one’s tribe or family after they are dead to ‘preserve’ their bodies), exocannibalism (eating a member of someone else’s tribe to strike terror or intimidate the other tribe), survival cannibalism (eating someone so that other people can survive in a situation where there is a possibility of rescue, but absolutely no food), criminal cannibalism (murdering someone to eat their flesh) in which there are four main types of criminal cannibalism: sexual cannibalism (someone who derives sexual satisfaction from eating another human being), aggression cannibalism (someone who derives a sense of power from eating a victim), spiritual/ ritual cannibalism, and nutritional cannibalism (someone who genuinely enjoys the taste of human flesh). (Bell, 2005)

The origins of cannibalism are unclear, however, some researchers believe that there is evidence of cannibalism in Neanderthal cultures in Croatia. (Bell, 2005) Aztecs also practiced cannibalism. They ritually sacrificed war captives and victims from other tribes. (Murphy, 2005) This was done to try to create a universal balance between the world and the cosmos. They thought that it would appease the gods and if they failed to do so, it would mark the destruction of the human race. Cannibalism was also practiced when there wasn’t sufficient food for everyone. (Bell, 2005) There have also been reports of tribes in Papua, New Guinea, as recently as 1960 of tribes practicing exo- and endocannibalism for ritualistic purposes. Many of the tribes’ people, however, suffered from a disease to be the human equivalent of Mad Cow Disease in the late 1970’s. This disease was due to an infectious agent in the tissue of the deceased people who were consumed, especially that of the brain. The disease was referred to as “Kuru”, and was highly contagious, being transmitted in a variety of methods, including through bodily fluids. The spread of the disease was only slowed when the practice of cannibalism decreased. (Bell, 2005)

Recent precedent with stories as bizarre and macabre as the crime itself have had judges making very difficult decisions on how to classify the crime. In many cases, there has been outrage because the public did not feel that the sentence was harsh enough for the nature of the crime. In the 2003 case of Armin Meiwes, where a German man butchered and ate a willing participant to his gruesome crimes, many people were outraged at the seemingly lenient sentence he was given. “The computer technician had admitted killing, carving up and eating Brandes' the victim cooked flesh in March 2001 at his rambling farm house but insisted his victim had asked him to do so.” (Murphy, 2005) Armin was convicted of “murder for sexual satisfaction” and “disturbing the peace of the dead” (Jones 210-211) and was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison. (Jones, 202) Mitigating circumstances such as the fact he found the killing “very unpleasant” and had a “psychological predicament” (Jones, 200) lessened the sentence. If there were laws against cannibalism in place is Germany at the time of the offence, Armin could very likely have received a much longer sentence.

Survival cannibalism has drawn a lot of controversy over the years about whether or not it is acceptable to eat someone’s body or to even kill a person to nourish the rest of the group in situations where food is scarce or non-existent. In 1846, a group of 89 men, women and children were led by a man named George Donner through the Sierra Nevada Mountains en route to California. During the journey, the weather took an unexpected turn for the worse and the travelers were forced to take an alternative route. They did not have enough provisions and many died from exposure and starvation. Half of the people perished before the remaining travelers accepted their situation and began to feed on the bodies of the dead. (Bell, 2005) “Two thirds of the men died. Single adult men died first. The children died second. Male children more than female. The women died last and fewest.” (Jones, 35) When they were finally rescued, there were treated as monstrous criminals and were sent to trial. They served around six months before being re-released into society. (Bell, 2005) Were these people monstrous criminals, or were they simply acting in the best interest of the group, under the “ the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one” philosophy? Did they deserve to serve time in prison for what was surely a life-or-death situation? Is it better for the whole group to perish out of respect for the dead? These answers could surely be given if Canada had clear and concise laws about cannibalism.

Edmund Kemper is an example of someone who is a criminal cannibal. He brutally murdered his grandparents, his mother, his mother’s friend and six other young women, and cannibalized some of their bodies. (Bell, 2005) “Highly intelligent and coherent, he Ed Kemper told of crimes where he cut the choicest flesh from victims' legs, kept them in a freezer, then made a casserole.” (BizarreMag, 2005) He came from an abusive family, had psychological trouble from an early age and often displayed cruelty towards animals, killing the family cats on two occasions. He was indicted on eight counts of first-degree murder in 1973. He was found guilty on all counts and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the maximum-security prison at Folsom, California. (Ramsland, 2005) In this case, Kemper did not receive any additional penalty for what he did to the bodies after he had murdered them. He received the same sentence he would have gotten had he simply murdered the bodies. Canada’s cannibalism laws would have to add an additional penalty for the cannibalization of the cadavers after the murder to deter people from behaving in such a gruesome fashion.

Before one is able to decide on what the sentences for cannibalism are, one has to decide whether or not cannibalism is a crime. Cannibalism does carry risks, such as the spread of “Kuru”, the human version of Mad Cow Disease (Jones, 2005), but some people genuinely find the taste of human flesh enjoyable, and regard humans as just another source for protein. Because of the diverse nature of the crime and the many categories that cannibalism can fall under, there cannot be one all-embracing sentence regarding cannibalism. Because willing cannibalism is similar to assisted suicide, the only difference being what happens to the body after it is killed, until the law that makes assisted suicide illegal in Canada is appealed (Ertelt, 2005), willing cannibalism would also be illegal, and would carry the same penalty as assisted suicide. Willing cannibalism, usually falls under the nutritional cannibalism category, if it were ever legalized, there would have to be extensive documentation to show that the person was willing and was not being coerced in any manner to sign the documents, similar to a marriage certificate. There would also have to be psychological testing done on both participants to make sure they are of sound mind. As it stands currently, the sentence for voluntary cannibalism would be second-degree murder.

With the increasing amount of traveling going on in society today, along with the new technology that makes travel faster, more affordable, and over longer distances, it is inevitable that there will be another situation where people are forced to do anything they can to survive. The question is whether killing one person, or simply eating their dead body for the survival of another is a crime. Eating someone’s already dead body for survival should not be considered a crime under any circumstances, they are already dead and if they are not eaten by the people, they will decay and serve no purpose whatsoever. Killing someone is a crime, and should be treated as such, however, given the circumstances and the significant duress that the people would be under at the time, it would stand to reason that any rational person would do the same thing in the same circumstances. However, there must be several circumstances that would allow for a plea of survival cannibalism to be entered; the need for food must be pressing and urgent (they cannot kill people within one week of the reason they were stranded), there must be no other readily available food source within a ten-mile radius, they must have at least 75 of people agree to do it, and the killing must be done in the most humane way possible. If the offence meets this criterion, it should be considered “survival cannibalism” and there should be no sentence. If the offence does not meet this criterion, it should be considered manslaughter and should be dealt with as thus.

Criminal cannibalism is a completely different story. With criminal cannibalism, there is no reason why the offender should be killing and eating people. The victims are not willing and the act is out of violence. Criminal cannibalism can incorporate several features of sexual cannibalism, aggressive cannibalism, spiritual/ritual cannibalism and nutritional cannibalism, and it is a crime. In many instances, criminal cannibals are also serial killers and many are psychologically instable. Because of what is done to the body after it is dead, the charge should not simply be first-degree murder. There should be the additional charge of indecency to a dead body. There should also be a psychological evaluation done and an indeterminate sentence given if the cannibal is found to be mentally unfit.

Cannibalism is a problematic and gruesome crime, and Canada needs laws to protect its citizens from the eventuality of such an act. By dividing the sentencing into three categories, it makes proper sentencing much easier and rehabilitation of the criminals simpler. Recent precedent must constantly be examined to make sure the laws say current and up-to-date. Cannibalism also increases the threat that diseases will spread through contact, especially the infamous “Kuru”, a highly infectious and potentially fatal disease. Laws in place to protect the public against cannibals will help the health and safety of the country and will allow fewer leniencies for appeals under the “cruel and unusual punishment” excuse, and fewer retrials because of public outcry. It will save the taxpayers money and will help reduce the time in trials because of hung juries and retrials. By making laws for cannibalism harsh but fair, Canada will be upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms rights of everyone involved with the crime, and ensuring a healthy future for Canadians everywhere.