Depraved' burglar, 23, who broke into a funeral parlour and had sex with a corpse after smoking Black Mamba drug is jailed for six years

asim Khuram, 23, broke into funeral home in Birmingham on November 11, 2018
While there he had sex with a corpse, after disturbing nine separate coffins
During sentencing judge labels crime one that 'offends all human sensibility'
He was sentenced at crown court today and asked to sign offenders register

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6656991/Burglar-23-broke-funeral-parlour-sex-corpse-jailed-six-years.html

It's a poor do when the dead aren't even safe

Even worse when the living aren't safe.

The sickos full name is Kasim Shazada Khurum.

Original Quill wrote:Even worse when the living aren't safe.

That's a given. But who the fuck goes and shags a corpse? Stop the world, I wanna get off!

And he’s only 23! What the very fuck!

Quite a lot of that about apparently.
I read that an Egyptian imam reckons that a wife or husband has the right to have sex with their partner for up to six hours, I think it was, after death. I can see how the husband could accomplish that if required but it baffles me how a wife would manage it, unless I lived a very sheltered life, although the eunuchs in the Ottoman Empire apparently had a way of doing it, a metal tube carried in their turbans, I don't know the actual mechanics though, I'm not sure I want to know - or do I....

Jailed for only 6 years...!?


So will probably be out in less than 3 years...

Vintage wrote:
Quite a lot of that about apparently.
I read that an Egyptian imam reckons that a wife or husband has the right to have sex with their partner for up to six hours, I think it was, after death. I can see how the husband could accomplish that if required but it baffles me how a wife would manage it, unless I lived a very sheltered life, although the eunuchs in the Ottoman Empire apparently had a way of doing it, a metal tube carried in their turbans, I don't know the actual mechanics though, I'm not sure I want to know - or do I....

When rigor mortis sets in, it can last up to 8 to 12 hours,  and then it may take another 18 hours for the body to loosen up again...

Though, in most cases bodies are usually flexible enough to be moved around again within 24 hours;  30 hours at the most..

So, if that Egyptian husband were to die with an erection, his wife might still be able to have her wicked way with her dear departed.

Also, when a human body dies suddenly, sometimes all orifices can "release" at the same time !  Meaning not only faeces, urine, blood and snot --  but semen as well !  So, if hubby was humping the missus when he karks it --  or if wifey is quick enough --  she could, conceivably, still be impregnated by his corpse..

orgasm is known in french as "le petit mort" or little death.

Original Quill wrote:Even worse when the living aren't safe.

Thats a given quill, but doesnt this raise an interesting point in the theory of law?

as in what is "criminal"

sure humping a corpse is ickky to say the least...and offends our sensibilities,however doesnt rape or murder offend the same to a greater degree (which is why, one assumes the sentence is usually much greater) but isnt THAT the essence of law.... a crime is that which offends our sensibilities beyond a certain point

Lord Foul wrote:orgasm is known in french as "le petit mort" or little death.

Come again?

\i'm not dieing twice just for you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Victor wrote:sure humping a corpse is ickky to say the least...and offends our sensibilities,however doesnt rape or murder offend the same to a greater degree (which is why, one assumes the sentence is usually much greater) but isnt THAT the essence of law.... a crime is that which offends our sensibilities beyond a certain point

Really interesting point, but I'm not sure where you come down. Are you saying rape/murder of a living person is worse ("doesnt rape or murder offend the same to a greater degree"); or that sex with a cadaver is the more offensive ("a crime is that which offends our sensibilities beyond a certain point")?

The way that the law appears to view it, is that the worst crime is an offense against agency...or, that is to say, someone who still has agency. An offense against a cadaver backs off from an offense against agency, but has a macabre factor that gives off shock.

Agency, sometimes thought of as 'will', seems to mean the inner intention/being of the person. It’s what we recognize when we acknowledge or speak to a person. Offense of that (without cause or justification of law) appears to be the highest crime. After death, and sometimes cause of death (ie, eg, lopping off heads), appear to give great offense as well, but not as great as terminating agency. It just has elevated shock value.

That's just my opinion.

ah...not quite what I meant

what I'm saying is that a "crime" (regardless of what it is) is "that which offends our (collective social) sensibilities" and the degree to which it offends defines which is a worse crime.....

Rape of a child, a very old person or a badly handicapped person is worse than date rape.
Rape of a dead body goes against every human moral instinct.

Maybe it doesn't cause any pain to the corpse but I imagine the people who loved that corpse will never get over the horror.

Lord Foul wrote:ah...not quite what I meant

what I'm saying is that a "crime" (regardless of what it is) is "that which offends our (collective social) sensibilities" and the degree to which it offends defines which is a worse crime.....

Ahhh...so you were proposing a Guttman (cumulative) scale, while I was viewing it as alternatives.

I would argue that offending a cadaver is not at all cumulative over an offense to a live person. Indeed, an offense to a cadaver is nearly a property crime...except for the shock value mentioned above.

agreed, but isnt the "shock value" precicely what offends the sensibilities.

perhaps we have two things to consider...the actual "value" of the crime say as applied to a living person and the shock value to society OR individuals, which would surely make an offence aginst the living person worse than that against a cadaver in any case

Syl wrote:Rape of a child, a very old person  or a badly handicapped person is worse than date rape.
Rape of a dead body goes against every human moral instinct.

Maybe it doesn't cause any pain to the corpse but I imagine the people who loved that corpse will never get over the horror.

Yes, but that is them, and not the person against whom the crime is targeted.  Would you rather suffer "horror" or death?

Contrary to your claim ("against every human moral instinct"), a moral imperative is personal to the holder...in this case, yourself.  The law requires a universal perspective.

Lord Foul wrote:agreed, but isnt the "shock value" precicely what offends the sensibilities.

perhaps we have two things to consider...the actual "value" of the crime say as applied to a living person and the shock value to society OR individuals, which would surely make an offence aginst the living person worse than that against a cadaver in any case

The law is more practical.  As I asked Syl, would you be more offended by shock or death?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Rape of a child, a very old person  or a badly handicapped person is worse than date rape.
Rape of a dead body goes against every human moral instinct.

Maybe it doesn't cause any pain to the corpse but I imagine the people who loved that corpse will never get over the horror.

Yes, but that is them, and not the person against whom the crime is targeted.  Would you rather suffer "horror" or death?

Contrary to your claim ("against every human moral instinct"), a moral imperative is personal to the holder...in this case, yourself.  The law requires a universal perspective.

I imagine if you did a poll of every civilised human being on the planet the overwhelming majority would be horrified if some animal raped the body of their loved one.

It's one of the basic needs of a civilised society, that a person should be treated with dignity till they are put in the ground, burned, or whichever mode of disposal is wanted.

If we cant respect the dead the whole moral fabric of society is past hope imo.

Syl wrote:I imagine if you did a poll of every civilised human being on the planet the overwhelming majority would be horrified if some animal raped the body of their loved one.

Yes, but the question is more comparative.  Would they prefer being killed themselves, over being horrified?

I don't think so.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I imagine if you did a poll of every civilised human being on the planet the overwhelming majority would be horrified if some animal raped the body of their loved one.

Yes, but the question is more comparative.  Would they prefer being killed themselves, over being horrified?

I don't think so.

It's not a competition is it?
Thats like saying if you were murdered would you prefer to be stabbed or shot.

however....if society didnt have any moral/social objections to murder......the would it then be a crime?