And if so dont you think this violates human rights ?
2007-11-19 12:43:04 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Its Standard of Procedure in most states to do an autopsy whenever the death is not deemed natural.
If your families are among the suspects, they lose all their rights.
In most states, it is law to autopsy, and they cannot fight it, because doing so interrupts due process of law and hinders the murder investigation.
In a few states, it has been upheld a few times when a family objects on religious ground, but only with accidental deaths, suicides, and the like, not with homicides.
2007-11-19 12:47:47 · answer #1 · answered by kt_b_blue 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know that there are some ways around it, for example Jewish law clearly states that the body must be buried intact, without an autopsy. There are many discrepancies within certain agencies, and if it is a high profile case (big murder mystery) they probably will force an autopsy anyway.
No, it is not very easy to get away with and, yes it is ethical because the government wants to use all means necessary to take a killer off the street. They take this priority over anyone elses opinion.
2007-11-19 14:50:08 · answer #2 · answered by Israel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The public interest over-rides any religious or other objection your family might have to the autopsy. For example, if you were drugged and raped and beaten to death, whoever did that needs to be stopped. You wouln't want the police to just write you off as a drunk hit and run victim. Toxicology results might match a suspect to similar murder of another person, and a criminal could be put behind bars before anyone else is harmed.
Autopsies save lives. The human rights argument does not hold water. The right of the state to determine the cause of death, for the purpose of saving other lives, trumps the human rights card.
2007-11-19 12:52:45 · answer #3 · answered by Pagan Dan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if it is deemed murder, they have no say. If the death is called as accidental they have a choice. Or at least that's what I remember reading about it in high school.
As for the second part, only if there is reason to believe that there is some evidence in or on the body should they be able to do an autopsy. I would much rather see the guy who killed me put away than be worried about how I look when they burn me.
2007-11-19 12:50:16 · answer #4 · answered by Feladonis 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The coroner is in charge of the body, and has authority to order an autopsy.
If family members were permitted to refuse the autopsy, that would make it very easy for them to commit and conceal the crime.
2007-11-19 12:50:31 · answer #5 · answered by trooper3316 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they can. But if you were murdered, wouldn't your family want to find out all they could to bring justice to you?
How does this violate human rights? Is it a violation of human rights to get a field sobriety test if I appear drunk? Or is it a violation of human rights to get tasered if someone point a gun at someone? Nope... I think you need to look at the bigger picture. Justice.
2007-11-19 12:49:24 · answer #6 · answered by justanotherone 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you're murdered, an autopsy would help determine the cause of death and who killed you, so, yes, it is essential and your family could not refuse. You really don't have any human rights once you're dead.
2007-11-19 12:48:51 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they can. Society has a vested interest in finding out who the killer is.
No it doesn't. You have no human rights and are merely property at that point.
2007-11-19 13:20:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it may be completely evil... in case you need to get sharks with laserbeams on their frickin' heads. yet you could no longer simply by fact of endangered species regulations and laser technologies barriers.
2016-09-29 13:29:40 · answer #9 · answered by caspersen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope, the authorities have a right to find out if it ws a "wrongful death, based upon CSI.
2007-11-19 12:47:14 · answer #10 · answered by Mark A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋