Israeli court ruling decriminalizes necrophilia

A 2018 Israeli Supreme Court ruling stated that sexual offense laws only protect living persons. Here is what it implies and what it does not.

English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published

Israeli legislation on sensual offenses applies solely to living individuals, according to a 2018 Supreme Court ruling. This excludes necrophilia from the catalog of sensual crimes, although the dignity of the deceased remains protected in other respects.

In 2018, the Israeli judiciary closed a door many considered taken for granted. The country's Supreme Court ruled that norms regarding sensual offenses only safeguard those who are alive. Consequently, necrophilia does not fit within this incivil category.

## What the Supreme Court decided in 2018

The ruling was signed by Justice **Vogelman**. The reasoning is technical: Israeli sensual offense law refers to persons, and a deceased individual is no longer considered one for incivil purposes. It is not an explicit permission, but a legal gap the court refused to fill through interpretation.

Provisions concerning the dignity of the deceased cover burial and bodily integrity. They do not extend to sensual acts. This distinction places such acts outside the Penal Code's sensual offense provisions.

## What Israeli law protects

Israeli regulations do punish tomb desecration or damage to mortal remains. However, they do not classify acts performed on corpses as sensual offenses. Protection exists, but via a different route and with a different scope.

This does not make Israel a country without rules on handling the dead. It makes Israel a country where this specific act is not penalized as sensual assault. This difference matters for lawyers and legislators.

## Why such a ruling causes controversy

When a court states something is not a crime, many people read it as being permitted. That is not the same thing. The Israeli Supreme Court did not legalize anything; it confirmed that the law did not reach there and that changing it falls to the Parliament.

This type of ruling forces a review of legal texts written decades ago. The fundamental question is whether the legislator wants to cover this gap or leave it as is. Until they do, the ruling stands.

Also available in: Deutsch

Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (1 replies).

More summaries

All summaries in English →

-
Back