The Snow Company: The Legalities and Morality of Cannibalism in an Emergency

Hanover. Once again, a Netflix production is triggering worldwide hype: “The Snow Company,” a film by Spanish director Juan Antonio Bayona, tells the true story of Fuerza Aérea Uruguaya Flight 571. The plane from Uruguay crashed on October 13, 1972 on their way to Santiago de Chile in the Andes. On board: 45 members and relatives of a rugby team who were on their way to a friendly match. 16 of them were rescued after a month-long fight for survival in the snowy mountains.

Read more after the ad

Read more after the ad

The Netflix production tells the tragedy so vividly that it was viewed 75.1 million times in the first three and a half weeks. This puts it in fourth place in the ranking of international films on Netflix. Spain also submitted the film as an Oscar candidate. The production doesn’t just spark discussions because of its moving story.

The cannibalism aspect depicted in the film is particularly discussed. The occupants of the crashed plane were only able to survive for months because they chose to eat the flesh of their fellow passengers who died. According to survivors’ reports, this not only led to a moral dilemma, but also to the question of whether this was actually a criminal offence. However, this question is not answered in the film. So: what is the legal situation?

Cannibalism in an emergency: is it a criminal offense?

At least under German law there are possible explanations for such a case, as criminal lawyer Alexander Stevens explains to the Editorial Network Germany (RND). Paragraph 168 of the Criminal Code must be consulted here. This is about “disturbing the peace of the dead”.

Read more after the ad

Read more after the ad

The law literally states: “Anyone who unauthorizedly removes the body or parts of the body of a deceased person, a dead fetus, parts of such or the ashes of a deceased person from the custody of the authorized person, or whoever commits insulting mischief with it, will be punished with a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine.”

In the case of the passengers, according to Stevens, the phrase “abusive nonsense” is crucial. “In jurisprudence and literature, ‘mischief’ is defined as ‘gross impropriety’ or a grossly unseemly act that displays a rude attitude,” explains Stevens. In addition, the action must be “insulting”, i.e. mocking or belittling.

Two legal interests played a role in the assessment: the postmortem protection of the deceased’s personality and the general public’s sense of piety. So: Does the perpetrator want to show his contempt for the dead man? Or does the perpetrator want to disrespect human dignity in general with his actions?

In the case of the passengers who died in the accident, Stevens sees no evidence of such “insulting nonsense”. The surviving passengers were not concerned with contempt for the dead, but rather with survival. Therefore, according to the expert, the act is not a criminal offense.

Read more after the ad

Read more after the ad

What role does the death victim’s permission play?

In the Netflix film, the moral discussions go even further. In one scene, a survivor explains that if he dies, he will allow the other passengers to eat his body. All other passengers then join in and also give their permission.

However, this consent plays no role in assessing criminal liability, says Stevens. “The legal interest of Section 168, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code is not only the postmortem protection of the dead person’s personality, but also the general public’s sense of piety.”

This means: Just because a person has nothing against it and gives such permission before their death, the aspect of piety still remains. Goods of the general public are not subject to consent, explains Stevens.

What about killing in an emergency?

The case would be trickier if there had been a killing in the mountains. According to Stevens, if one of the passengers had killed themselves in order to make their body available, paragraph 168, paragraph 1 would apply again – that would “not be a criminal offense in my opinion,” said the expert. However, if one passenger killed another to ensure his own survival and that of the group, the situation would be different.

Read more after the ad

Read more after the ad

Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code are decisive here. According to Stevens, various aspects played a role. Was the person killed already doomed to die? Questions that arise during a so-called triage could then also be discussed. Did a 13-year-old kill an 80-year-old – or was it the other way around?

There are also numerous textbook cases on this topic. Example: A mountain climber saves himself by cutting the rope and causing two others to fall to their deaths. According to legal literature, the act could be partially excused under paragraph 35. However, there is no clear answer to the question – courts could decide either way.

Moral dilemma

Survivors of Flight 571 later repeatedly stated in reports that the decision to live on the flesh of their fellow human beings in the mountains was by no means an easy one. The moral dilemma is also vividly portrayed in the film – director Juan Antonio Bayona also had conversations with survivors of the tragedy before shooting the film and worked with them on the production.

When the cannibalism became known after the survivors were rescued and the media reported on it, it sparked a public backlash. Rumors also spread in the rugby team’s hometown that the survivors had killed fellow passengers. They were forced to repeatedly counter the rumors and a press conference was also held.

Read more after the ad

Read more after the ad

The event was also debated in church. Two theologians explained at the time to the “New York Times”, that the consumption of human flesh should almost always be seen as a violation of respect for the dead. However, it is justified if there is no practical or viable alternative.

Uruguayan law is extremely vague when it comes to cannibalism. However, there is no evidence that the survivors of Flight 571 were ever charged with a crime.

2024-02-06 17:28:50
#Netflix #film #Snow #Company #allowed #eat #people #emergency