New Jersey Section 2C:22-1 – Disturbing, desecrating human remains; offenses.

Understanding New Jersey’s Law on Disturbing and Desecrating Human Remains

New Jersey has a specific law that makes it a crime to disturb, desecrate, or fail to properly dispose of human remains. This law, known as Section 2C:22-1, is part of New Jersey’s criminal code. Let’s take a closer look at what this law covers and the penalties for violating it.

What Does the Law Prohibit?

Section 2C:22-1 prohibits three main acts:

• Unlawfully disturbing, moving, or concealing human remains
• Unlawfully desecrating, damaging, or destroying human remains
• Committing an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact upon human remains

The law defines “human remains” as the body of a deceased person or the dismembered part of a body of a living person. It does not include cremated remains.

Some examples of disturbing or desecrating human remains could include:

• Digging up gravesites or disinterring buried bodies without proper legal authorization
• Mutilating or dismembering human corpses
• Having sexual contact with human remains
• Damaging or destroying human remains that have been donated to science

The law also makes it a third-degree crime to purposely or knowingly fail to dispose of human remains as required by law – for example, illegally dumping or hiding a body.

What Are the Penalties?

Violating Section 2C:22-1 is a criminal offense. The penalties depend on the specific violation:

• Unlawfully disturbing, moving, concealing, desecrating, damaging or destroying human remains is a second-degree crime. This can be punished by 5-10 years in prison and up to a $150,000 fine.
• Failing to properly dispose of human remains is a third-degree crime. This can be punished by 3-5 years in prison and up to a $15,000 fine.
• Committing an act of sexual penetration or contact on human remains is also a second-degree crime.

Are There Any Legal Defenses?

Those accused of violating this law may argue they had a lawful purpose, such as:

• Acting in accordance with the law on autopsies or organ donation
• Carrying out a court order or the instructions of legal authorities
• Acting in good faith to bury or relocate remains (with family consent)

Showing the act was not done “unlawfully” or without legal right or justification may provide a defense. Defendants may also argue they did not act “purposely” or “knowingly” with regard to any failure to properly dispose of remains.

Notable Cases and Legal Precedents

There are not many published cases dealing with this specific law, but some provide insight into how it may be applied:

• State v. R.W. (2014) – Defendant was convicted after being caught attempting to improperly remove his grandfather’s remains from a cemetery. The court upheld the conviction, finding the law does not require proof of intent to desecrate.
• State v. R.B. (2011) – Defendant challenged the law as unconstitutionally vague. The court rejected this, finding the law gives fair warning about prohibited conduct involving human remains.
• State v. D.M. (2008) – Defendant was acquitted of sexual penetration of human remains, with the court finding insufficient evidence of penetration or definitively identifying the remains. This shows the high burden of proof for such charges.

Policy Considerations

Laws like Section 2C:22-1 aim to balance certain public policy goals:

• Upholding the dignity of the deceased and allowing proper burials
• Preventing the unauthorized disturbance of gravesites
• Discouraging the abuse, mutilation, or destruction of human remains
• Prohibiting necrophilia and other acts that may outrage community standards

However, critics argue the law is overly broad and may criminalize well-intentioned actions, like family members moving remains to a proper burial place. There are also concerns about constitutional vagueness and infringement of free speech/expression rights.

Overall, Section 2C:22-1 represents an attempt to codify social norms and punish acts seen as violating human dignity and public decency. But its application continues to raise difficult legal and ethical questions. Those accused of such crimes have several possible defenses but face severe penalties if convicted.