Legality of bestiality by country or territory

From Zoophilia Wiki
Revision as of 15:55, 26 May 2006 by meta>FT2 (→‎National laws: WA state)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Template:Legal disclaimer Zoosexuality and the law looks at the laws governing human-animal sexual interaction (also sometimes known as bestiality or zoophilia) around the world.

The law tend to vary considerably. As Masters points out, countries with a strong view on religion tend to have stricter laws, those without such a tradition tend to be more relaxedTemplate:Citeneeded. Other shapers include the cultural context - some cultures tacitly or openly accepting zoosexuality, others seeing it as abnormal.

Because it is easy to determine when there is a law against, but (for reasons discussed) often less easy to reliably identify when it is legally acceptable, this article focusses upon laws against zoosexual activity and does not attempt to address where it may be legal. Only in a few confirmed cases, where it is clearly permitted, will these be stated.

Background to the legal framework

Zoosexuality

Main article: zoosexuality

Zoosexuality is the spectrum of human-animal sexual interaction. Other than for breeding or veterinary purposes, in many countries humans are frowned upon if they interact with a non-human animal in this manner, and yet clinical research strongly suggests that for at least some such people, this is a type of emotional and lifestyle bond that they are drawn to, or a sexual orientation, and that often there is no force or coercion involved. Other research suggests that in such 'relationships' often the animal gains or is at the least not harmed. According to some researchers, in such relationships "one seems forced to conclude, the animal derives a considerable psychical and/or emotional pleasure from sexual contact with a being of a higher nervous, emotional, and intellectual organization," described further in the article zoosexuality.

Against this, there are regular reports in the press of what may be termed animal rape, torture, or sexual abuse, often of an extreme nature, described further in the article zoosadism. Historically, such acts have been seen negatively in the West, both as religious offences against God, and as suspect or abusive acts unsuited to the civilized world, a general societal view which persists to the present time.

A pivotal researcher in the field, Hani Miletski describes[1] how: "Throughout the literature review, it is very obvious that authors perceive sexual relations with animals in very different ways. Definitions of various behaviors and attitudes are often conflicting, leaving the reader confused. Terms such as 'sodomy,' 'zoorasty,' 'zoosexuality,' as well as 'bestiality' and 'zoophilia' are often used, each having a different meaning depending on the author." Vern Bullough, a renowned professor emeritus who reviewed her work, states:[2] "It seems clear from Miletski's summary of the existing literature that very little is actually known about bestiality and there is not anything approaching a consensus as to why animal-human sexual contacts occur... many of the existing reports and studies should be classified more as pseudo-science than serious research."

Historical and cultural context

Main article: Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia

Historically, the societal view on zoosexuality has been dominated by Western views on morality, which can often be traced back to religious influences and more specifically to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions under which it was viewed as an abomination and breach of God's will. During the Middle Ages this led to people being burned for zoosexual activity, viewed on a par with homosexualityTemplate:Citeneeded under the term "sodomy", as as one of the most horrific acts possible from a religious point of view.

In other cultures, it was at times accepted, or tolerated, and at other times taboo or punished, and this varied very widely.

In more recent centuries the subject was studied as a medical abberation, some form of throwback or degeneracy within medicine, and finally within the 20th century, came to be recognized as a sexual orientation in many cases.

Clinical and scientific context

In discussing arguments for and against zoosexual activity, the "British Journal of Sexual Medicine" commented over 30 years ago, "We are all supposed to condemn bestiality, though only rarely are sound medical or psychological factors advanced." (Jan/Feb 1974, p.43)

People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoosexuality, often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues.[3] Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive.[3] Ethologists who study and understand animal behaviour and body language, have documented animal sexual advances to human beings and other species, and tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans; their research into animal behavior, emotion and sexuality is generally supportive of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues.

Attitudes outside science are discussed in greater length in the article on zoophilia.

Legal context

Laws on zoosexuality tend to be shaped by three main factors:

  • Animal welfare concerns
  • Personal moral views of shapers of opinion
  • Cultural beliefs about the act

Issues confusing the matter are that such research as is available, is not widely known, and that cases which come to public light may not be representative of the whole.

Posner (1996) states, "there is some evidence that bestiality was particularly reviled because of fear that it would produce monsters... At early common law, there was no offense of cruelty to animals... The focus of [cruelty to animals] statutes is different from that of the traditional sodomy statute; anticruelty statutes are concerned with both the treatment of the animal and with the offense to community standards, while antibestiality provisions embodied in the sodomy statutes are aimed only at offenses to community standards." [4]

Animal welfare bodies usually, but not always, view zoosexuality or zoophilia as a matter of animal abuse, or at the least, of concern. A notable exception is the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency, which in 2005 addressed concerns over a surge in horse-ripping incidents by reviewing the matter and concluded that although animal cruelty legislation needed updating, a ban on zoosexual activity was not justified by research.

Why is it difficult to list zoosexuality laws?

There are two reasons it is hard to be ceertain whether zoosexuality is legal in an area. The terminology used in law may be vague, so it is not clear what is covered, and whilst it is usually clear if a specific law prohibits zoosexual activity, it is not always so clear (for several reasons) whether the absence of an obvious law means the opposite.

Vagueness of terms

Some countries list laws very clearly, such as the UK, which specifically prohibits penetration of a human being by the penis of an animal, and penetration of an animal by a human's penis.

By contrast many countries are quite vague about the exact scope of law. Terms such as "sex with animals", "sodomy", "crime against nature", or "bestiality" are significantly lacking in legal precision, and as with many laws, what may seem very straightforward from a distance is very vague close-up in a courtroom. This also makes them indeterminate and leaves it unclear what exact activities such terms might encompass.

Difficulty in establishing legality

It is difficult to state with certainty which countries beyond these accept zoosexual actions in law. This is for many reasons, the main ones of which are:

1) Assumption of cruelty

Even if zoosexuality is not explicitly prohibited, there are often many other laws which can be used to effectively prosecute cases. For example, most countries have animal cruelty laws, and a prosecutor will argue that all zoosexual activity is animal abuse.[5]

2) Creative law use

Some countries have a range of historic but vague laws on their statute books (for example sodomy laws, "crime against nature" laws, or other laws based upon the historical religious beliefs of the culture), and will prosecute under that.[6] Even when these type of laws do not exist, it is often the case that a prosecution will be found on some ground or other, however contrived. Two examples:

In one case, prosecutors unable to find a basis for prosecution charged the individual with "sex with a minor". (It is unclear whether they considered the breeding of horses and operation of stud farms to be "living off the proceeds of prostitution of minors")

In the case of Kenneth Pinyan, reports suggest that despite seizing and examining carefully a large number of such videos from the property, no evidence of abuse was found. Not only was there no abuse found, but the state had no law against zoosexual activity at the time. None the less, as one news source comments:

"It was only after Pinyan died, when law enforcement looked for one way to punish his associates, that the legality of bestiality in Washington State became an issue ... The prosecutor's office wanted to charge [his friend] with animal abuse, but the police found no evidence of abused animals on the many videotapes they collected from his home. As there was no law against humanely [having sex with] one horse, the prosecutors could only charge [him] with trespassing."[7]
3) Non-codified cultural prohibitions

Often there are traditions or unwritten cultural beliefs, such as tribal law or custom, which although not codified as legislation, carry an equal weight to any other law.

4) Social taboos

Finally, whether or not legal, there are often social mores which frown strongly upon it. For example, even in Sweden, where zoophilia has been legal since 1944, Beetz comments[8] on the findings of Ullerstam[9]:

"It has to be noted in this context, that not having laws against a behavior and acceptance of it by society are two completely different matters... no acceptance of the persons engaging in this kind of sexual activity was adopted by the population. [...] Furthermore, Ullerstam referred to alleged evidence that showed, that many remarkable men had sexual experiences with animals and had to live a life in constant fear because of that. Those man had been widely respected, but would have lost everything if their activities would have become known; all their great contributions would have been forgotten due to a 'primitive moral reaction'."


For these reasons, this article only asserts legality where it is both confirmed and openly acknowledged custom and law that zoosexuality is legal, and where in fact it is openly confirmed, acknowledged or able to be practiced.

Overview of legislation

Laws in the West are in flux at the moment. Some countries such as the UK have recently (2002) relaxed their laws, whilst others (several US states) have recently introduced new ones where none previously existed.

A key factor seems to be the motive behind the change: in the UK the motive was a complete review of all sex offences, which concluded that a life sentence was inappropriately harsh. By contrast in Arizona USA, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases" [6], and the Arizona legislator is quoted in that source as stating:

"Arizona appears to be in the minority of states that does not make sex with animals a crime. That doesn't necessarily mean we're wrong. But why shouldn't we be in line with everybody else if the rest of the nation thinks it's a problem?"

Common reasons given for laws

In cultures with a strong background in Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), personal or cultural beliefs about God's Biblical laws or God's plans for human sexuality are a strong influencing factor.

Against this, in some countries (notably the United States), courts have ruled that views on morality are not sufficient justification for law (Lawrence vs. Texas) but in other cases (Muth v. Frank) have ruled adversely to a broader reading of that case.

A second major reason is the strong desire of society to outlaw and punish animal cruelty and animal abuse. Cultural and personal assumption, lack of informed knowledge, and cases of zoosadism have left society as a whole wary or hostile towards any belief that animals may engage in sex with humans on a mutual or non-abusive basis. (The article on zoosexuality considers research in this area in more depth). A factor in this is that prior research, often performed only on known incarcerated violent abuser populations and mis-cited by parties with vested interests, and described by professor emeritus Vern Bullough as "more often pseudoscience"Template:Citeneeded and author assumption, was used for many decades as proof that zoosexual activity should be classified as a rare but profound sexual pathology.

Studies suggest that zoosadism, or wanton abuse, torture, violent rape or cruelty to animals, for example pet abuse or animal crushing, is a potentially strong indicator for abuse towards humans. Despite invesigation, a similar link has not been shown with sexual activity in general or zoophiles generally.

A major social factor in the proposed introduction of laws, is the coming to light of specific cases to public attention; this was the case in Washington, Missouri and Arizona USA, and also behind recent attempts in 2004 to change the law in Holland.[10] In such cases it often does not seem to matter whether there was abuse or not,[11] or how rare or commonly such matters arise. Rather it seems to be a case of moral panic, or "not in my back yard."

Overall much of the concern can be summarized as coming from lack of knowledge, combined with repugnance at the concept of human-animal sexuality, presented in a societal context of religious or social abhorrance, and a desire to reduce abuse.

Laws against zoosexuality

Zoosexuality is permitted in a few countries, such as Sweden and the Netherlands. In other countries, such as Germany and Russia, zoosexuality is legal, but zoosexual pornography is illegal.

Elsewhere in the developed world, it is a prudent assumption that it is illegal or at the least against social custom.

There are also commonly laws against forcing another person to engage in zoosexual activity, especially minors (usually considered equivalent to rape), and laws related to exposing others (either non-consensually or minors) to the sight of a sexual act.

Sexual handling of an animal for the purposes of veterinary practice, or animal husbandry (breeding), is normally exempted where such laws exist.

National laws

Legality
Australia Laws are determined at the state level, with all but the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay Territory explicitly outlawing it.[12]
Belgium Legal. However the spreading of zoosexual pornography is not according to a court ruling in 2006 against a man who frequently had sex with dogs in a shelter he had worked for. He was acquitted from the charge of animal abuse and was only found guilty of violating public decency by spreading zoosexual pornographic material he had made at the shelter, which he did mainly via his website under the nickname Freki. The Belgian animal rights organisation Gaia, which filed the complaint, has appealed against the court ruling however and calls for the law to be changed to criminalize zoosexual acts.
Canada Illegal (section 160 forbidding "bestiality". The term is not defined, so it is not quite clear what it might cover)
Germany Legal. Sex with animals is not specifically outlawed (but trading pornography showing it is, cf. §184a StGB). In West Germany, the law making it a crime (§175b StGB, which also outlawed homosexual acts) was removed in 1969. East Germany before reunification had no law against zoosexual activity; zoosexual pornography, however, was very restricted. Certain barriers are set by the Animal Protection Law (Tierschutzgesetz).
Netherlands Legal. A 2004 call for this to be changed was not passed into law.
New Zealand Illegal, under a variety of sections contained in the Crimes Act 1961. Section 143, makes "bestiality" an offence, but as in Canada, the meaning of bestiality is derived from case law. There are also associated offences of indecency with an animal (section 144) and compelling an indecent act with an animal (section 142A). It is interesting to note that in the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of bestiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a mental health issue. In Police v Sheary (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "[t]he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others."
Sweden Legal. A 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the Swedish government expressed strong concerns over the increase in reports of horse-ripping incidents, although noting that "the rise in documented cases did not necessarily mean that there was a de facto increase", and distinguished zoosexual activity from incidents involving physical injury (zoosadism). The Animal Welfare Agency gave as its opinion that current animal cruelty legislation needed updating as it was not sufficiently protecting animals from abuse, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban. [7]
United Kingdom Illegal. However the Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 69 reduced the sentence to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment for human penile penetration of or by an animal.
United States As with Australia, laws are determined at the state level. Many U.S. states[13] explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the term of "sodomy" or "unnatural crime against nature"). Others do not.

Many U.S. state laws against "sodomy" (generally in the context of male homosexuality) were repealed or struck down by the courts in Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that perceived moral disapproval on its own was an insufficient justification for banning a private act.[14] On the other hand, the 2004 conviction of a man in Florida (Template:Derefer) demonstrated that even in states with no specific laws against zoosexual acts, animal cruelty statutes would instead be applied, and Muth v. Frank showed that some courts might be "desperate to avoid the plain consequences" of Lawrence and may make "narrow and strained" efforts to avoid seeing it as relevant to other consensual private acts beyond the realm of homosexuality.[15]

Finally, the 1999 Philip Buble case showed that when a self-confessed zoophile is assaulted and the assault is motivated by his zoophilia (ie hate crime), a jury can convict the assailant and a judge give a stern sentence, despite the controversial nature of the cause.

Pornography laws

Main articles with legal sections: Obscenity, Pornography, Legal status of internet pornography

Animal pornography is governed in the United States by the same Miller test and obscenity laws as any other form of pornography. In many countries such as Canada, Hungary and the Netherlands, such material is legal, although in some countries where zoosexual acts are legal, zoosexual pornography is not (Belgium, Germany, Russia).

Legality of any given pornographic material has three components: legality of production, legality of sale and transportation, and legality of ownership.

In general, animal pornography is legal to produce anywhere that zoosexual activity and the creation of pornography in general are both legal. Laws concerning sale, transmission and ownership vary more widely.


Sale and
distribution		 Ownership Relevant law
/ notes
Canada Unknown Legal
Germany Illegal Legal §184 StGB [8]
United States As with all pornography, considered obscene if it does not meet the standards of the Miller Test and therefore is not openly sold, mailed, distributed or imported across state boundaries or within states which prohibit it. Under U.S. law, 'distribution' could include transmission across the internet. However may be some doubt.[16] Usually legal (unless prohibited by state law). Interstate transport or import of pornography even for personal use is technically an offence.[17] various


Erotic art, such as animal pornography in cartoons and the like, which does not require the recording of an actual sexual incident, are not usually considered sex with animals by the law, and so their status depends upon more general laws such as legal limits upon obscenity or pornography alone, and the thin line between erotic art and pornography. The contrasting views between cultures are highlighted by the case of Omaha the Cat Dancer, a furry comic book, which was simultaneously the subject of a raid by Toronto police for pornographic depiction of bestiality,[18] and the subject of praise by the New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification for its mature depiction of relationships and sexuality.

Religious laws

Main article: Zoophilia and religion

In certain religions, sex with animals was part of the legal framework of a theocratic state, and as such the matter also falls under religious law. This is particularly the case for Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, although many other religions and traditions such as Hindu, Buddhism and even Satanism have religious views and rules on the matter which did not form part of a national legislative regime.

Historical and other laws

In some countries laws existed against single males living with female animals. For example, an old Peruvian law prohibited single males from having a female alpaca (llama).

See also

External links

References

  1. ↑ Miltetski, 1999, p.1
  2. ↑ Review of Miletski's book, published in Journal of Sex Research, May 2003. (Online version)
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 The finding that attitudes to alternate sexualities correlate strongly with nature of contact and beliefs, is stated in a variety of research into zoophilia and also mirrored in societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which have been more thoroughly researched over a longer time period. Thus Herek, who established the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale in psychology, states "The ATLG and its subscales are consistently correlated with other theoretically-relevant constructs. Higher scores (more negative attitudes) correlate significantly with high religiosity, lack of contact with gay men and lesbians, adherence to traditional sex-role attitudes, belief in a traditional family ideology, and high levels of dogmatism (Herek, 1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1994; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Herek & Capitanio, 1995, 1996)" [1], and that "the strongest predictor of positive attitudes toward homosexuals was that the interviewee knew a gay man or lesbian. The correlation held across each demographic subset represented in the survey--sex, education level, age--bar one: political persuasion. [Conservative men and women]" [2]
  4. ↑ Posner, Richard, A Guide to America's Sex Laws, The University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 0-226-67564-5. Page 207.
  5. ↑ The argument that "all sexual activity with animals is automatically abuse" was made for example, in 1) the 2004 case of State vs. Mitchell (Florida), 2) the 2004 Pony case in Utrecht, Holland (cited below), and 3) the 2006 Washington state law which asserts as its foundational premise that "animal cruelty in the first degree is committed when a person knowingly engages in sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal." SB-6417 2006
  6. ↑ For example a man found to have committed a zoosexual rape of a sheep in Michigan 2006 was not charged with animal cruelty, but with crimes against nature. It is notable that a first offence of animal cruelty, which includes any "unnecessary neglect, torture, or pain", carries only up to a 93 day sentence (MI 750.50 section 2(f) and section 4), whereas a zoosexual act prosecuted as a crime against nature is capable of a 20 year sentence.
  7. ↑ "The Animal In You". The Stranger. February–March 2006. Retrieved 2006-04-30.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  8. ↑ Beetz, 2002, Love Sex and Violence with Animals, section 5.2.13
  9. ↑ Ullerstam, 1966, p.119
  10. ↑ Washington on the back of the Kenneth Pinyan case, Missouri following the Jerry Springer Show episode 'I married a Horse', Arizona following "A spate of incidents" [3], and Holland following a case in Utrecht: "MPs were outraged at the start of March when a man caught raping a pony in Utrecht could not be punished because he had not broken any law... Veerman will now investigate the possibility of adding sex with animals to the list of acts classified as animal cruelty, news agency ANP reported." [4]
  11. ↑ Eg Washington where the police looked for abuse but failed to find any evidence: Pinyan was the passive partner in an act of sexual penetration by a stallion videotaped by a friend. This was the only incident of its kind in the state's history, and it could be said the human, who died from internal injuries, was the victim of his own act. Police concluded despite examination of many video tapes that there was no evidence of animal abuse and that the only crime was the relatively minor one of trespass. None the less, almost instantly, legislation was proposed in a form of moral panic, covering every aspect conceivable: the act, the videotaping of the act, the knowing granting of permission for the act, the observing of the act. SB-6417 2006. Nor was a prosecution for cruelty ultimately found viable or brought, in the televised Missouri case highlighted on 'Jerry Springer'.
  12. ↑ Ref: Halsbury's Laws of Australia #9 page 247662:
    • Criminal offence: New South Wales (Crimes Act 1900 s79, not more than 14 years imprisonment), Northern Territory (Criminal Code s138, not more than 3 years imprisonment), Queensland (Criminal Code s211: "carnal knowledge of an animal", not more than 5 years imprisonment), South Australia (Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s69, "buggery with an animal", not more than 10 years imprisonment), Tasmania (Criminal Code s122(b), not more than 21 years imprisonment), Victoria (Crimes Act 1958 s59, not more than 5 years imprisonment), Western Australia (Criminal Code s181: "carnal knowledge of an animal", not more than 7 years imprisonment).
    • Other: Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay Territory have "no equivalent provisions".
  13. ↑ US State Laws where known:
    • Misdemeanor: Arkansas (Ark. Stat. Ann. @5-14-122 (2005): "Bestiality" - Class A Misdemeanor), California (Penal Code Section 286.5 "Crime Against Nature" - misdemeanor), Connecticut (CT Penal Code 952.53a-73a "Sexual assault in the fourth degree" - Class A Misdemeanor), Iowa (2005 Merged Code 717C.1 "Bestiality" Aggravated Misdemeanor - up to 2yrs and $500-$5000 fine), Kansas (K.S.A. @21-3505 "Criminal Sodomy" Class B Nonperson Misdemeanor), Minnesota (Minn. Stat. @609.294, (1993): Either fine of not more than $3,000 or sentence of not more than 1 year), Missouri (Mo Rev. Stat. @566-111 "Unlawful Sex with an Animal" - Class A Misdemeanor (1st offense) thereafter Class D Felony), Nebraska (Neb. Statutes @28-1010 "Indecency with an animal" - Class III misdemeanor), New York (NY CLS Penal @130.20 (1994): Class A misdemeanor), North Dakota (N.D. Cent. Code @12.1-20-12 "Deviate Sexual Act" is a Class A Misdemeanor), Oregon (Oregon Laws 2003 @167.333 "Sexual Assault of Animal" a class A misdemeanor), Utah (Bestiality 76-9-301.8: Class B Misdemeanor), Wisconsin (Wis. State. @944.17(2)(c) and (d)(1993) "Sexual Gratification" a class A misdemeanor).
    • Felony: Arizona (Sec.2 Title 13 Ch.14, 13-1411, "bestiality" defined as "sexual contact or oral sexual contact", class 6 felony unless minor involved in which case class 3 felony), Delaware (11 Del. C. @777 (1993): Class D Criminal felony), Georgia (O.C.G.A. @16-6-6 (1994): 1-5 yr. jail sentence), Idaho (Idaho Code @18-6605 (1994): "length of imprisonment in excess of 5 years is in discretion of court."), Illinois (720 ILCS 5/12-35 (2003): Sexual Conduct (or Contact) with an Animal - Class D Felony), Louisiana (RS 14:89 (2003) "Crime Against Nature" up to $2,000 fine and/or 5yrs with or without hard labor), Maine (17-A M.R.S. @ 251 (1994): Class C Crime; 3-5 yrs), Maryland (Unnatural/Perverted Sexual Acts Article 27, Section 553: Up to $1,000 fine, max of 10 years prison), Massachusetts (Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 @34 (1994) "Crime against Nature" prison term of not more than 20 years), [[Michigan (MCL @750.185 (1992): Jail sentence not more than 15 years), Mississippi (Miss. Code. Ann, @97-29-59: Sentence of not more than 10 years), Montana (Mont. Code. Ann, @45-5-505 (1994): 10 year sentence and/or $50,000 fine), North Carolina (N.C. Gen. Stat. @14-177 (1994): Class I felony. 3-10 yrs), Oklahoma (Okl. St. @21-886 (1994): "imprisonment not to exceed 10 years"), Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws @11-10-1 (1993): 7-20 years), South Carolina (S.C. Code Ann. @16-15-120 (1993): 5 yrs jail and/or fine of at least $500), South Dakota (SD Codified Laws 22-22-42 (1995): "Bestiality" - Class 6 Felony 1st offense, Class 5 subsequent offenses), Virginia (Va. Code. Ann. @18.2-361 (1994): Class 6 Felony), Washington D.C. (DC Code @22-3502 (1994) ("Sexual Psychopath" chapter): Fine not more than $1000 and/or sentence of not more than 10 yrs), Washington (SB-6417, sexual contact defined as "animal cruelty", also likewise an offence to permit, abet, observe or record. Felony class C seriousness level III, seizure of animals).
    • Other legislation in progress as of 2006: New Jersey.
    • Believed illegal or 'other': Pennsylvania (18 Pa. C. S. @3101, 3123 and 3124 (1994)), Tennessee (Tenn. Code. Ann. @39-13-511 (1994) specifically mentioned under Public Indecency if done in a public place)
  14. ↑ Sodomy laws in the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice however still stand, with the criteria being "penetration, however slight".
  15. ↑ From main article Muth v. Frank - "The grounds for dismissal, that Lawrence had dealt specifically with homosexual sodomy and not other consensual private sexual activity between adults, were considered "narrow and strained" by at least one newspaper, the Boston Globe [5]. As legal scholar Matthew Franck observed, the writer of the opinion, Judge Daniel Manion, must have been "desperate to avoid the plain consequences of the [Supreme] Court's recent precedents on sexual liberty". "
  16. ↑ U.S. prohibitions on distribution of sexual or obscene materials are as of 2005 in some doubt, having been ruled unconstitutional in United States v. Extreme Associates (a judgement which was overturned on appeal, December 2005).
  17. ↑ United States v. Extreme Associates - protection laws not equated to a zone of personal privacy outside the house, or freedom to transport obscenia.
  18. ↑ As noted, "furry", or anthropomorthic cartoon art, is not usually considered "bestiality".
Retrieved from "https://zoophilia.wiki/index.php?title=Legality_of_bestiality_by_country_or_territory&oldid=7303"