posted
I love his previous - shooting a horse dead so he could shag it - future pillar of society right here
-------------------- This is where I come up with something right? Something really clever... Posts: 6552 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Thank goodness for that "legal definition of the word 'animal'" loophole, eh? Can't tell you how many times I've got off the hook on that one.
It's good news for vegetarians, too!
(edit)
quote:Interpreting the statute to exclude dead animals would also exclude freshly killed animals, Boughner said. That, he said, could lead to people who commit such acts with animals to kill them.
Which would seem a really unlikely argument except for the part that Jay Tea pointed out:
quote:In April 2005, Hathaway pleaded no contest to one felony charge of mistreatment of an animal for the shooting death of Bambrick, a 26-year-old horse, to have sex with the animal.
It doesn't sound like he needs any more encouragement.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really sad that they had to examine the definition and what-not so closely. Too bad they don't have a law where they can arrest you for just being a sick NFBSK.
Posts: 332 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nicki: Too bad they don't have a law where they can arrest you for just being a sick NFBSK.
I'm assuming you are being facetious, but thank God they don't have a law where they can arrest you for being a sick NFBSK. I'm sure that some people would think I'm a sick NFBSK for being a sadomasochist, or for being bisexual. Others think gays are sick NFBSKs, or people that eat sushi are sick NFBSKs. I personally think that fans of the Green Bay Packers are sick NFBSKs; should they all be arrested?
-------------------- "You better respect the Rap or the Rap won't respect you." Ledatru Posts: 1141 | From: Chicago, IL | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, is this a guy we really need to be prosecuting? I would think psychiatric care would be more appropriate.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if they caught him in the act? If he was doing this outdoors, couldn't they get him for public indecency or something?
I'm disgusted with myself, but when I read the thread title the first thing that popped into my head was a joke about "field undressing."
-------------------- A Viennese fellow is walking along the Karntner Strasse and notices a banana peel lying in his path. "Alas," he sighs, "now I must slip and fall down!" Posts: 506 | From: Missouri | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no reason to criminalize sex with a dead animal. Sex with a live animal could be considered abuse of an animal. Likewise killing an animal to have sex with it, though there would be difficulty if it were a wild animal that could otherwise be hunted legally. Enforcement of public indecency laws is a good idea- this guy was on the side of the road, not deep in the woods (AFAICT from the OP), but the animal was dead when he found it.
Posts: 400 | From: Maryland | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Dave: I see no reason to criminalize sex with a dead animal. Sex with a live animal could be considered abuse of an animal.
Well, why criminalise sex with a dead human for the same reason?
-------------------- The Sqizzle formally known as Lexi Posts: 3231 | From: Nottingham, UK | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Dave: I see no reason to criminalize sex with a dead animal. Sex with a live animal could be considered abuse of an animal.
Well, why criminalise sex with a dead human for the same reason?
That's a very good question, one about which I will need to think, because I am not sure.
Basically, though, I think the only reason to criminalize any sex act is that it harms someone- be it a vunerable person (e.g. a child, someone being raped) or a live animal. Public indeceny counts because it presumes that the person put themselves in view of another.
With dead people, I think the idea is that it is desecrating the person, that he or she would not have agreed to this being done to them, and (nonspecific)we have a concept of respecting the wishes of people after they die re: the disposition of their body. There is also the idea of proxy rights to the family of the deceased, which I think should apply to owned animals- for example sex with another person's pet or horse after the animal died. So, do animals warrant the same level of respect? If so, then I could see criminalizing sex with an animal, but I do not think so. Afterall, we are allowed to do all sorts of things to animals, both dead and alive, and the criteria for "cruelty to animals" is different than for cruelty to humans.
Posts: 400 | From: Maryland | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Dave: I see no reason to criminalize sex with a dead animal. Sex with a live animal could be considered abuse of an animal.
Well, why criminalise sex with a dead human for the same reason?
Because as a society, we don't automatically reduce a human being to being "meat" after death- there are certain laws and customs which require the treatment of a human corpse with a certain amount of care, and that would include necrophilia. A dead person is still considered "human" and intercourse with their body is considered an act of violation, sexual contact without consent. That is why someone can be charged with crimes such as "abuse of a corpse" if they do not take the customary care to ensure burial or cremation.
An animal, on the other hand, is protected by sexual violation during its life on the theory that it causes harm to a living being, a being which has the capability of feeling. After death, an animal may be eaten, disposed of, stuffed... there is no "reasonable care" which must be taken except to ensure that the disposal does not cause undue distress or pollution.
Now, this isn't to say I think this should be encouraged- this person needs some help to deal with his urges. Just as it is illegal to kill an animal for no purpose under cruelty laws, the deliberate killing of an animal for sexual purposes should be expressly forbidden. I don't think, though, there is honestly a rational reason for passing a law specifically protecting what is now "meat" from sexual contact besides the "ewww" factor. Is there a difference between intercourse with an animal's carcass and, say, sticking your wick into a bowl of warmed raw hamburger meat? Maybe in perception, but in a legal sense, there really can't be.
Passing morality law based on the "ewww" factor is what caused sodomy legislation and such. I am sure many of my sexual proclivities as a submissive/ masochist would evoke a lot of that squickiness. I would hope, though, that as an adult I can choose what to do with my body as long as I am not violating another.
-------------------- "There is a race between mankind and the universe. Mankind is trying to build bigger, better, faster, and more foolproof machines. The universe is trying to build bigger, better, and faster fools. So far the universe is winning." -Albert Einstein Posts: 1058 | From: Yakima, WA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Dave: I see no reason to criminalize sex with a dead animal. Sex with a live animal could be considered abuse of an animal.
Well, why criminalise sex with a dead human for the same reason?
Many places -- Kentucky is one -- do not specifically criminalize necrophilia. If a prosecution is necessary, it can be done under the abuse of a corpse statutes. But in such cases -- as in the case of the guy screwing a dead deer -- I would say mental help would be more appropriate.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a little amused by part of the lawyer's argument, as shown on The Smoking Gun:
quote:In addition, defining animals to include carcasses would lead to absurd results. At what point of decompose would the carcass cease being an animal? Would picked-over skeletal remains still meet the definition? At death, an animal ceases to be an animal. As Billy Crystal noted in The Princess Bride (1987), "There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead."
(emphasis mine)
Personally I think the Billy Crystal quote tends to undermine his argument, myself -- it argues that there might well be a distinction between, say, a freshly-killed, still warm carcass and, oh, a side of beef bought from a meat vendor. Whereas the lawyer seems to be trying to make the point that the animal ceases to be an animal at the very moment of death.
In any case, I'm not sure citing a movie quote as your authority ought to carry much weight...
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
He's right, though. Presumably you'd have to outlaw sex with parts of animal carcasses, too - or to paraphrase the original lawyer, it "could lead to people who commit such acts with animals to kill them and chop them up".
And then suddenly leather sex toys become rather dodgy ground... I mean, what kind of sicko needs to be draped in the skin of a dead animal to get themselves off?
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not all dead animals are seen as meat though- a dead dog (in Western culture at least) would not be seen as food waiting to be processed- and to take another example of a not-for-eating animal that isn't a pet a dead fox would also not be seen as potential food.
Whilst I think the "not performing sex acts on human corpses beacuse of respect for the dead and their family" is one reason necrophilia is mostly illegal and certainly taboo I think another reason is to somehow *protect* the person who would be the violater from violating- in which case there would be less of a difference in illegality of the sex act between human-dead animal or human-dead human.
I think, as a society, we may be less concerned with the idea of the body being desecrated after death than the idea that people exist who want to have sex with corpses and being freely able to so (after all we prefer others to keep any perceived deviance behind closed doors).
-------------------- The Sqizzle formally known as Lexi Posts: 3231 | From: Nottingham, UK | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's right, though. Presumably you'd have to outlaw sex with parts of animal carcasses, too - or to paraphrase the original lawyer, it "could lead to people who commit such acts with animals to kill them and chop them up".
Not necessarily. Killing animals for the purpose of having sex with them could simply be incorporated into statutes prohibiting inhumane treatment of animals that are already in place in most jurisdictions.
I do agree with Pogue that this guy needs a good mental housecleaning, but as an animal-lover (not in a perverted way!) I find the act horrifying for the animal and my first gut-instinct is that this guy should be locked up.
Any legit psychological insight to this type of behavior? I think it's pretty accepted that kids who torture animals can grow up to be abusers, etc. Juvenile Justice Bulletin Has anyone linked beastiality to any psychological disorder?
-------------------- I'm not mean, you're just a big sissy. -Happy Bunny
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.- Verbal Kint
Trespassers will be pelted with jellyfish.- Daniel Cluley Posts: 221 | From: Bradenton, FL | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he really did find an already-dead deer and have sex with it, how do you propose that he "tortured" the deer in any way?
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
