If Someone Has Sex with a Sheep, Must He Register as a Sex Offender?
You might think it's a crazy law professor hypothetical, but it's a real case. Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.158 provides,
Any person who shall commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal shall be guilty of a felony ....Under Michigan law, the "abominable and detestable crime against nature" meant anal sex when committed with humans (which can now no longer be made criminal, with the usual provisos related to consent, age, lack of relationship, noncommerciality, and privacy), and any sort of sex when committed with other animals. Michigan law also provided that people register as sex offenders when they have been found guilty of "[a] violation of ... MCL 750.158, if a victim is an individual less than 18 years of age." Hence the question for the reader:
Under Michigan law, someone who has sex with a sheep must register as a sex offender:
- Always.
- Never (unless he's guilty of some other crime for which he must register).
- Only if the sex is anal sex.
- Only if the sheep is under eighteen.
- Only in a rural county.
For the answer, read today's People v. Haynes. Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.
Nick
And I'm sure everyone knows why the Scotsmen wear kilts: because a sheep can hear a zipper a mile away.
Here is one of my favorite sections:This is part of why the general public think that attorneys are so weird.
Q: What's the difference between The Rolling Stones and a Scotsman?
A: The Rolling Stones say "Hey, you, get off of my cloud!" while the Scotsman says "Hey McCloud! Get off of my ewe!"
I don't see why it turns on that. I doubt many communities desire, say, thieves or arsonists to interact with children, but they don't have to register as sex offenders.
And what if the guy used mint jelly as a lubricant?
So the perp gets-off Scot-Free having done four members of the flock. Had he boinked an 'individual' sheep then the conviction might have been affirmed. But Affirmed would be a horse of a different color...
Not that it wouldn't be amusing to see a 9th amendment challenge to bestiality laws, but I vote for promoting sheep to personhood.
I am guessing the prosecutor felt he had to respond to this idiot's appeal rather than concede error--so he spent an hour on Westlaw, found a few cases, and made the best argument he could.
Had the prosecutor appealed (if the judge had not required the guy to register as a sex offender), you would have a good point.
http://volokh.com/posts/1221489609.shtml
Google is your friend:
Thank you. But you confirmed my parenthetical comment in the process. I really didn't want to know and now feel vaguely queasy that I do.
Oh, I suppose the pro-bestiality lobby is not yet as influential and powerful as the homosexual lobby, so Justice Kennedy is not willing to make a mockery of the Constitution on their behalf (yet).
I wonder about this farmer. Unless she caught Haynes in the physical act of ramming his sausage into Lamb Chop why would she suspect the animal was sexually abused? If I had an injured sheep on my hands I doubt I would even think of this possibility, let alone do a rape kit. And don't you normally just tell trespassers to leave? Why would you see a trespasser, detain him, and then go inspect your sheep? There must be some very interesting details that have been left out.
And what is the deal with Haynes? Forgery, HOME INVASION, and passing bad checks does not a petty criminal make. He sounds more like a dishonest violent felon. Why wasn't he still locked up for home invasion? Why didn't he just run away when he got caught trespassing? Even little kids are smart enough to run away. What the hell would make him want to sexually penetrate a sheep and how did the mechanics of this actually work? I mean I don't think raping a sheep would be a very easy thing to do. Finally, why not just buy your own sheep? Haynes obviously is not rich, but I think he could have swung a sheep.
There are too many question marks here and too much weirdness. I think we should just give Michigan to Canada in exchange for beer.
Animals who are in pain tend to show it in their behavior. An animal with an injured leg will limp; an animal with sores may scratch or rub. There may be some characteristic behavior of a sheep with a sore rectum. Shepherds are going to be aware of the rear ends of sheep anyhow; sheep are prone to a number of truly foul parasitic diseases back there. So the shepherd investigates the symptoms and discovers abrasion and bruising rather than (say) flystrike as the cause. When several sheep show the same symptoms, it is unlikely that they all sat down on a porcupine ....
Lawrence v. Texas only protects private sexual relations between consenting adults. Presumably, the Supreme Court having already given a significantly narrow result in the decision, intended to limit this only to human beings. Regardless, I don't think a sheep is capable of giving legal consent.
The rub is whether a sheep is an "individual," and if not, is there an independent basis for registering violators of the statute as sex offenders for their acts.
If sheep are individuals, then a) always. (Unless, I'm wrong about whether they can give consent, then d) only if under 18).
If sheep are not individuals, then the question is whether "if" means "only if" within the confines of the statute, in which case b) never.
If "if" means only "if" within the confines of the statute, then just because a sheep is not an individual does not mean that a violation of the statute could not result in sex offense registry for some other ground. This requires a better understanding of the statute as a whole.
Now I read the case.
Bruce, when I was in the Navy, we got a new sailor on my boat from Montana. The first two months of the patrol were filled with people ragging on him about sex with sheep. All the classic jokes, velcro gloves, zippers, hip waders, etc. He would just laugh it off. One morning at breakfast he sat down and immediately the jokes started. He leaned over the table and said, "Do you want to know why we have sex with sheep in Montana?" We all just sat there, waiting for this one. "Chickens pop!" he finished. he was left alone after that.
Respectfully,
Pol
You obviously don't care about the children.
The opinion isn't attacking the applicability of SORA, it's attacking the applicability of the underlying criminal statute to the facts.
Not exactly. The rhetorical question asked by Justice Kennedy, the more socially liberal of D.C.'s Kennedys, is whether morality can ever form a rational basis for a law. The answer, pretty clearly, is "no." I think there's a pretty good case to be made, if you follow the black letter of the law (something the Right. Hon. Mr. Justice would never stoop to do) that the underlying criminal statute is invalid.
Sure, the court didn't need to go there as it got to it's conclusion just by analysing the statute, but still - if the wording of the statute had included this case, what about ...
- substantive due process? Having to register as a sex offender has pretty negative consequences and needs to be justified somehow. Does it violate due process to require someone to be registered even though he does not pose a threat to humans, but only to animals? Can you argue that any sexual deviation makes it probable that you also might be a pedophile ??
- equal protection? Is it o.k. to treat someone who has sex with animals as bad as someone who rapes children but worse then someone who sold drugs to them?
Curious (and not an expert in American conlaw) ...
Sheep are property and the law ought to treat them as such. I don't see the connection between the sex offenders registry and perverts like this. Although I do think that giving out his picture to the local farmers would be a reasonable thing to do.
Very informative and sensible. However, This story still does not fit together for me. She catches a trespasser and then inspects the bungholes of her sheep. She is able to deduce from their wounds that they have been raped. This means that their is either an epidemic of sheep rape in Michigan or this lady is also some kind of dirty bird. There is some missing background here. If she were a vet, expert on animal abuse, or caught the guy in the act or performing some other perversion on her property then things start to fit together. However, until there are more details this story is sick and mega-weird. I really want to hear a more detailed account of what happened. 99% chance it will be gross and entertaining!
Note that until recently, my state had no bestiality statute. "reach for it" prosecutors charged a woman who had fellated a dog with the only relevant statute "cruelty to animals", but the judge (correctly) ruled that they did not meet the burden to prove that doing this act to an animal was "cruel". In fact, quite the opposite... from the dog's perspective.
Now, we have a bestiality law.
Even assuming he could throw together his opposition in an hour (I'm guessing -- hoping! -- that this is a novel enough issue that he had to do a little bit more work than usual), doesn't he have better use for his time and the court's time?
you haven't met a lot of prosecutor's have you :)
The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that a Battle Creek man who was convicted of sodomizing a sheep will not have to register as a sex offender when he is released from prison....
A no contest plea is tantamount to an admission of guilt.
It's not clear to me that sodomizing is the right verb.
And the whole point of a nolo contendere is to not admit guilt.
No one would willing attempt sex with a goat twice (may even apply to goats). Or so I am told by those with knowledge of the subject.
“Baa...Baa……..Baa....Baa……..Baa …Baa…Baa……Baa..Baa… Baa Baa! … Baa Baa! …. Baa Baa!”
Translation:
“Stop...Don’t……..Stop....Don’t……..Stop …Don’t…Stop……Don’t..Stop… Don’t Stop! … Don’t Stop! …. Don’t Stop!”
"Once they go baaaaaack, they never go back"
Oh. So I guess you don't want me to tell that joke about the Foreign Legion and the camels?
Actually there are way too many sickos who think of the "kids" (in both senses of word) who should not be out walking free. I wouldn't be surprised if Haynes has a collection of human hides or something equally disgusting in his mother's basement.
Actually there are way too many sickos who think of the "kids" (in both senses of word) who should not be out walking free. I wouldn't be surprised if Haynes has a collection of human hides or something equally disgusting in his mother's basement.
Keep in mind that bestiality was decriminalized in Texas when Lawrence was decided.
Just so folks don't get the wrong idea, I'm not pro-bestiality. I have no problem with maintaining the social stigma against it. I just don't see the need to outlaw it if it doesn't involve cruelty to animals.
AND in terms of analogies and slippery slopes homosexuality is closer to heterosexuality, not bestiality. So if we group two things together and distinguish them from a third, it's clear that heterosexual and homosexuality go together and distinguish from bestiality. Just as apples and oranges go together and distinguish from crabgrass. Bestiality is the crabgrass.
No, the Sheep doesn't to register as a sex offender assuming the human is a consenting adult.
As far as the human, is it a consenting adult sheep?
Here's what Thomas Jefferson wrote, emphasis added:
"Bestiality can never make any progress; it cannot therefore be injurious to society in any great degree, which is the true measure of criminality in foro civili, and will ever be properly and severely punished, by universal derision. It may, therefore, be omitted. It was anciently punished with death, as it has been latterly."
But presently, rather than universal derision, we're seeing both tacit and more overt displays of positive approbation, not "derision" and certainly not "universal derision". Indeed, the such deriders are, often enough, themselves subjected to sneers and derision.
Hence, absolute bare minimum, Jefferson was wrong in terms of that "universal" framing and assumption.
Animals don't consent to eating them or turing them into sofas. That can't be the standard. Inhumane treatment, causing them needless pain...THAT'S got to be the standard.
If the animal doesn't seem to mind, regardless of consent issues, I don't see how that can be any kind of issue unless it's YOUR animal that YOU own and someone else is doing this to them without your permission.
"ramming his sausage into Lamb Chop"
"Baa means baa"
"Justice Kennedy, the more socially liberal of D.C.'s Kennedys"
Some all-time classic comments here.
The fact remains, Thomas Jefferson, your very own source and authority, indicated, now with new emphases:
"[Bestiality] will ever be properly and severely punished, by universal derision"
"properly"
"severely"
"universal"
All reflecting Thomas Jefferson's own overt, unambiguous assumptions, assumptions and condemnations which he positively affirms.
I noted that Jefferson's overt assumption of universal condemnation was wrong, pointing to the present era. You evaded that issue along with any implications that might stem from that issue. (E.g., if Jefferson was wrong concerning the universal derision that would ensue, in what sense might he be wrong about other aspects of his presuppositions and conclusion? Is that a worthwhile question to ask?)
Likewise, that you "have no problem" with bestiality behind closed doors no doubt hi-lights the fact of your own high moral standing - i.e. not being willing to judge or condemn others to any derision or scorn - but that too does not respond to the issues being suggested.
I always wondered how the "crime against nature" laws, using that term and nothing else, avoided void for vagueness invalidity. Esp. since, as the case illustrates, they encompassed several different forms of sexual activity. Does it cover oral sex? If so, pre-Lawrence, did it cover only oral sex with the same sex? Is it a defense that the sex with a sheep was vaginal? I'm hard put to think of a criminal statute (esp. a felony one) that is written on a theme of "this stuff is so unprintable that we can't say what is forbidden."
Wonder, if it was argued that the statute can be premised upon cruelty to animals, whether the sheep's enjoying it would be a defense. If the chicken pops, on the other hand, it'd be clear. Esp. if defendant broke one wing so it spun around.
In 1979 the North Carolina Court of Appeals said that the crime denied a vagueness challenge, holding that the law is not unconstitutionally vague because "persons of ordinary intelligence would conclude a fellatio between a man and a woman would be classified as a crime against nature and forbidden by G.S. 14-177. This keeps it from being unconstitutionally vague."
The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed for want of a substantial question. State v. Poe, 252 S.E.2d 843, appeal dismissed sub nom. Poe v. North Carolina, 445 U.S. 947. Justices Brennan and Stephens would have noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.
Since dismissal for want of a substantial constitutional question is dismissal on the merits and counts as a precedent, the case is still the law of the land.
The U.S. Supreme Court had previously upheld crime against nature laws where a state appelate court had judicially defined the conduct involved, See e.g. Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21 (1973).
Clarification: except as overturned by Lawrence v. Texas. Poe had upheld a 5-year prison sentence against a constitutional privacy challenge. Lawrence overturned the privacy holding of Poe, but not the vagueness holding.
Nick
no.
(and fwiw, i am 100% against sodomy laws, but the lawrence decision was judicial activism).
bestiality laws are not based on cruelty to animals. they are based on morality.
those who argue "you can't legislate morality" forget about bestiality laws. that is a clear example of legislating morality.
there is no way you can argue that fellating a dog, for example, is "cruel". all evidence points to the fact that the dog enjoys it. the erection, and climax, for example.
these laws are there because we DO legislate morality, despite that fallacy that "you can't legislate morality".
another example is incest (spare me the genetic issues, which don't apply for instance in cases of same sex incest).
states that criminalize bestiality do so because they don't think people should have sex with animals, not out of concern for the animals...
note that in my state it is 100% legal to shoot your animal in the head for no reason. as long as you don't kill your animal in a method that involves unnecessary pain, it is yours to kill if you so desire.
but not to have sex with. that is a purely morality based law.
One of the first entries in Judge Samuel Sewall's diary records his attendance at a hanging of a boy and a horse.
I wonder, was the owner of the horse compensated?
Why would he be compensated, he's responsible for his horse leading the poor lad astray. If only he'd keep better control of his horse neither horse nor man would have been hanged.
Sodomy laws do not. And bestiality and other so called "moral" laws that concern themselves with the privacy of people's own homes do not either and more than laws that would forbid a husband and wife from using condoms or a teenager from masturbating (that's the other end of the slippery slope in morality laws).
The is a compelling case to be made that those two things (contraception and masturbation) equally violate the "law of nature" as do sodomy and bestiality.
fwiw, note that i did not say that i support (or don't support) legislating morality, like bestiality. i merely pointed out that despite claims to the contrary, we do.
with that in mind.
this is another tired slippery slope argument. iow, if we can criminalize bestiality, it's a step towards criminalizing masturbation, etc. etc.
i'm not going to go into all the reasons why slippery slope arguments are problematic. those cases have been made here before, more compellingly than i can make them.
and they can go both ways. the argument that extending the idea of the RIGHT of marriage to gays (which i support btw) could lead to a right to marry a cow, or your brother, or polygamy. that MAY be true, too, on the same slippery slope logic. or the argument that legalizing medical mj (which i also support) is just slippery slope to legal/decrim recreational mj, etc etc
iow, these arguments are a way of arguing for X (in this case bestiality being legal) cause if one doesn't accept that, then one tacitly accepts laws against masturbation, or whatnot. um, no. nice tru though.
deal with it. we legislate morality.
and criminalizing bestiality should be addressed on its own merits, not with the cautionary backdrop of "omg if we criminalize bestiality we open the door to criminalizing masturbation"
Not exactly. The rhetorical question asked by Justice Kennedy, the more socially liberal of D.C.'s Kennedys, is whether morality can ever form a rational basis for a law. The answer, pretty clearly, is "no." I think there's a pretty good case to be made, if you follow the black letter of the law (something the Right. Hon. Mr. Justice would never stoop to do) that the underlying criminal statute is invalid.
This is a very liberal interpretation of the decision you advance, to suggest that Lawrence would exclude any law based on morality. Kennedy's rhetorical asides arise in the context of whether morality alone is a sufficient basis for criminalizing a behaviour that is otherwise protected by the Constitution, in this case sodomy between consenting same-sex adults. The answer in this case was "no." And it is very likely that the result in Lawrence would also extend to laws criminalizing sodomy between consenting heterosexual couples, based solely on morality, because such laws affect a similar (or the same) constitutionally protected privacy right. Bestiality is not such a right. Nor are existing post-Lawrence bestiality laws based on non-moral bases, such as animal cruelty concerns, or protection of other people's property rights.
The case (Lawrence) did not and could not prevent all laws based on morality. Regulating morals is a traditional form of police power left to the state, and it would be a massive breach of federalism, and make a lot of right wing conservatives even more crazy
about judicial activism, if Lawrence were interpreted that way.For the record, I don't think that morality is a power that should serve as a basis for state legislation. And personally, I think such laws may be without rational basis (or possibly even violate the Establishment Clause), but the courts clearly do not agree.
Thus, the 11th Circuit ruled, "we find that public morality survives as a rational basis for legislation even after Lawrence, and we find that in this case the State's interest in the preservation of public morality remains a rational basis for the challenged statute." (Decision at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611892.pdf )
Lawrence is much more narrow than you imply.
I never denied we did.
Fine and the same should be said of all arguments regarding homosexuality &the law. How we deal with homosexuality should be dealt with on its own merits and not that it will open the door to bestiality, incest, polygamy or whatever. Otherwise the slope runs in both directions.
i agree. but there is a difference between passing a law legalizing gay marriage (which i support) and inventing a constitutional right to do so. the latter has an entirely different slippery slope context than the former.
just as arguing that bestiality should not be criminal does not have the same down the line results as if a court ruled it was a constitutional right
That's preposterous, it's little more than another rhetorical evasion.
I'll enjoy the humor in this thread, some of it raucausly hilarious, but to the extent the discussion is more seriously intended, you've evidenced any number of evasions. The post-modern and otherwise informed mood or zeitgeist or whatever it might be termed is such that "understanding the other" and "not judging," etc. are deemed the only viable moral position. Similarly, there have been films and documentaries devoted to understanding and examining specific instances of bestiality, for example at Robert Redford's Sundance Film Festival and at the Cannes Film Festival.
Hence to suggest that Thomas Jefferson's moral/ethical assumptions - as reflected in his statement that "Bestiality ... will ever be properly and severely punished, by universal derision" - are "close enough for rock 'n roll" to our own contemporary moral/ethical outlook is positively risible.
And yes, I am pointedly emphasizing the "moral/ethical" aspect precisely because doing so runs counter to general, contemporary sentiments.
i don't have a problem with it because of what the 14th amendment says and the EPC. anti-miscegenation laws were passed to REDEFINE marriage as white-white or black-black etc., although many predated the 14th and our nation;s founding.
the issue of same sex marriage is completely different because it is a redefinition of marriage. i support gay marriage, but gays asking for gay marriage are asking for a redefinition of marriage. people asking for interracial marriage were not asking for a redefinition of marriage.
it is entirely constitutional to do all sorts of gender discrimination that would not be legal based on race (bathrooms, military, etc.).
i think the EPC/14th argument for gay marriage is a weak one. i think the EPC/14th argument against anti-miscegenation laws is much stronger.
i recognize that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between the genders that does not exist between the races.
i think your question is a good question, and i understand that many people think the 14th/EPC should be interpreted such that gay marriage is found to be constitutionally required. i don't think that's valid any more than saying the 14th requires polygamy or incestuous marriage.
There you go again with that movie. I wonder, have you seen it?
The closest you've claimed to explaining such a principle is whether a "redefinition" of marriage is required. But no such redefinition is required for incestuous marriage.
I'm sure you can come up with some other way to draw a line. Maybe who you are related to isn't a protected class. But you can always find a ratbag assortment of principles that support where you draw the line and reject from that assortment the ones that require the line to be drawn elsewhere.
But don't pretend that your line drawing is being true to the constitution and my line drawing is finding new rights. That's just bogus.
There you go again, yet again. What I saw was a documentary that covered the bestiality and porn movie/documentary you're thinking of. But what was your point?