 | ||
Zoophilia and the law in the United States looks at the laws prohibiting sex with animals in the United States of America. As of December 2016, sex with animals is illegal in 42 states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 2017, five states (Texas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Vermont and Nevada) introduced legislation to ban interspecies sex. This is the most bills there has been at one time. The most recent states to ban it are Alaska (2010), Florida (2011), Alabama (2014), New Jersey (2015), New Hampshire (2016) and Ohio (2016). Prior to 2000 the number of states banning it was much lower; most laws have been made recently.
Contents
A few states, such as Connecticut, Alaska, Maine and New Hampshire, make bestiality a misdemeanor and a felony.
Several states, including Oregon, Washington, Tennessee, Illinois, Florida, Alaska and Ohio, criminalize free speech related to sex with animals (such as promoting or encouraging it). These laws have all been made recently.
Two states, Michigan and Idaho, allow life in prison for sex with animals.
Federal law
Laws against bestiality and sodomy in the United States are largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the District of Columbia and the U.S. Armed Forces. There is no federal law which explicitly prohibits sex between humans and animals.
District of Columbia
In 1801, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 that continued all criminal laws of Maryland and Virginia in the now formally structured District, with those of Maryland applying to that portion of the District ceded from Maryland, and those of Virginia applying to that portion ceded from Virginia. At the time, Maryland had a sodomy law applicable only to free males with a punishment of "labor for any time, in their discretion, not exceeding seven years for the same crime, on the public roads of the said county, or in making, repairing or cleaning the streets or bason [sic] of Baltimore-town" and the death penalty for slaves committing sodomy, while Virginia had a penalty of 1–10 years for free persons committing sodomy, but had the death penalty for slaves committing sodomy. The law went into effect on February 27, 1801.
In 1831, Congress established penalties in the District of Columbia for a number of crimes, but not for sodomy. It specified that "every other felony, misdemeanor, or offence not provided for by this act, may and shall be punished as heretofore[.]" At the time, Maryland and Virginia had a penalty of 1–10 years for committing sodomy. It went into effect in March 2, 1831.
In 1892, Congress passed a law for the District of Columbia that states that "for the preservation of the public peace and the protection of property within the District of Columbia." Labeled in the law as vagrants were "all public prostitutes, and all such persons who lead a notoriously lewd or lascivious course of life[.]" All offenders had to post bond of up to $200 for good behavior for a period of six months. The law went into effect on July 29, 1892.
In 1898, Congress deleted the word "notoriously" from the provision concerning a lewd or lascivious course of life, thereby allowing prosecution of those without notoriety. The bond for good behavior was raised to $500, and the law was made clearly gender-neutral. The law went into effect on July 8, 1898.
In 1901, Congress adopting a new code for the District of Columbia that expressly recognized common-law crimes, with a penalty for them of up to five years and/or a $1,000 fine. The law went into effect on March 3, 1901.
In 1935, Congress passed a law for the District of Columbia that made it a crime for "any person to invite, entice, persuade, or to address for the purpose of inviting, enticing, or persuading any person or persons...to accompany, to go with, to follow him or her to his or her residence, or to any other house or building, inclosure, or other place, for the purpose of prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd purpose." It imposed a fine of up to $100, up to 90 days in jail, and courts were permitted to "impose conditions" on anyone convicted under this law, including "medical and mental examination, diagnosis and treatment by proper public health and welfare authorities, and such other terms and conditions as the court may deem best for the protection of the community and the punishment, control, and rehabilitation of the defendant." The law went into effect on August 14, 1935.
In 1948, Congress enacted the first sodomy law in the District of Columbia, which established a penalty of up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $1,000 for sodomy. Also included with this sodomy law was a psychopathic offender law and a law "to provide for the treatment of sexual psychopaths in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." The law went into effect on June 9, 1948.
In 1981, after the District of Columbia regained home rule from Congress, it enacted a law that repealed the sodomy law, as well as other consensual acts, and made the sexual assault laws gender-neutral. However, the U.S. House exercised the power that it retained to veto laws passed by the District of Columbia Council. On October 1, 1981, the House voted 281-119 to disallow the new law. In 1983, one of the House vetoes by Congress were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, but the law was repealed by an act of Congress in a revision to the home-rule law required by the Supreme Court decision.
Military
On March 1, 1917, the Articles of War of 1916 are implemented. This included a revision of the Articles of War of 1806, the new regulations detail statutes governing U.S. military discipline and justice. Under the category Miscellaneous Crimes and Offences, Article 93 states that any person subject to military law who commits "assault with intent to commit sodomy" shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
On June 4, 1920, Congress modified Article 93 of the Articles of War of 1916. It was changed to make the act of sodomy itself a crime, separate from the offense of assault with intent to commit sodomy. It went into effect on February 4, 1921.
On May 5, 1950, the UCMJ was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on May 31, 1951. Article 125 forbids sodomy among all military personnel, defining it as "any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offence."
On December 1, 2011, the US Senate voted 93-7 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which contained in it a provision repealing Article 125 of the UCMJ. The bill died in Congress.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 enacted in December 2013 repealed the ban on consensual sodomy found in Article 125 and added a specific provision in Article 125 of the UCMJ that specifically bans bestiality:
Federal law
The only federal law prohibiting zoophilic pornography, is 18 USC 2256, which prohibits distribution in interstate commerce and on federal property of child pornography of a minor under 18 years old engaging in "sexually explicit conduct" of bestiality.
The Constitutional definition of Obscenity was narrowed by the US Supreme Court in the 1985 case Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., which the court endorsed the Model Penal Code of obscenity. The Model Penal Code prohibition against deviate sexual intercourse includes "sexual intercourse per os or per anum between human beings who are not husband and wife, and any form of sexual intercourse with an animal." Federal law does not ban obscenity outright; it leaves this to state and local law. Federal statutes prohibit, among other things, the transmission of obscene matter as defined by state law, in interstate commerce and on federal land.
Private Internet connections in the United States are not subject to censorship imposed by the government. However, private businesses, schools, libraries, and government offices may use filtering software at their discretion, and in such cases courts have ruled the use of such software does not violate the First Amendment.