27 November 2006

UPDATE: Judge Rules Whether Sex With A Dead Deer Is Legal

A Wisconsin man who was arrested after having sex with the carcus of a dead dear argued that he could not be prosecuted for having sex with the deer because the animal was dead at the time.

The judge (ruling on a pre-trial motion) said that the primary focus of the criminal statute dealing with crimes against sexual morality is on "human behavior and on protecting sexual morality in the community, and not necessarily on animal protection".

Read the bizarre story and the entire opinion HERE.

4 comments:

Daniel said...

with hunting season here, i hope the law remains very clear on the immoral nature of posthumous bestiality.

Windypundit said...

So, you can eat the deer, but you can't stick your genitals into it... What if Hathaway orders take-out venison from a restaurant and, in the privacy of his own home, rubs the venison against his naughty bits. Is that illegal? If not, is it because the venison is cooked? Does it matter which parts of the deer he's rubbing against? Or is it a matter of how much of the carcass is left? How long it's been dead?

I mean, ICK in all cases, but the mind boggles at the kind of lines the court must have to draw...

martin said...

Man, that guy is ,well afew terms come to mind. Yuck!

One has got to feel for the investigators and judges having to deal with this kind of thing. But do they have to?

He added that the "primary focus" of Wisconsin's criminal statute dealing with crimes against sexual morality is on "human behavior and on protecting sexual morality in the community, and not necessarily on animal protection."

Where, I must ask, is the compelling State interest in this? Modification of sexual urges? Behaviour modification? All criminal law is about human behaviour. Show me why morality in the community is being served by prosecuting this guy.
Seems to me my tender feelings for the judge and the investigators are unnecessary.

martin said...

Hmm, rereading my comment...

Change "Do they have to?" to read
"Should they have to?" After all, they do what the law tells them to do, not what would be mandated if the law were a wise law.