Lawyer Argues Sex With Deer Not A Crime.

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Garth
In a very, very semantical way, I think the lawyer's case has legal merit. I would think that there were other laws pertaining to indecent exposure or public commission of a sex act that the prosecutors could pursue vehemently, and I doubt very much that the ANY judge would be even slightly inclined toward leniency in sentencing the defendant in that situation.

I'm curious about the degree to which the key term "animal" can be interpreted, and what precedent exists that might justify being a bit fast-and-loose with the definitions in order to accord with the spirit in which the law was written. Then again, I've always understood the reasoning behind anti-bestiality laws to hinge on the fact that animals are incapable of consenting to sex acts with humans. Legally, they are assumed to lack the capacity for the rational thought required to give consent. That premise simply doesn't acknowledge animal carcasses.

If there were maggots or other scavenger organisms present in the deer carcass, perhaps they could successfully convict him of engaging in a sex act with THOSE animals. I certainly agree that what the man did is absolutely revolting, but I'm not so quick to advocate legal punishments on that basis. Some one else above mentioned a turkey or a chicken carcass -- something common to almost every home at one time or another. While it certainly doesn't interest me, if someone else felt inclined to use a grocery chicken like it was a fleshlight, I wouldn't feel the urge to have him arrested and sent to prison.

Definitely. The lawyer has a good point, but I think it is grasping for straws because obviously this individual is a harm to animals and, just conjecture, but probably humans.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: shuttleboi
Hi DaShen! Just curious: who the hell do you think you are? There is no way you can extrapolate what this guy will or will not do. I don't care if you think his behaviour could possibly escalate into sicker behaviour. The fact is that has not, and you cannot judge him for something that your own sick mind fears. I personally can conjecture that people like you make this country worse. Now hush and leave the rest of us normal people alone.

Please base your arguments on logic and not emotional outbursts. It demeans yourself, and it only makes a discussion not possible.

**EDIT**
BTW, my best friend is a porn fiend. I am not judging anyone that looks at porn. I just have realized that porn only hurts people's outlook on sex and relationships, so personally I do not or try not to watch it. Even if a person doesn't willingly admit that porn changes their psyche about these things, it happens, much the same way someone who picks up smoking will say that it won't eventually control them or hurt them. Porn just hurt them through hurting relationships.

Again a person is free to do whatever they want. Freedom of choice, but there are consequences for bad choices, whether the consequences are instituted by society or by consequences against your character. I understand that this is a conservative outlook on sex, but it is my opinion. Take it as such. If your opinion is different, no big deal, you don't have to read my post. Shoot I disagree with my best friend on a lot of things, yet we are still good friends and can hang out and have fun. I don't have to agree with everything he says, to know that he is a good person with a good heart.

 

[exdeath]

Absolutely disgusting, but if he wants to beat off on a carcass or a rock or the bark of a tree in private, I don't really give a flying fvck. If we can't see it on publicly accessible property, who cares. In this case you can't even claim animal abuse because it was already dead. Not saying I think it?s acceptable, but it?s the same as gay marriage, guns, abortion, and everything else. Who the fvck cares what someone else is doing if it?s not denying someone else their freedom? (abortion is the only issue that this is even arguable, and even then only past a certain point).

Why the hell are things like this taking up precious resources in our judicial system?