Why is Bestiality So Hard to Prosecute?
Mention the word “bestiality” and you’ll likely elicit one of two
responses: kindergartner-like snickering, or horror. I know, because
I’ve done it a lot (mentioned the word, not done the deed). In my
animal law speeches to lawyers and others, they are mostly horrified at
the thought and mention of humans having sexual contact with animals;
most had never had reason to consider it before I came along. Why am I
talking about it? Because of ALDF’s efforts to raise awareness of the
problem so we can attack it with criminal consequences.
Our awareness-raising efforts were recently aided by two news stories that have apparently attracted lots of gaping attention: one from New Jersey
in which a judge dropped animal cruelty charges against a former cop
charged with molesting cows, ruling there was insufficient evidence
they were tormented. New Jersey has no separate, stand-alone criminal
law prohibiting bestiality.
In the second news story, which was reportedly carried even in the Australian media, two men and a woman in Tennessee
are charged with performing sex acts with horses and a dog, and police
are looking into whether money was exchanged for the ability to have
sexual access to the animals.
By the way, these defendants all
have two things in common: one is that they’ve also hurt others in the
past – the former cop in New Jersey is also charged with molesting
three girls, and one of the Tennessee defendants became infamous years
ago for molesting horses in Washington state in a case in which his pal
died from internal injuries caused by the bestiality acts. The other
commonality is that video of the acts became the defendants’ undoing.
At the beginning of this decade, ALDF’s Criminal Justice Program
became aware of the problems that prosecutors were having in trying to
convict persons who sexually assaulted animals. They told us stories of
family members and farm owners who were appalled to catch relatives in
the act of assaulting the family puppy or invaders to their farm
assaulting their animal friends in nighttime barn trysts captured on
hidden video after suspicions were raised. The local prosecutors found
they were unable to do anything legally because their state bestiality
laws were tossed out decades earlier when many states updated their
criminal sex offense laws to also get rid of sodomy, adultery, and
other seemingly outdated sex laws.
Some prosecutors tried to
prosecute the abusers under their state’s existing animal cruelty laws,
but that often proved impossible, as evidenced by the New Jersey case
above. ALDF then endeavored to draft a model “sexual assault of an
animal” law and get it passed wherever necessary, starting in Oregon in
2001. Since then we’ve been fairly successful (really, who’s gonna
stand up and object to passing such a law?) but our work continues. If
you are interested in knowing more about this problem, what ALDF is
doing in this area of the law and how you can help, see our new online
resource, "The Crime of Bestiality/Zoophilia: Sexual Assault of an Animal."
Now, for those of us saddled with more juvenile sensibilities, no more snickering!

Obviously, the only real problem with bestiality is sex with a being that is not capable of giving consent. Since these are animals , really all you've got is possible animal abuse , and you can really only claim that if the animals was harmed in any way. Other than just general "ick factor," what's the big deal here? I see no reason that people should be punished because their sexual preferences make you uncomfortable. There is no evidence that I've seen that animals involved in bestiality experience any kind of psychological trauma, or are even capable of psychological trauma. I see no reason that people should be prosecuted because you find their sex life distasteful unless they are actually harming someone.
Perhaps it would help if people like Peter Singer, the so-called " father of the animal rights movement" would not make statements such as that "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships between humans and nonhumans are possible.
Take a look at this:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/links/p3017/mutually-satisfying.pdf
This sort of thing creates great confusion.
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
www.abolitionistapproach.com
got some mention here. It amazes me how I can read some of these bizzare stories and find out it was going on in my back yard? Oddly enough everyone in Tennessee is not an ignorant snake handler, there are some "semi normal" people here. Obviously dont use me as an example.
I found out we Tennesseeans are like the California residents. They are not all crazy either. Hollywood does not encompass the whole state. However, it might be interesting if it did.
PEOPLE ARE WORSE THAN ANIMALS..
all people? Really? I tend to put humanity on a higher level than that.
People are intelligent and have the knowledge to know when they are doing wrong , making them responsible for their actions, yet they continue to do disgusting, immoral things. Animals are faithful friends, loyal, and do not premeditate vile behavior. People use and abuse animals , causing them pain and suffering which the animal has no way of preventing or protecting himself from. People can protect themselves, if they don't like the animal, they euthanize it or shoot it or use some inhumane method to kill it. Now what did you say about people being better than animals. I trust animals more than people, they don't stand behind you ready to cut your throat, take your job , or rob you. Animals are victims of people.
Sorry to say this, but I think it's two-fold:
A) There are more kindergartn-brained sniggerers out there than any of us would care to admit and a lot of them vote ;
B) Most laws do not protect animals , especially farm animals...they are considered produce, and have the same protection from abuse as corn. Some species have minimal "protection" as to slaughter, but nothing during the entire course of their lives.
This is especially true of poultry which is officially classified as farm produce by the USDA, thanks to the efforts of PACS. They have no protection period...from birth to death.
Maybe because it's impossible to have the victim testify? Also, I don't think animals go to the hospital to get a rape kit so DNA evidence can't be analyzed.
Perhaps the New Jersey judge was correct when he dropped the charges against the cop for "lack of evidence" since its obviously nearly impossible to prove the crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt unless you have video and / or multiple witnesses.
Actually, if there is a single witness to the crime , or even reasonable suspicion, it should be provable with forensic evidence in many cases. Whether agencies have the resources to invest is another question, but given the possible link between those who molest animals and those who molest children (there should be more research done to demonstrate the truth or falsity of this claim, definitely), it seems that it might be worthwhile to pursue such crimes, particularly where pain or injury is inflicted upon the animal.