MAN ON DOG? (Lawmakers move to lower penalty for bestiality … seriously)

More than two and a half years ago, the nation laughed as pro-family crusader Rick Santorum predicted the consequences of legalized gay marriage: If man-on-man marriage was sanctified, man-on-child and man-on-dog unions might not be far behind.

Those who jeered Santorum were silenced last Tuesday. Man-on-dog isn’t legal just yet, but if the Massachusetts State Legislature has its way, it might be soon. On November 1, cheerleading for bestiality was just one of a string of stunning pieces of legislation that converged on the legislature’s judiciary committee in a bizarre, post-Halloween orgy. The imminent collapse of the state cannot be far behind.

Sponsored by Senators Cynthia Creem and Robert O’Leary, and Representatives Michael Festa and David Linsky, the bestiality measure was buried in a packaged assault on morality, disguised as “An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes.” The bill would strike down several sections of the current penal code criminalizing adultery, fornication and the advertisement of abortion. It also repeals what appears to be a sodomy statute forbidding “abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast.”

The new law would continue to forbid “a sexual act on an animal,” but reduce possible penalties for committing such a crime, making it decidedly less illegal. Whereas the old law punished doggie-diddling and the like with hard time (a maximum sentence of 20 years) in state prison, the new measure would give activist judges the option of slapping perps with a mere two and a half years in plush local jails, or even letting zoophiliacs walk with a $5,000 fine.

How badly has Massachusetts’ moral compass suffered since dudes started honeymooning with dudes? Not one legislator, nor a single member of the God-fearing public, appeared before the judiciary committee to denounce the proposed changes. But then again, who has time to worry about bestiality when teenagers are shoplifting and buying NyQuil?

Though presumably more than willing to lower penalties for crimes against nature, Rep. Linsky demanded the judiciary committee get tough on the real criminals—mall thieves. It turns out that if shopping bags are lined with duct tape, any merchandise inside can be snuck past security tag sensors undetected. One shoplifting ring, Linsky testified, had recently been busted in Natick with $47,000 in stolen goods. Linsky’s bill would criminalize the possession of duct-tape bags and other shoplifting tools in malls, punishing offenders with up to two years in the clink and a $1,000 fine.

Cold medicine, it appears, is also a greater threat to society than bestiality, as Falmouth Rep. Matthew Patrick denounced NyQuil and codeine, but remained silent about barnyard romance. Patrick’s bill would criminalize the sale of “cough syrup or a cold remedy containing alcohol or codeine … to any person under the age of 18.” Such medicine “wreaks a lot of havoc on young people,” Patrick argued.

And the shoplifting and NyQuil bills were two of the tamer legislative initiatives before the committee; the rest of the docket amounted to a clearinghouse of insanity.

Up for consideration was a measure, sponsored by Southie’s Jack Hart, to ban the advertisement of fireworks; a bill banning the sale of laser pointers to minors; a push to revamp the way the state punishes graveyard vandals; an examination of how to combat the epidemic of drunken riots; new punishments for drivers who steal gas; and—our personal favorite—a bid to make criminally liable anyone who knowingly allows their telephone to be used “repeatedly, for the sole purpose of harassing, annoying or molesting [another] person … or for the purpose of repeatedly using indecent or obscene language to that person or his family.”

Hopefully, with those problems solved, we’ll all be able to marry our dogs and live in peace.

From the tone of this article I suspected the author was exaggerating so I checked out the old law and the new one. They are talking about replacing Chapter 272, Section 34. The current one says "Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years." The proposed Section 34 says "Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

This doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. The old law is so vague that convictions arising out of it probably wouldn't withstand constitutional challenge anyway. And with the proposed law people could still get twenty years in prison for bestiality. The difference is that they could now also get a fine instead of imprisonment or could be sent to a "house of correction." This isn't as big a deal as it might seem. A sentence of "not more than twenty years" could be a one day sentence or other short sentence that a person may very well have completed in jail before he is ever sent to prison. In my state at least, with a sentence like that a guy could be arrested, spend an hour in jail before he bonds out, and then be sentenced to one day in prison with one day jail credit. He would never set foot in a prison.

Although it may be hard to imagine, there may be cases where technically an "abominable and detestable crime against nature" or "sexual acts with animals" can be proven but where most people don't think a person ought to go to prison. I'm talking about maybe some kind of sick goofing around at a drunken party on a bet or a dare or something like that, something gross but barely fitting the elements of the crime, done as a goof rather than for sexual gratification. I can remember hearing stories that probably weren't true for instance about a bunch of drunk guys camping who put an even drunker guy up to letting a cow lick his private part. Apparently cows have some sort of tiny barbs on their tongues that help them lift grass into their mouths without actually cutting it with their teeth. I could imagine a jury hearing the drunken tale about a bunch of guys putting up ten bucks each to get their hammered buddy to do something stupid like this, and I could imagine a jury thinking the whole thing was pretty funny in a sick way. Should the drunken idiot get twenty years hard time for this? Heck no. At least with the new law they could fine the crap out of him and let him go. The embarrassment from everyone hearing about it alone would be enough punishment, and the fine would defray the cost of prosecution.

As for the two and a half year "house of punishment" maximum, there is probably a reason for that. A "house of punishment" in Massachusetts is like the "community correction centers" in most states. These are generally small minimum security prisons where the focus is on rehabilitation instead of punishment. These aren't o much warehousing facilities for criminals like regular prisons often are as they are places with programs they make the inmates work that last a fairly set time. In my state, they don't have many programs except for a drug treatment program, psychiatric care, and this "Moral Recognition Therapy" program that takes in the neighborhood of nine months to one year to complete. The maximum time people can be sentenced there is four years, but the most time they could possibly do is two years in those facilities. If they get in trouble while they are there they don't have to stay their longer, instead they are sent to regular prison where they do the remainder of their time and might end up having to stay longer. Usually people only get a sentence that will keep them there nine months to a year, because the people that run our community correction centers are good about letting prosecutors, judges, and public defenders know how long their program lasts and they've made it known that they don't want to keep people their longer than it takes them to graduate from their program because then to keep these people busy they just have to start people back at the beginning of the program and then they get a bunch of short timers who have already done the program once and probably will not complete it again who end up getting bored and becoming disruptive or at least a bad influence on others. The really try to discourage us from putting people in for sentences that will keep them their more than a year.

Our state is poor though and I'm sure there are more programs available at facilities in other states, but I know there are generally limits to how long people can stay in community correction centers and the reasons for these limits are similar everywhere. And keep in mind, all allowing the fines and "house of punishment" sentencing alternatives does is allows for other options that might make sense in a particular case. These people in Massachusetts could still get sent off to do twenty years hard time in a standard prison, or they could get a one day sentence, or they could get only a fine, or a few month or a few year sentence in a prison or "house of punishment" and a fine to boot. All the new law does is gives them more options. This one section of the law talked about most in the above article doesn't bother me much. I haven't looked at the rest of it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the author is making mountains out of molehills when he briefly talks about the other issues as well.

No it's not. I read the old statute and the proposed law. The old statute provides for up to a twenty year sentence for "Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast..." The proposed law provides for up to a twenty year prison sentence for whoever "commits a sexual act on an animal." It also provides though that one can be fined up to $5000 in lieu of prison or in addition to prison, and it provides that as an alternative to standard prison one could be sent up to two and a half years to a "house of punishment," which is the Massachusetts equivalent to the "community correction centers" found in most states which are generally minimum security facilities for nonviolent offenders that have more programs like psychiatric care and drug treatment and more of an emphasis on rehabilitation rather than punishment. In most if not all states, there are already limits on the sentences in these types of facilities. It wouldn't surprise me at all if two and a half years was the maximum in these facilities. The max is two years in my state, but sentences over one year are strongly discouraged because inmates complete the main behavior modification program in nine months to a year and it's hard to keep the inmates busy doing something "productive" after they complete the main program.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.