[Rutles4Ever]

Disturbing, but predicted...

[Bommer]

PETA's appearent stance is don't eat or experiment on animals, but if you need a date......

[Dallas59]

"Help"

[RexBeach]

State Senator Cynthia Creem? God, if I had a name like that, I'd change it right quick.

Reminds me, though, "Jersey" Joe Walcott's real name was Arnold Cream. Really.

The MA legislature is a strange place. It's real name is "Sam's Ant Farm." Really.

John Adams isn't rolloing over in his grave - he's doing jack-knifes. Ugh.

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

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.”

Way to go Massachusetts, now you can actually love your dog too much!!! PING!!!

[manwiththehands]

What else could you expect from Massachusetts?

[little jeremiah]

later (triple bagger) pingout.

[rightinthemiddle]

They're cheering at DU.

[Buffettfan]

WTF???????

[MarkL]

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.

Ummm, isn't codeine already a class III controlled narcotic? Will this criminalize a Dr. writing a perscription for cold medicine or a dentist writing one for Tylenol III if the patient is under 18?

What about the parent of a child who gets a Rx for something with codeine? Will they be prosecuted when they pick up the Rx at the pharmacy? And maybe even charged as an accessory?

Mark

[TAdams8591]

On top of everything else it's cruelty to animals.

Too bad. It sure looks like Libertarians are getting their way these days.

[cardinal4]

Massachusetts. Imagine that..

[freepatriot32]

Massachusetts the other california.

Cold medicine, it appears, is also a greater threat to society than bestiality....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.”

So if you are under 18 and get a cold your suppose to just what grin and bare it and hope it doesnt turn into anything more serious while its being left untreated?

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***(Lawmakers move to lower penalty for bestiality … seriously)***

If they get any lower they will have to get on their hands and knees.

Bad, Baaad!

[Republicus2001]

do they still teach lesbian fisting to Massachusetts elementary kids?

[Republicus2001]

paging Bill O'Reilly

[TKDietz]

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.

[bk1000]

Hey, they say you can't discriminate based on one's sexual preference. Homosexuality one day, bestiality and pedophelia the next

[tutstar]

ping

[Jane Austen]

This speaks volumes on the sexual preferences of Creem, O'Leary, Festa & Linsky. Where is PETA?

[Dead Dog]

This aint right.