|
pompeii -> RE: Is bestiality cruelty to animals? (4/24/2010 7:15:36 AM)
|
This was an enlightening intercourse in more ways than I, for one, would have expected, given the assumed open-minded nature of this CM audience; and, as the OP, I thank everyone for the edification received at your hands.
The legal quandary happened to be that in the case in question, three men were allowing a horse to copulate with them and one of the men died as a result so that the whole affair came to the attention of the authorities. In the end, NO CHARGES (except that of minor trespass) were filed. Not bestiality. Not cruelty to animals. Not accessory to murder. Nothing. Surprised, and confused ... I posted the question you see here to what I thought was an enlightened group.
Like others, I was initially shocked and dismayed by the primary responses, but heartened when reason and logic began to slowly prevail as the discussion slowly began to center, rightly so, on the definition of cruelty when even the police report stated the animal in question was formerly untrained but quite "receptive" and no bestiality or cruelty charges were filed even though a death was involved. Cruelty-to-Animals statues existed, but, charges would have been filed if cruelty to the animal could be assumed; but no cruelty charges were filed (the assumption is that the animal was quite "receptive" to the endeavor). Since animal pain wasn't apparently involved, it, at first, seemed to me cruelty could still be assumed based on the presumed lack of informed consent; however, as aptly noted by others here, the problem becomes how to measure consent in a large animal living wholly within a society that seeks little consent from its large livestock in all other aspects of their care.
It was especially appalling that the people you'd expect to have an open-minded discussion based on the "merits" of the question were not (initially) apparent. In fact, to my great dismay, the posts seemed, initially, to be all about the topic being so "disgusting" that even talking about it was, for some, deemed to be illegal in and of itself, while others badgered the moderators to have the question removed from consideration. However, over time, the enlightened few tried attempted logical reason with the enraged masses, only to be partially successful in negating spurious arguments, none of which in and of themselves defines cruelty (i.e., mental anguish, pain vs pleasure, species selection, and even the propensity to serial murder, if you can believe that).
What's reassuring is that, despite the visceral gut reaction ("it's disgusting, end of story") reason eventually prevailed regarding a more precise definition of "cruelty to animals" which was the whole point of the post, given that this well documented case resulted in no charges (other than minor trespass in their attempt to find a more willing animal because the original horse "wasn't receptive" according to the police report)
I had always thought that bestiality was illegal; but apparently it isn't (in all states). Then I thought cruelty to animals was illegal, but, interestingly, as the police noted, they said there "might" have been cruelty to the "smaller" animals, but not to the (much larger) horse who was "receptive" to the attack. The perpetrators merely received a conviction for trespass (the owner of "Big Dick", the horse in question, filed those charges because they used his horse and his barn for the reprehensible action).
The logic of it all wholly escaped me. Thoroughly perplexed, I asked the philosophical question here regarding "cruelty" (not regarding bestiality per se).
As for consent as the fundamental argument, I think that has been shown with some eloquence to be a red herring because we cage and leash and punish and train and eat animals all the time sans consent; so, I lean with those who postulate we can't justifiably use consent as a logical basis of our definition of cruelty; otherwise the remainder of our "property rights" laws would become a shambles.
We also can't use pain to the animals nor unnatural acts for the animals, since neither was proven (despite the fact that many people still vehemently feel sodomy in and of itself is a wholly unnatural act, even for humans).
It's all very unsettling ... which is why I asked for advice ... and I, for one, greatly appreciate your responses and kind emails.
Ciao,
Pompeii
|
|
|
|
