Is bestiality necrophilia illegal?

Sangre

Well I dunno about you but this has a burning legal question for me ever since I saw Bambi.
Now is it rape if the animal is dead and is unaware of the act? Surely if they don't know they're being raped there is no problem, right? Its a victimless crime.
Also who would bring the prosecution case? The DPP? What kind of facts would he need to convict you? Surely its your word against a lifeless soggy corpse?

Now with the recent development in evidence law with regards rape and allowing the character of the claimant to be allowed would this affect any necrophilia case? Would I be allowed to submit evidence to the fact that a particular dog had poor moral standing in the community and was a floozy?
e.g
'She was asking for it your honour, everytime she saw me she jumped up and licked my crotch!'

Also what is the legal standpoint regarding the fact that a dog is indeed a 'mans best friend'? Surely if this is the case then by dying the dog has given a man implied consent to interfere with its bodily cavities. If you have fed and kept a dog warm all year wrong, is it not true that by dying it would be reasonable for a man to think that the dog has given consent to love-making?

I for one would think its wholly unreasonable to convict any such man as he has no way of knowing if its consensual or not! Any conviction would a breach of our constitutional right to due process and would probably make it all the way to the Supreme Court!

I heard the RSPCA are against this sort of behaviour. Pfft, and they say they're animal lovers.

I waited the response of your legal minds with baited breath!
Budd J - I agree.

P.s I think this forum should have an anon feature.

besty

Sangre wrote:

Well I dunno about you but this has a burning legal question for me ever since I saw Bambi.
Now is it rape if the animal is dead and is unaware of the act? Surely if they don't know they're being raped there is no problem, right? Its a victimless crime.
Also who would bring the prosecution case? The DPP? What kind of facts would he need to convict you? Surely its your word against a lifeless soggy corpse?

Now with the recent development in evidence law with regards rape and allowing the character of the claimant to be allowed would this affect any necrophilia case? Would I be allowed to submit evidence to the fact that a particular dog had poor moral standing in the community and was a floozy?
e.g
'She was asking for it your honour, everytime she saw me she jumped up and licked my crotch!'

Also what is the legal standpoint regarding the fact that a dog is indeed a 'mans best friend'? Surely if this is the case then by dying the dog has given a man implied consent to interfere with its bodily cavities. If you have fed and kept a dog warm all year wrong, is it not true that by dying it would be reasonable for a man to think that the dog has given consent to love-making?

I for one would think its wholly unreasonable to convict any such man as he has no way of knowing if its consensual or not! Any conviction would a breach of our constitutional right to due process and would probably make it all the way to the Supreme Court!

I heard the RSPCA are against this sort of behaviour. Pfft, and they say they're animal lovers.

I waited the response of your legal minds with baited breath!
Budd J - I agree.

P.s I think this forum should have an anon feature.

So that you can post bizzare legal conundrums anonymously? Oh no, wait a minute...

Sangre

besty wrote:

So that you can post bizzare legal conundrums anonymously? Oh no, wait a minute...

I bet you thought Ryan v AG was a bizzare legal conundrum! Hypocrit!

Thirdfox

Apparently our lecturer thought AG v. X was a bizarre case (with an equally bizarre result)

hullaballoo

I'm pretty sure the requirement that consent be continuous might make it rape. Although, arguably if rigor mortis sets in, you could say you thought you were being encouraged.

besty

hullaballoo wrote:

I'm pretty sure the requirement that consent be continuous might make it rape. Although, arguably if rigor mortis sets in, you could say you thought you were being encouraged.

Charming :v:

Sangre

hullaballoo wrote:

I'm pretty sure the requirement that consent be continuous might make it rape. Although, arguably if rigor mortis sets in, you could say you thought you were being encouraged.

What the fúck? Im not gay! Don't be disgusting.

hullaballoo

^^^Hypothetically, relax.:D

Thirdfox

Sangre wrote:

What the fúck? Im not gay! Don't be disgusting.

...but would it be defamatory to call you so? :eek:

Kappar

Yes- Reynolds v. Malocco [1999] 2 IR 203 http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1998/175.html

Thirdfox

Ah yes the "gay bachelor not feeling so gay" case but that was before the new millennium! Seriously though... would the court still say, in 2006, that being a homosexual would lower you in the eyes of right thinking people? Surely not!

There was the recent Robbie Williams case in England though was there not? I think the court decided that it was still defamatory to call him gay (although I haven't read that judgement to see their reasoning there).

dermot_sheehan

Sangre wrote:

Well I dunno about you but this has a burning legal question for me ever since I saw Bambi.
Now is it rape if the animal is dead and is unaware of the act? Surely if they don't know they're being raped there is no problem, right? Its a victimless crime.
Also who would bring the prosecution case? The DPP? What kind of facts would he need to convict you? Surely its your word against a lifeless soggy corpse?
'

s. 61 of the Offences against the person act 1861:
61.Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal, shall be liable ... to be kept in penal servitude for life ....

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 only legalises it between humans, it expressly keeps it illegal between humans and animals.

rsynnott

Thirdfox wrote:

Ah yes the "gay bachelor not feeling so gay" case but that was before the new millennium! Seriously though... would the court still say, in 2006, that being a homosexual would lower you in the eyes of right thinking people? Surely not!

Homophobia is still extremely common among the stupid, you know.

Nevyn

gabhain7 wrote:

s. 61 of the Offences against the person act 1861:
61.Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal, shall be liable ... to be kept in penal servitude for life ....

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 only legalises it between humans, it expressly keeps it illegal between humans and animals.

But what if the animal is female and hence it is not buggery ?

rsynnott

Thaedydal wrote:

But what if the animal is female and hence it is not buggery ?

Buggery is not a gender-bound term.

Reku

I think she means if you were to engage in beastial necrophilia in the other hole of a female animal corpse.

*Seriously need a puke smilie for this topic*

Thirdfox

rsynnott wrote:

Homophobia is still extremely common among the stupid, you know.

But are you suggesting that the right thinking person would look down on someone due to their sexual preference? I wouldn't have thought that the right thinking person would be stupid...

hullaballoo

farohar wrote:

I think she means if you were to engage in beastial necrophilia in the other hole of a female animal corpse.

*Seriously need a puke smilie for this topic*

Here, have mine.

grumpytrousers

Are necrophelia and bestiality illegal?

Dunno, but friend of mine gave it up 'cos he said it was only flogging a dead horse...:D

Thirdfox

You can lead a horse to your **** but you can't make it ...

rsynnott

Thirdfox wrote:

But are you suggesting that the right thinking person would look down on someone due to their sexual preference? I wouldn't have thought that the right thinking person would be stupid...

Is there actually a definition of "right-thinking person"?

Thirdfox

I thought that the judge decides... and explains to the jury...

Isn't it like the reasonable man in negligence? Is there a definition for him too?

NewOxfordReview

You have Atomic Kitten mp3s. That should be illegal.

Thirdfox

Lol...I plead justification they're my sisters...

dermot_sheehan

rsynnott wrote:

Is there actually a definition of "right-thinking person"?

The jury basically is the "right thinking person". That's part of the reason defamation actions are heard by a jury, the jury inputs the community standard of what a "right thinking" person would think.

Reynolds v. Malocco was an application for an interlocqutory injunction however, it wasn't a full defamation trial. As such it was heard by a judge alone who had to himself decide the community standard.