Crime against nature
 |
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (December 2010) |
- This article is about types of sex act. For other meanings see Crime against nature (disambiguation).
Contents |
A crime against nature or unnatural act is a form of sexual behavior that is not considered natural and is seen as a punishable offense by law. Sexual practices that have historically been considered by some to be "crimes" against nature include anal sex, bestiality, incest, miscegenation and necrophilia. Other examples include heterosexual and homosexual fellatio and cunnilingus, other non-procreative sexual practices, or procreative sexual acts in the wrong position or without procreative intent, even between married couples.[1]
"Crime against nature" is a legal term used in published cases in the United States since 1814.[2] The term is also used in dozens of countries and several U.S. states. It is sometimes also used as a synonym for sodomy or buggery.[3]
The usage of the word "unnatural" in the context of "unnatural acts" does not carry the same meaning as "the opposite of natural", and says nothing about whether an act actually is or is not a product of nature (though that may be what is implied in a pejorative sense).[clarification needed]
Current use [edit]
Currently, the term crime against nature is still used in the statutes of the following American states. However, these laws are unconstitutional to enforce for sexual conduct between consenting adults in light of Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The crime against nature statues are however still used to criminalize sexual conduct involving minors, public sex, prostitution and bestiality.
- Idaho (I.C. § 18-6605)
- Louisiana (R.S. 14:89) (Struck down the part of the statute that criminalize adult consensual anal and oral sex by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2005[4])
- Massachusetts (MGL Ch. 272, § 34) (Struck down the part of the statute that criminalize adult consensual anal and oral sex by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1974)
- Michigan (MCL § 750.158) (Struck down the part of the statute that criminalize adult consensual anal and oral sex by the Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan in 1990 and it applied only to Wayne County)
- Mississippi (Miss. Code § 97-29-59)
- North Carolina (G.S. § 14-177) (The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the crime against nature statute, N.C. G.S. § 14-177, is not unconstitutional on its face because it may properly be used to criminalize sexual conduct involving minors, non-consensual or coercive conduct, public conduct, and prostitution[5])
- Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. § 21-886) (Struck down the part of the statute that criminalize heterosexual adult consensual anal and oral sex by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in 1988)
- Rhode Island (§ 11-10-1.)
- Virginia (Va. Code § 18.2-361) (Struck down by United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on March 12, 2013)
Repeal and unconstitutionality [edit]
Except for the above nine states, all other states in the United States have repealed their crimes against nature laws. Furthermore, in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court held that nonremunerative sex between consenting adults in private was protected by the Constitution and could not be criminalized under "crimes against nature" laws. Thus, fellatio, cunnilingus and homosexual sex can no longer fall within the scope of such laws.
Similar laws [edit]
See also sodomy laws.
Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code prohibits any form of male to male sexual conduct.
Article 377 of the Indian Penal Code (since 1860) calls for a maximum punishment, being life imprisonment, for all sexual acts against human nature.
References [edit]
- ^ Edidin, Peter. "In Changing the Law of the Land, Six Justices Turned to Its History". Sodomy Laws. Archived from the original on 2012-2-05. Retrieved 2013-2-05.
- ^ Andrews v. Vanduzer, N.Y.Sup. 1814 (January Term, 1814)(Vanduzer accused Andrews of having had connection with a cow and then a mare and the court understood this to mean that Vanduzer was going around telling others that Andrews had been guilty of the crime against nature with a beast.
- ^ See Rose v. Locke, 1975, 96 S.Ct. 243, 423 U.S. 48, 46 L.Ed.2d 185.
- ^ "Sodomy law revisions are upheld on appeal, Times-Picayune". Nola.com. Retrieved 2012-03-18.
- ^ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GREGORY PAUL WHITELEY
Further reading [edit]
- Rictor Norton (Ed.). "The Shortest Way with Whores and Rogues, 1703". Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook. Archived from the original on 2005-12-17. Retrieved 2005-12-31.
