Crime against nature

Last updated

The crime against nature or unnatural act has historically been a legal term in English-speaking states identifying forms of sexual behavior not considered natural or decent and are legally punishable offenses. [1] Sexual practices that have historically been considered to be "crimes against nature" include masturbation, sodomy [2] and bestiality. [3]

Contents

History and terminology

For much of modern history, a "crime against nature" was understood by courts to be synonymous to "buggery", and to include anal sex (copulation per anum) and bestiality. [2] [3] Early court decisions agreed that fellatio (copulation per os) was not included, though mainly because that practice was virtually unknown when the common-law definition was established (it remained so rare that first attempted fellatio prosecutions under the "crime against nature" statute date to 1817 in England and 1893 in the United States. [4] ) Likewise, sexual activities between two women were not covered. Over time, particularly starting in the early 20th century, some jurisdictions started enacting statutes or developing precedents the extended the scope of the crime to include fellatio and, sometimes, other sexual activities.

The term crime against nature is closely related to, and was often used interchangeably with, the term sodomy . (This varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sometimes the two terms were understood to be synonymous; sometimes sodomy was limited to sexual activities between two humans; [5] and sometimes sodomy was taken to include anal sex or bestiality, whereas crime against nature also included fellatio. [6] )

Until the early 19th century, courts were divided on whether the act needed to be completed (to result in ejaculation) in order to be a punishable offense. This question was deemed sufficiently important that, in 1828, English law was explicitly amended to specify that proof of ejaculation was not necessary for convictions for buggery and rape. [7] The crime was not limited to same-sex activities, and, in case of an act between two adults, both participants were guilty, regardless of consent. Attempted or completed act of sodomy, committed by a husband against his wife, was grounds for divorce in common law. [7]

Historically, the offense was usually referred to by its longer name, the detestable and abominable (or abominable and detestable, or, sometimes, infamous) crime against nature, committed with mankind or beast. This phrase originates in Buggery Act 1533, with words "crime against nature" substituted for "vice of buggery" in the original, and it was present in one of these forms in criminal codes of most U.S. states. Specific acts included under this heading were typically deemed too detestable to list them explicitly, resulting in a number of vagueness-based legal challenges to corresponding statutes. One of the most recent, and one of the rare successful challenges, is the 1971 Florida case of Franklin v. State . On the other hand, just seven years prior, a similar challenge (Perkins v. State [8] ) failed in North Carolina. (In Perkins, the Court wrote that, if this were a new statute, it would have been "obviously unconstitutional for vagueness", but, since this was a statute whose history was traceable back to the reign of Henry VIII, it accumulated a number of judicial interpretations, and, backed with these interpretations, it was not unconstitutionally vague.)

Penalties for this offense varied greatly over time and between jurisdictions. Crime against nature remained punishable by death or life imprisonment both in the UK and in many U.S. states well into the 19th century. Liberalization of sexual morals led to reduction of penalties or decriminalization of the offense during the second half of the 20th century, so that, by 2003, it was no longer a punishable offense in 36 out of 50 U.S. states, and was only punishable by a fine in some of the remaining 14. (See Sodomy laws in the United States for details.)

Current use

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 statutes are however still used to criminalize sexual conduct involving minors, incest, public sex, prostitution and bestiality.

Repeal and unconstitutionality

Except for the above eight 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 anal sex can no longer fall within the scope of such laws.

Similar laws

See also Sodomy laws.

See also

Related Research Articles

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that sanctions including any form of criminal punishment to all forms of private, consensual non-procreative adult sexual activities between two individuals are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. It based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with any or all forms of private sexual activities between consenting adults.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Buggery Act 1533</span> English legislation criminalizing sodomy

The Buggery Act 1533, formally An Acte for the punishment of the vice of Buggerie, was an Act of the Parliament of England that was passed during the reign of Henry VIII.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy. It was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), though the statute had already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sodomy laws in the United States</span> Aspect of United States law

The United States has inherited sodomy laws which constitutionally outlawed a variety of sexual acts that are deemed illegal, illicit, unlawful or unnatural from the colonial laws in the 17th century. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many sodomy-related statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes, in some cases even including acts between married persons.

<i>Martin v. Ziherl</i> 2005 Supreme Court of Virginia case

Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia holding that the Virginia criminal law against fornication was unconstitutional. The court's decision followed the 2003 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which established the constitutionally-protected right of adults to engage in private, consensual sex.

Kentucky v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487, was a 1992 Kentucky Supreme Court decision striking down the state's anti sodomy laws that criminalized sexual activity between two people of the same-sex, holding that this was a violation of both the equal protection of the laws and the right to privacy. The Kentucky case helped pave the way for many other states and eventually the United States Supreme Court to issue similar rulings.

Section 377A was a Singaporean law that criminalised sex between consenting adult males. It was introduced under British colonial rule in 1938 when it was added to the Penal Code by the colonial government. It remained a part of the Singapore body of law after the Penal Code review of 2007 which removed most of the other provisions in Section 377. It was subsequently repealed in its entirety in 2023.

Section 377 of the British colonial penal code criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per Supreme Court Judgement since 2018, Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, then British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and death.

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. This is because constitutionally permissible activity may not be chilled because of a statute's vagueness. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be void for vagueness when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. For example, criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges or administrators is so extensive that it could lead to arbitrary prosecutions. A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sodomy law</span> Laws criminalising certain sexual acts

A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed to be "unnatural" or "immoral". Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex, manual sex, and bestiality. In practice, sodomy laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples, and have mostly been used to target homosexual couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ages of consent in the United States</span> U.S. law on age of consent to sexual activity

In the United States, each state and territory sets the age of consent either by statute or the common law applies, and there are several federal statutes related to protecting minors from sexual predators. Depending on the jurisdiction, the legal age of consent is between 16 and 18. In some places, civil and criminal laws within the same state conflict with each other.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Antigua and Barbuda</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Antigua and Barbuda may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT citizens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Louisiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Louisiana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Louisiana as a result of the US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws. Same-sex marriage has been recognized in the state since June 2015 as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Child sexual abuse laws in the United States have been enacted as part of the nation's child protection policies.

<i>Franklin v. State</i> Florida Supreme Court case decriminalizing sodomy

Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21, was a case in which the Florida Supreme Court struck down Florida's sodomy law as being "unconstitutional for vagueness and uncertainty in its language, violating constitutional due process to the defendants." The court retained the state's prohibition on sodomy by ruling that anal and oral sex could still be prosecuted under the lesser charge of "unnatural and lascivious" conduct, thus reducing the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.

This is a list of important events relating to the LGBT community from 1701 to 1800.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment for homosexuality</span> Death penalty for same-sex sexual activity

Capital punishment as a criminal punishment for homosexuality has been implemented by a number of countries in their history. It currently remains a legal punishment in several countries and regions, most of which have sharia–based criminal laws except for Uganda.

Rape laws vary across the United States jurisdictions. However, rape is federally defined for statistical purposes as:

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

References

  1. ↑ William Blackstone (1753), Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Chapter 15, Section 4
  2. 1 2 See Rose v. Locke, 1975, 96 S.Ct. 243, 423 U.S. 48, 46 L.Ed.2d 185.
  3. 1 2 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.
  4. ↑ Rex v. Samuel Jacobs (1817); Prindle v. State of Texas, 21 S.W. 360 (1893)
  5. ↑ "Ausman v. Veal" (PDF).
  6. ↑ "The role of common law concepts in modern jurisprudence".
  7. 1 2 Charles F. Williams (1893). The American and English Encyclopedia of Law.
  8. ↑ "Perkins v. State of North Carolina, 234 F. Supp. 333 (W.D.N.C. 1964)".
  9. ↑ "Sodomy law revisions are upheld on appeal, Times-Picayune". Nola.com. Archived from the original on 2015-10-18. Retrieved 2012-03-18.
  10. ↑ "COMMONWEALTH vs. RICHARD L. BALTHAZAR". 1974-11-01. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  11. ↑ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GREGORY PAUL WHITELEY Archived 2008-10-12 at the Wayback Machine
  12. ↑ Jayasurya, Jayantha; Malalgoda, Vijith K.; Obeyesekere, Arjuna (2023). "PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL" (PDF). Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 July 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2024.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.