It's worth remembering the following:
S63(7)(a): "life threatening" images
S63(7)(b): "serious injury to breasts, anus or genitals"
S63(7)(c): necrophilia
S63(7)(d): bestiality
|
2008/9
|
2009/10
|
2010/11
|
2011/12
|
|
|
S63(7)(a):
|
0
|
5
|
38
|
40
|
|
S63(7)(b):
|
0
|
52
|
132
|
102
|
|
S63(7)(c):
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
|
S63(7)(d):
|
2
|
213
|
995
|
1171
|
|
Total
|
2
|
270
|
1165
|
1319
|
The updated MoJ data on convictions: -
|
2010
|
2011
|
|
|
S63(7)(a):
|
0
|
3
|
|
S63(7)(b):
|
9
|
11
|
|
S63(7)(c):
|
0
|
0
|
|
S63(7)(d):
|
48
|
67
|
|
Total
|
57
|
81
|
Apologies for the less than perfect formatting! Anyway, the figures are rather mind-blowing. Quite what happened in 2010/11 regarding bestiality porn is a bit of a mystery but 2011/12 suggests it wasn't a one off. Far from being a law that is about protecting women, as was originally envisaged, this has clearly become the doggy porn legislation (and horses, pigs, impressively sized eels and so on). We might snicker about animal porn, but for rather a lot of people, it's leading to life-changing legal actions, and also involving significant CPS and justice resources.
In fact, such is the extent of prosecutions, you do wonder why the legal profession isn't lobbying for the law of bestiality to be a required element of the law degree.
Justified or not, this is an interesting example of a rather new law being deployed to deal with a rather different problem to what the main 'thrust' of the law originally was intended to be. One to keep an eye on.
The law is an ass.
Anyone looking at the crazy stunts on YouTube, will not only see "life threatening" images, but videos which any youngster can view, purely in the name of entertainment.
Tom and Jerry cartoons are full of "life threatening" images, the ONLY difference being that they are not in a sexual context.
Engaging in sexual food play could also get you a prison sentence. Try and playfully insert a cooked duckling into your partner's orifice, and it seems to me that you are guilty of bestiality, necrophilia and "serious injury to breasts, anus or genitals".
Risk of harm does not imply that there is harm. And even where harm is intended (such as in boxing), there are mitigating circumstances.
Surely legal minds can come up with better, less ambiguous legislation?
Not quite accurate.
There are people who have 'extreme' sexual interests; particularly involving children.
Where is the line supposed to be about prosecuting someone with a known history is this area? (And history of acting on their interests)
The legisation was brought in to directly deal with some individuals who the law originally was not capable of 'managing''sentencing' properly; even based on their own self evaluation of the risk they pose to the public.
Post a Comment