A New Hampshire bill banning bestiality is working its way through their legislature, and will probably pass. But it was thankfully amended in committee to be less onerous and unconstitutional. Comparing the original with the amended version, there are a couple of key differences. First is in the definition of bestiality.
Original:
(a) Engaging in organizing, promoting, conducting, advertising, aiding, abetting, participating in as an observer, or performing any service in the furtherance of sexual contact or sexual penetration with an animal.
Amended
(a) Engaging in copulation with an animal.
Simpler, more direct, and amenable to the same sort of ambiguity that the Canadian law has. Does oral count, for example? Also, the penalty is slightly less, in most cases.
Original:
II. Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be guilty of a class B felony.
Amended:
II. Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a class B felony for a second or subsequent offense.
Just to be clear, a class B felony has a minimum sentence of three and a half years in the state prison, while a class A misdemeanor requires up to a year in county jail. I'd imagine the county jail is slightly more palatable, if only because it's less crowded. (source)
This isn't great, but it at least shows that the state of New Hampshire hasn't completely lost its mind, unlike certain other states I could name (cough Arizona cough).
I think all citizens of New Hampshire will sleep better knowing that this heinous behavior - really, a true epidemic - will soon be eradicated in their fair state. /s
I have mixed feelings about this. The law as written is now smarter from a legal standpoint (and not at all from a zoo standpoint, save for the downgrade in severity on the first offense), but I kind of didn't want it to be. A law that explicitly overreaches is a law that can get struck down. Now it just implicitly covers or covers "in spirit" all the stuff that it used to.
Of course, but if we want to demonstrate at some point that such laws are unconstitutional in general, we can't do that with laws that have such blatant problems as this one first did. In the short term, that would benefit zoos in New Hampshire, but in the long term it would be no good at all.
According to the people who push this bill: No.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20160311/NEWS0621/160319862
Somehow we need to get to the point where bills that are proposed on the basis of claims that can not be backed by actual evidence are thrown out.
thanks for the update here. glad to see it's gotten better.
Ok, so now we're sure farmers who rape animals for monetary gain won't be unjustifiably targeted by this bill. phew. What a relief.
I think it is surprising that it was actually amended.
I don't. As I said, even a cursory legal examination would show this to be completely untenable. If they wanted an actual law and not a media circus, I think they would have to do this.
Copulation: To engage in sexual intercourse in which the penis is inserted into the vagina.
If we're using textbook definitions, then it's legal so long as you're not going missionary... for lack of a better word. Juries are weird though, and dictionaries be damned when someone wants to prosecute.