Bestiality
is a topic that evokes much revulsion and disdain. In jurisdictions where
bestiality is a criminal offence, the legislation has as its focus the
protection of public morals. It is seen as an abasement of the person. At
common law, the offence was enveloped in religious terms, words such as
“unnatural” and “abominable” were used to highlight the perceived immoral
nature of the crime. Bestiality was juxtaposed with sodomy; both were viewed as
moral equivalents that had no place in polite society. Those that engaged in
either act faced execution. Over time societal attitudes towards homosexuality
changed, however, bestiality remains a heinous offence. The criminalisation of
bestiality has nothing to do with animal welfare. The fate of the animal is of
little concern to the legislature. The laws are drafted from anthropocentric
context; the offender in some ways becomes the victim as they are often viewed
as psychologically unwell and in need of treatment. Bestiality is also viewed
as a gate way crime, one that leads offenders to sexually abuse children and
vulnerable adults. Animals are used for many purposes from food to clothing to
entertainment and thus not seen as having an existence outside the needs of
humans. Humans have dominion over animals and so long as the animal does not
suffer unnecessarily, the law does not intrude. While legislation may purport
to protect animals from unnecessary harm and suffering, the proprietary status
of animals permits harm so long as it is not gratuitous and constitutes good
reason. Why should bestiality be singled out? This chapter will examine the
justifications for the criminalisation of bestiality and will argue that
bestiality should be placed within the confines of animal welfare legislation
and the focus should be on the animal and respecting the animal and its need to
be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns and its need to be protected from
the sexual abuse.