为什么美国的人兽交是非法的？

This is a question I have wondered more than once while browsing statute. Many states have laws against bestiality. For the life of me, I have never heard of this practice actually occurring and I find it hard to imagine the public policy problem these statutes are intended to resolve. Why do we have these laws?

这是我在浏览法规时不止一次疑惑的问题。许多州都有禁止兽交的法律。对于我的生活，我从未听说过这种做法实际发生过，我发现很难想象这些法规旨在解决的公共政策问题。为什么我们有这些法律？

Although I have access to a law library (and therefore a law librarian) I am too embarrassed to ask them.

虽然我可以访问法律图书馆（因此也是法律图书管理员），但我很尴尬地问他们。

Asking why some law is in place is often difficult. I'm looking for:

询问为什么某些法律到位通常很困难。我在找：

• Public statements by legislators regarding the need for these laws and why they are being supported. Every state I am aware of has these laws, so there should be plenty of extant material.
• 立法者关于这些法律的必要性及其得到支持的公开声明。我所知道的每个州都有这些法律，因此应该有大量现存的材料。
• Applicable statements from relevant judicial decisions.
• 相关司法判决的适用陈述。
• Statements from executive agencies which enforce these laws.
• 执行这些法律的执行机构的声明。
• Scholarly discussions about bestiality laws.
• 关于兽交法的学术讨论。

7 个解决方案

#1

As Wikipedia indicates such state laws seem to have a curiously bimodal distribution. Some are two (or more) centuries old, and some are pretty recent, e.g.

正如*所指出的那样，州法律似乎有一种奇怪的双峰分布。有些是两个（或更多）的历史，有些是近期的，例如

• Arkansas has it since 1819
• 阿肯色州自1819年以来就有它
• Alabama has it since 2014
• 阿拉巴马州自2014年以来就有它
• South Carolina has it since 1712
• 南卡罗来纳州自1712年以来就有它
• South Dakota has it since 2003
• 南达科他州自2003年以来就有它
• Vermont has it since 2017
• 佛蒙特州自2017年起开业
• Virginia has it since 1661
• 弗吉尼亚自1661年以来就有它

I suspect the old laws have a pretty religious basis, or at least based on Victorian morality, like some sodomy laws of the time. Some of the newer ones seem to have a pro-animal-rights lean, e.g. Alaska's has provisions about reimbursing for the vet care of animals hurt this way.

我怀疑旧法律具有相当宗教的基础，或者至少基于维多利亚时代的道德，就像当时的一些鸡奸法。一些较新的似乎有亲动物权利倾向，例如阿拉斯加州有关于报销以这种方式伤害动物的兽医的规定。

I did find one 2017 piece of news headlined "Push to make bestiality a crime in Ohio after man who had sex with daughters' boxers only got 30 days in jail". According to Wikipedia, Ohio is one of the states with a recent (2017) law in this area. The animal-rights angle is not uncommon relative to other Western societies, e.g. Germany's 2012 ban contemporanous with news about "erotic zoos" and upheld in 2016.

我确实发现一条2017年的新闻标题为“在与女儿的拳击手发生性关系的男人只有30天的监禁之后，推动人们将兽交定为犯罪”。据*称，俄亥俄州是该地区近期（2017年）法律的州之一。与其他西方社会相比，动物权利的角度并不罕见，例如：德国2012年的禁令同时出现了关于“色情动物园”的新闻，并在2016年得到支持。

The Ohio story has some background:

俄亥俄州的故事有一些背景：

Eight states and the District of Columbia still lack anti-bestiality laws. Some states inadvertently lifted earlier prohibitions on human-animal sex when they were updating their laws to remove sodomy as a crime.

八个州和哥伦比亚特区仍然缺乏反兽交法。一些州在更新法律以取消鸡奸罪时无意中解除了人类与动物性行为的早期禁令。

The Humane Society of the United States led the lobbying effort to outlaw bestiality, but a much larger coalition, including domestic violence shelters, conservative Christians, law enforcers and psychologists, got behind the law this time.

美国人道协会领导游说努力禁止兽交，但更大的联盟，包括家庭暴力庇护所，保守派基督徒，执法者和心理学家，这次违法。

“We were able to explain that this is not just an animal issue,” said Corey Roscoe, the society’s Ohio state director. “This did have ramifications for human violence. Sexually deviant acts are a red flag to other acts of sexual violence.”

“我们能够解释这不仅仅是一个动物问题，”该协会的俄亥俄州州长科里·罗斯科说。 “这确实对人类暴力产生了影响。性变态行为是其他性暴力行为的一面红旗。“

Since 2005, arrests for animal sex abuse and exploitation in the U.S. have risen dramatically. The number of arrests in 2014 was more than double the total number of arrests in the 30 years between 1970 and 2000.

自2005年以来，美国的动物性虐待和性剥削逮捕现象急剧增加。 2014年的逮捕人数是1970年至2000年间30年间逮捕总人数的两倍多。

Jenny Edwards, a criminologist in Washington who studies the issue, said the rise has been driven by the Internet.

研究这个问题的华盛顿犯罪学家詹妮·爱德华兹说，这种上升是由互联网推动的。

Online forums that exist behind powerful firewalls allow like-minded people to communicate and share animals for breeding and sexual experiences.

强大的防火墙背后存在的在线论坛允许志同道合的人们进行交流和分享动物以进行繁殖和性经历。

“It’s been great for deviants,” Edwards said.

爱德华兹说：“这对于偏执者来说非常棒。”

A decade of research by Edwards also shows links between those who abuse animals and those who abuse other vulnerable groups, including children, women and other family members. [...]

爱德华兹十年的研究也显示了虐待动物的人与虐待其他弱势群体的人之间的联系，包括儿童，妇女和其他家庭成员。 [...]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation singled out animal cruelty offences in its national crime statistics for the first time last year, in an effort to begin to definitively quantify the problem.

联邦调查局去年首次在其国家犯罪统计数据中单独列出了虐待动物罪行，以便开始明确量化这一问题。

#2

The Law

Bestiality is not a crime, per se, in five states, although in some cases it may constitute animal cruelty.

在五个州，兽性本身并不构成犯罪，尽管在某些情况下它可能构成虐待动物。

In Colorado (where the enactment was fairly recent), bestiality is per se an act that constitutes cruelty to animals, but some states classify it is a form of immoral and indecent conduct, focusing on the immorality of the perpetrator rather than on the alleged harm to the animal.

在科罗拉多州（颁布时间相当近），人兽交本身就是一种对动物构成残忍的行为，但有些国家将其归类为一种不道德和不雅的行为，侧重于行为人的不道德行为，而不是所谓的伤害行为。对动物。

These laws are generally enforced by local prosecuting attorney's offices (a few states, such as Florida, assign the function to a state agency instead), which generally do not have coherent policies on the topic and play mostly a behind the scenes role in the legislative process, usually through a statewide lobbying organization for prosecuting attorneys generally.

这些法律通常由当地检察机关办公室执行（少数州，如佛罗里达州，将职能分配给州*机构），这些法律通常没有关于该主题的连贯政策，并且主要扮演立法中的幕后角色。过程，通常通过全州游说组织一般起诉律师。

Why Are These Law Enacted?

Basically, bestiality laws are reactions to moral panic:

基本上，人兽法是对道德恐慌的反应：

a feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society. A Dictionary of Sociology defines a moral panic as "the process of arousing social concern over an issue – usually the work of moral entrepreneurs and the mass media".

在许多人之间传播着恐惧的感觉，一些邪恶威胁着社会的福祉。 “社会学词典”将道德恐慌定义为“唤起社会对某个问题的关注的过程 - 通常是道德企业家和大众媒体的工作”。

The legislative history of the Ohio example, detailed by @Fizz illustrates the moral panic narrative of these enactments, following a repeal of many such laws in connection with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws.

由@Fizz详述的俄亥俄州立法历史记载了这些法令的道德恐慌叙述，其中废除了与废除鸡奸法有关的许多此类法律。

In some cases, anti-sodomy laws that included bestiality where repealed in connection with state overhauls of their criminal statutes modeled on the Model Penal Code (1962) which served as a template for state legislation (at least in part) in two-thirds of U.S. states, which did not include a bestiality offense. Many of the legal revisions modeled on the Model Penal Code took place in the early 1970s. But, some of those states later enacted bestiality laws as noted in the answer of @Fizz regarding the bimodal distribution of enactment dates.

在某些情况下，反鸡奸法包括在与“刑法典”（1962年）模仿的刑事法规的国家改革相关的废除，其作为州立法的模板（至少部分地）在三分之二的范围内。美国各州，不包括兽性犯罪。许多以“刑法典”为蓝本的法律修订都发生在20世纪70年代早期。但是，其中一些州后来制定了兽交法，如@Fizz的答案所述，关于制定日期的双峰分布。

Other anti-sodomy laws that happened to also include bestiality were repealed as a housekeeping matter because the case Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 538 (2003) that held a law banning consensual sodomy between adults to be unconstitutional. Conservative Justice Scalia's dissent in that case argued that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (which Lawrence overruled), state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable.

其他涉及兽性的反鸡奸法被废除作为家务事项，因为案例Lawrence v.Texas，539 U.S. 538（2003），其中一项法律禁止成年人之间的双方同意鸡奸违宪。保守大法官斯卡利亚在该案中的不同意见认为，如果法院不准备根据道德选择来验证法律，就像它在Bowers v.Hardwick所做的那样，478 US 186（1986）（劳伦斯否决了），反对重婚的国家法律，同样的-sex婚姻，成人乱伦，卖淫，手淫，通奸，淫乱，人兽交和淫秽不会证明是可持续的。

An account from 2005 in Colorado:

2005年科罗拉多州的一个帐户：

Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff sums up this point succinctly in talking about another issue that occurred last spring when Republican Reps. Keith King and Jim Welker started comparing homosexuality to increased crime rates and later bestiality. Said Romanoff: “We’re talking about the budget, and they’re talking about bestiality.”

众议院议长安德鲁·罗曼诺夫在谈到去年春天共和党*发生的另一个问题时，简洁地总结了这一点。基思金和吉姆韦尔克开始将同性恋与犯罪率上升和后来的兽交进行比较。罗曼诺夫说：“我们谈论的是预算，他们谈论的是人兽交。”

The bestiality prohibition in Colorado was enacted two years later, but as a form of cruelty to animals rather than as a form of immorality law, a compromise reached to allow pro-gay rights legislators to avoid attacks claiming that they were pro-bestiality.

两年后，科罗拉多州的兽人禁令颁布，但作为一种虐待动物的形式，而不是作为一种不道德的法律形式，达成妥协，允许支持同性恋权利的立法者避免攻击，声称他们是亲兽性的。

The motives of the proponents of the law sums up some of the motive of recent legislative action on the issue, which is that a focus on criminalizing bestiality flows, in part, from an effort to obtain legislative buy-in to an agenda that also includes opposition to gay rights.

法律支持者的动机总结了最近关于这个问题的立法行动的一些动机，即关注将人口贩运定为刑事犯罪的部分原因是努力获得立法支持，议程还包括反对同性恋权利。

Much of the conservative opposition to gay rights in turn derives from declining marriage rates and increasing divorce rates, especially for working class adults, which conservatives have framed as a decline in and threat to a societal commitment to "family values" such as marriage between one man and one woman, and sex as confined to marriage. (The actually cause has more to do with the stagnant or declining economic prospects of working class men relative to the rising economic prospects of working class women.)

反对同性恋权利的大部分保守派反对来自婚姻率下降和离婚率上升，特别是对于工薪阶层成年人而言，保守派认为这是对社会对“家庭价值观”的承诺的下降和威胁。男人和一个女人，性别仅限于婚姻。 （与工薪阶层妇女经济前景不断上升相比，实际原因更多地与工人阶级经济前景的停滞或下降有关。）

Purportedly this traditional marriage concept has roots in the Bible, even though this ideal is does not have Biblical support and is instead a considerably later development (e.g. the Biblical Hebrews were polygamous). Bestiality laws, of course, do have a Hebrew Bible (a.k.a. Old Testament) precedent, e.g. in Exodus 22:19 which states:

据称这种传统的婚姻观念源于圣经，尽管这种理想并不具有圣经的支持，而是相当晚的发展（例如圣经的希伯来人是一夫多妻制）。当然，兽性法律确实有希伯来圣经（旧约圣经）的先例，例如：在出埃及记22:19中说：

Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.

与动物在一起的人肯定会被处死。

Scholarship

There is a fair amount of legal or partially legal/political scholarship on the topic as well as the evolving behavioral science literature. Some of the most cited and notable include the following (in reverse chronological order, you will need to find your own links in some cases):

关于这一主题以及不断发展的行为科学文献，有相当数量的法律或部分法律/政治奖学金。一些被引用最多且值得注意的内容包括以下内容（按相反的时间顺序，在某些情况下，您需要找到自己的链接）：

• Christopher Hensley, Suzanne E. Tallichet, Stephen D. Singer, "Exploring the Possible Link Between Childhood and Adolescent Bestiality and Interpersonal Violence" 21(7) Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2006) doi.org/10.1177/0886260506288937

  Christopher Hensley，Suzanne E. Tallichet，Stephen D. Singer，“探索童年与青少年的兽性和人际暴力之间可能存在的联系”21（7）人际暴力杂志（2006）doi.org/10.1177/0886260506288937

• A.M. Beetz, A.L. Podberscek (editors), "Bestiality and zoophilia: sexual relations with animals" (2005) (Book length anthology).

  上午。 Beetz，A.L。Podberscek（编辑），“Bestiality and zoophilia：与动物的性关系”（2005）（书长选集）。

• RE Jenkins, AR Thomas, N Loudonville-Abgefragt "Deviance online: Portrayals of bestiality on the Internet" Center For Social Science Research Conference Presentation (2004) (open access full text).

  RE Jenkins，AR Thomas，N Loudonville-Abgefragt“Deviance online：Portrayals on bestiality of the Internet”社会科学研究会议演讲（2004）（开放获取全文）。

• Jens Rydström, "Sinners and Citizens: Bestiality and Homosexuality in Sweden, 1880-1950" (2003) (Book).

  JensRydström，“罪人和公民：瑞典的兽性和同性恋，1880-1950”（2003）（书）。

• Peter Singer, "Heavy petting." Nerve (2001).

  彼得辛格，“沉重的抚摸。” Nerve（2001）。

• Peter Singer, "Clarification [of] the circumstances and intent of [my] review of Midas Dekkers' book Dearest Pet." Princeton University press release, April 14, 2001.

  彼得辛格，“澄清[我]审查迈达斯德克斯的书”最亲爱的宠物“的情况和意图。普林斯顿大学新闻稿，2001年4月14日。

• P. Beirne, "Peter Singer's``Heavy Petting'' and the Politics of Animal Sexual Assault" Critical Criminology (2001).

  P. Beirne，“Peter Singer's``Heavy Petting''和动物性攻击政治”Critical Criminology（2001）。

• P. Beirne "On the sexual assault of animals: A sociological view." in A. Creager and B. Jordan (eds.), "Identity and Alterity: Essays on the Human/Animal Boundary" (2001).

  P. Beirne“关于动物的性侵犯：一种社会学观点。”在A. Creager和B. Jordan（编辑），“身份与变异：关于人类/动物界限的论文”（2001）。

• M.H. Pierson, "Dark Horses and Black Beauties." (2000).

  M.H。皮尔森，“黑马和黑美人”。 （2000年）。

• Jürgen Habermas, "Bestiality and humanity: a war on the border between legality and morality" 6(3) Constellations 263 (1999).

  JürgenHabermas，“兽性与人性：对合法与道德之间边界的战争”6（3）Constellations 263（1999）。

• John M. Murrin, "'Things Fearful to Name': Bestiality in Colonial America" Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 8 (1998) (open access full text).

  John M. Murrin，“'渴望命名的事物'：殖民地美国的兽性”宾夕法尼亚历史：中大西洋研究杂志8（1998）（开放获取全文）。

• P. Beirne, "Rethinking bestiality: Towards a concept of interspecies sexual assault" Theoretical Criminology (1997).

  P. Beirne，“重新思考兽性：走向种间性侵犯的概念”理论犯罪学（1997）。

• C.J. Adams, "Woman-battering and harm to animals." in C.J. Adams and J. Donovan (eds.), "Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations" 55 (1995).

  C.J.亚当斯，“女人虐待和伤害动物。”在C.J.Adams和J.Donovan（编辑），“动物与女性：女权主义理论探索”55（1995）中。

• M. Dekkers, "Dearest Pet." (translated by P. Vincent) (1994).

  M. Dekkers，“最亲爱的宠物”。 （P. Vincent翻译）（1994）。

• J. Salisbury, "The Beast Within: Animals in the Middle Ages." (1994).

  J. Salisbury，“内在的野兽：中世纪的动物”。 （1994）。

• B. Noske, "Hoe heet is een ezelin?" 21 Opzij, Feministisch Maandblad 26 (1993).

  B. Noske，“Hoe heet is een ezelin？” 21 Opzij，Feministisch Maandblad 26（1993）。

• J. Liliequist, "Peasants against nature: Crossing the boundaries between man and animal in seventeenth-and eighteenth-century Sweden." 1(3) Journal of the History of Sexuality 393–423 (1991)

  J. Liliequist，“反对自然的农民：在十七世纪和十八世纪的瑞典跨越人与动物的界限。” 1（3）性别史杂志393-423（1991）

• G. Rubin, "Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality" Social perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies (1984) (in Spanish).

  G.鲁宾，“思考性：关于性行为政治的激进理论的注释”女同性恋和同性恋研究中的社会观点（1984）（西班牙语）。

• T. Regan "The Case for Animal Rights." (1983).

  T. Regan“动物权利案例”。 （1983年）。

• Dolf Zillmann, Jennings Bryant, Rodney A. Carveth, "The Effect of Erotica Featuring Sadomasochism and Bestiality on Motivated Intermale Aggression" 7(1) Personality and Social Psychology Journal (1981). doi.org/10.1177/014616728171023

  Dolf Zillmann，Jennings Bryant，Rodney A. Carveth，“情色特征和兽性的情感对动机人际侵略的影响”7（1）Personality and Social Psychology Journal（1981）。 doi.org/10.1177/014616728171023

• E.W. Monter, E.W. "Sodomy and heresy in early modern Switzerland." 6 (1/2) Journal of Homosexuality 41 (1980).

  E.W. Monter，E.W。“早期现代瑞士的鸡奸和异端邪说”。 6（1/2）Journal of Homosexuality 41（1980）。

• Peter Singer, "Animal Liberation." (1975).

  彼得辛格，“动物解放”。 （1975年）。

#3

I do not have any references about this, but many Western laws have been carried over from our Jewish/Christian backgrounds. Bestiality is forbidden in the Bible numerous times, e.g. in Exodus 22:19:

我没有任何关于此的参考，但许多西方法律已经从我们的犹太/基督教背景中延续下来。圣经中多次禁止兽性，例如：在出埃及记22:19：

Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.

与动物在一起的人肯定会被处死。

As for the need for these laws: one thing that comes to mind is that intercourse with an animal without proper protection can result in new sexually transmitted diseases, causing not only danger to the offender's health but also to other people.
Under some (all?*) conditions it's animal abuse, but there are separate laws for that.

至于对这些法律的需要：有一点需要考虑的事情是，与没有适当保护的动物性交会导致新的性传播疾病，不仅会对罪犯的健康造成危害，而且会对其他人造成危险。在一些（所有？*）条件下，它是动物虐待，但对此有不同的法律。

*_{: I've been told that e.g. cows don't feel anything from the act; after all, sometimes a vet inserts their entire arm into a cow's rectum during an examination. I don't think it's necessary to discuss this; I usually try to avoid the subject.}

*：我被告知，例如奶牛对这种行为没有任何感觉;毕竟，有时兽医会在检查过程中将整个手臂插入牛的直肠。我认为没有必要讨论这个问题;我经常试着避开这个话题。

#4

Bestiality was not illegal in Washington state from 1975 until 2006. It had been covered under the same set of laws that outlawed sodomy, but those were repealed in 1975 (presumably to decriminalize consensual, homosexual or heterosexual sex acts involving adult humans).

从1975年到2006年，华盛顿州的兽性并非违法。它已被同一套禁止鸡奸的法律所涵盖，但这些法律在1975年被废除（大概是将涉及成年人的双方同意，同性恋或异性恋性行为合法化）。

It was made illegal after a 2005 event called the Enumclaw horse sex case. You can read about it in the link, but the quick summary is that a man having sex with a horse on a farm in Enumclaw died afterward. The man had the event filmed, as he distributed bestiality porn. The person who filmed the event was charged with criminal trespass and banned from that farm. However, he would later be charged with felony animal cruelty in Tennessee while shooting a similar film.

在2005年被称为Enumclaw马性爱案件的事件后，它被定为非法。你可以在链接中看到它，但快速的总结是，在Enumclaw的一个农场与一匹马发生性关系的男人后来死了。该男子拍摄了该事件，因为他分发了兽性色情片。拍摄该事件的人被指控犯有非法侵入罪并被禁止进入该农场。然而，他后来在拍摄类似电影时被指控在田纳西州遭受重罪虐待。

The Stranger (NSFW language) quotes state senator Pam Roach as saying:

陌生人（NSFW语言）援引州参*Pam Roach的话说：

"It's really a bill that will protect animals, who are innocent by the fact they can't consent,"

“这真是一项保护动物的法案，因为动物无法同意这些动物是无辜的，”

#5

Apparently it does happen and if there is no law against it the authorities can only prosecute the offender for animal cruelty (assuming there is evidence for that). From an article by 10TV (dating back to 2011):

显然它确实发生了，如果没有法律反对它，当局只能起诉罪犯虐待动物（假设有证据）。来自10TV的文章（可以追溯到2011年）：

Investigators said that they would like to charge Bower with more serious offenses but Ohio has no laws regarding bestiality.

调查人员表示，他们希望向Bower收取更严重的违法行为，但俄亥俄州没有关于兽交的法律。

Ohio State Rep. Jay Goyal said that he plans to introduce legislation that would outlaw sexual contact with animals because of the Bower case.

俄亥俄州众*杰伊·戈亚尔说，他计划制定立法，禁止因为鲍威案而与动物发生性接触。

Apparently, such a law exists now in Ohio, according to a more recent article by Fox News reporting on a different case:

根据福克斯新闻最近一篇关于不同案例的报道，显然现在俄亥俄州存在这样的法律：

CLEVELAND – A man accused of performing a sex act on a dog has been charged under a new state law that criminalizes bestiality.

克利夫兰 - 一名被指控对狗进行性行为的男子被指控根据新的州法律将犯罪行为定为犯罪。

The law went into effect March 21 and makes sexual contact with an animal a misdemeanor offense that carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail upon conviction. Previously, animal cruelty laws applied, but Cleveland Animal Protection League president Sharon Harvey said those cases were difficult to prosecute because they required proof the animal suffered.

该法律于3月21日生效，并与动物进行性接触，构成轻罪，一经定罪，最高刑罚为90天。此前，动物虐待法适用，但克利夫兰动物保护联盟主席沙龙哈维说，这些案件难以起诉，因为他们需要证明动物遭受的证据。

Summing up, these articles provide two reasons. Firstly (following from the first article), the bestiality charge is more serious, that might (speculation on my part) carry a more serious penalty. Secondly (following from the second article), the animal cruelty charge may be more difficult to prove in a court of law because prosecutors need to show the animal suffered.

总结一下，这些文章提供了两个原因。首先（从第一篇文章开始），人兽交的指控更为严重，可能（我的推测）会受到更严重的惩罚。其次（从第二篇文章开始），动物虐待指控在法庭上可能更难以证明，因为检察官需要证明动物遭受了损失。

#6

Another angle to consider is maintaining public order.

另一个需要考虑的角度是维持公共秩序。

We have laws against lots of things which objectively harm nobody, but when it becomes known that such things are done, their extreme unpopularity creates the risk of mob violence, which most jurisdictions would prefer to avoid.

我们的法律禁止客观上伤害任何人的许多事情，但当人们知道这些事情已经完成时，他们的极端不受欢迎会造成暴徒暴力的风险，这是大多数司法管辖区都希望避免的。

Making the acts in question formally illegal puts the situation firmly in the hands of the criminal justice system. This also provides some protection to people who are falsely accused—assuming that law enforcement is objective—because there is now a disinterested party which has the power to authoritatively declare that the accusation is without basis.

使有关行为正式违法使情况牢牢掌握在刑事司法系统的手中。这也为那些被诬告的人提供了一些保护 - 假设执法是客观的 - 因为现在有一个无私的政党有权权威地宣布指控是没有根据的。

I am not saying that maintaining public order is a motivation in crafting such laws—some of them are indeed legislated religion—but once made such laws have this effect.

我并不是说维持公共秩序是制定这些法律的动机 - 其中一些法律确实是立法宗教 - 但一旦这些法律具有这种效力。

This has obvious parallels with the Heckler's Veto, here linked for the interested reader.

这与Heckler的Veto有明显的相似之处，这里有感兴趣的读者。

#7

The recently adopted bestially laws are a consequence of the way social media works. A few decades ago, incidents where people had intercourse with animals would either not appear in newspapers, or would appear somewhere hidden as a story of just a few lines together with a few other stories of people behaving in odd ways.

最近采用的行为法则是社交媒体运作方式的结果。几十年前，人们与动物发生性关系的事件要么不出现在报纸上，要么出现在某个隐藏的地方作为一个只有几行的故事，以及其他一些人们以奇怪方式表现的故事。

In today's social media world, the population at large is far more in control of the talking points. In the old days people could at most write letters to the editor, today people can publish their thoughts directly on Facebook, twitter etc. etc. The strict separation between entertainment and real news that existed in the old days, no longer exists. In the old days, people got their daily dose of entertainment from soap series, today real news and entertainment have morphed into one entity on social media.

在今天的社交媒体世界中，广大民众更能控制谈话要点。在过去，人们最多可以给编辑写信，今天人们可以直接在Facebook，Twitter等上发表他们的想法。过去存在的娱乐和真实新闻之间的严格分离已不复存在。在过去，人们每天从肥皂系列中获得娱乐，今天真正的新闻和娱乐已经在社交媒体上变成了一个实体。

The conventional news outlets need to attract viewers and readers, which affects the editorial decisions about what news stories are newsworthy. A topic like bestiality is going to get more exposure in the conventional news outlets, simply because people are tweeting about such topics. This then affects the topics politicians discuss, ultimately leading to new laws.

传统的新闻媒体需要吸引观众和读者，这影响了关于哪些新闻报道具有新闻价值的编辑决策。像兽人这样的话题将会在传统新闻媒体中获得更多曝光，仅仅是因为人们在推特上发布这类话题。这会影响政治家讨论的主题，最终导致新的法律。

In the old days there would have been much more input from experts like e.g. psychologists in identifying problems and the details of new laws to tackle any such problems. Social media has de-facto sidelined the experts and their whole body of knowledge. The gut feeling of lay people is now far more a decisive factor in society.

在过去，会有更多来自专家的意见，例如：心理学家在发现问题和解决任何此类问题的新法律细节方面。社交媒体事实上已将专家及其全部知识置于一边。外行人的直觉现在更像是社会的决定性因素。

None of this means that people who have sex with animals are not harming animals. The relevant factor that explains why we've recently seen so many jurisdictions adopt the laws is social media, it's not any new scientific facts about harm to animals due to bestiality. The fact that after such laws were passed, many such laws had to be revised to give people who work in animal breeding programs enough legal room to continue their jobs, speaks volumes about the whole process.

这些都不意味着与动物发生性关系的人不会伤害动物。解释为什么我们最近看到这么多司法管辖区采用这些法律的相关因素是社交媒体，它不是任何关于因兽交而对动物造成伤害的新科学事实。事实上，在这些法律通过后，许多此类法律必须进行修订，以便为在动物育种计划中工作的人提供足够的法律空间来继续他们的工作，并说明整个过程。