Contact
Subscribe


Florida Didn't Ban Sex. Um . . . Probably.

May 11, 2011
By .
WTF?

All right, all right, ha ha, Floridians are stupid freaks, it's an easy joke. They never outlawed bestiality before because they thought animal husbandry meant marrying animals, Fark has a Florida tag because they're so reliably nutty, etc. It's all very tired.

In the last couple of days the big joke has been that Florida finally attempted to outlaw bestiality and accidentally outlawed sex between humans (or, at least, what passes for human in Florida). Everybody's laughing about it based on a post on the blog Southern Fried Science, which pointed out that (1) the law bans sex with "animals", and (2) humans are, scientifically speaking, animals, and (3) therefore Florida has banned humans having sex with humans.

Potentially salutary impact on the nation's gene pool aside, this is too pedantic. As another blogger points out, the statute clearly draws a distinction between "persons" and "animals," and prohibits the former from sexual contact with the later for the purpose of sexual gratification. No judge would interpret that to prohibit humans from sexual contact with humans, even if "persons" are scientifically "animals" as well. Both reason and the rule of lenity prohibit it.

But scientists, and persons who are (not unreasonably) cautious about engaging in sexual contact with Floridians, may want more precision and certainty than that. Fortunately, traditional methods of statutory interpretation can help. All we have to do is see if somewhere else in Florida law there is a statute making it clear that when the Florida Legislature uses the term "animal", they mean the colloquial definition, not the scientific one. Then we can be sure that, no matter what sort of deoxyribonucleic-acid-dump-site Florida may be, and however true it may be that 166 years of imbeciles is enough, the Florida Legislature did not intend to stop Floridians from reproducing.

Let's see. Florida Statutes, Title XLVI, Crime: Section 828.02, Definitions. This should do it:

In this chapter, and in every law of the state relating to or in any way affecting animals, the word "animal" shall be held to include every living dumb creature . . . .

Uh-oh.

Last 5 posts by Ken White

7 Comments
Tags

7 Comments

  1. Kelly  •  May 11, 2011 @9:14 pm

    As you said, very tired but your last quote still made me laugh.

  2. Scott Jacobs  •  May 11, 2011 @9:49 pm

    I would just like to say that any excuse for me to re-visit the tale of Larcenia Bullard is just fine with me…

  3. perlhaqr  •  May 11, 2011 @10:43 pm

    Larcenia. What an absolutely prophetic name for a politician.

  4. Tam  •  May 12, 2011 @7:55 am

    Up until fairly recently, Florida had a sensible attitude towards sex with adult, consenting livestock, but now they're just another "Me, too!" state…

  5. SPQR  •  May 12, 2011 @8:24 am

    The silliness came from people who thought that using a scientific definition with respect to legislation – which uses legal definitions – made Florida look silly. No, it only made them look like idiots.

  6. harebell  •  May 14, 2011 @12:59 pm

    @SPQR
    The definition given by Ken is, "every living dumb creature." If that is what passes for legal definition it is totally inaccurate and would allow the prosecution tremendous lee-way in gaoling a lot of people. Creature doesn't let humans off the hook either.
    The law was sloppily written and its author deserves to be subjected to ridicule as do any others who pass it as is. Would it have hurt to have included "non-human/human" in the definition? Person is a tough sell because the definition of personhood is fraught with complications too.
    Sloppily, lazily and stupidly written legislation is no laughing matter. It leads to bad legal decisions and costs money and anguish.
    The biological definition of animal is the correct definition. Why re-invent the wheel when it already exists? Oh that's right the law maker probably would have to crack open a textbook and read it first. The fact he didn't shows where the idiocy resides and you defend this?

  7. SPQR  •  May 14, 2011 @6:13 pm

    harebell, law and science are two different fields where their jargon serves different purposes. The biological definition is not the "correct" definition for legal purposes.

    Oh, and the reality is that common law definitions of "animal" long predate the biological definition. So by your standards, it is biology that is "reinventing" the wheel.