Crush Videos: sexualized animal torture on trial
In just a few weeks, an Australian man will be sentenced for unimaginable, . The case is complex and multiple arrests worldwide (including ) have occurred as a result of the man's actions. For most people, it is hard to imagine anyone wanting to deliberately inflict harm on an animal, let alone deriving sexual gratification from such abuse. But it happens somewhere, to some animal, nearly every day.
Animal Pornography on trial
Sexualy explicit material (e.g. "child porn") is generally prohibited under U.S. state and federal laws. Only recently have depictions of sexually explicit material involving animals (ASEM) come under scrutiny by U.S. courts. One such case is making its way through Texas courts now. In January, Tavian Garza, 31 was indicted by the Lubbock grand jury for possession and distribution of child pornography. After a search warrant was executed, sexually charged chats between Garza and a child in Kentucky were found, along with additional images of .
As always ...
For more information on animal sexual abuse, including cases or published studies mentioned, please .
Laws under review
In the United States and in most foreign countries, the sexual abuse of animals is legally prohibited. From time to time, these laws are reviewed, repealed, or rewritten - sometimes with unintended consequences. In 2003, for example, a landmark case () overturned "sodomy laws" which criminalized sexual contact between same-gender persons. Because many of the laws that prohibited animal sexual abuse were part of the sodomy laws, repealing the law altogether meant that sexual abuse of animals was no longer prohibited. This has since been rectified, and today all U.S. states and territories - with the exception of West Virginia - have laws prohibiting bestiality.
India is currently undergoing the same dilemma in its attempts to restructure .
In a recent article published in The Humanistic Psychologist, the authors studied public perceptions of animal abuse cases being brought before the courts. Potential jurors were surveyed for their attitudes on human and animal abuse, and although either type of case incited moral outrage, the reason for their outrage differed. In human abuse cases, participants were outraged by the immorality of the abuse; in animal cases, they were outraged by the suffering of the animal victims. .