Sodomy Laws in the State of Texas - Coursework Example

SODOMY LAWS IN THE OF TEXAS The current paper will discuss the constitution of laws concerning Sodomy in the of Texas in the United s of America. Sodomy is the legal term used to describe sexual acts involving anal or oral intercourse. Sodomy has been considered a punishable act and the main purpose of the laws against Sodomy were to address issued pertaining to non-consensual acts of sexual crimes. Sodomy was regarded as the most detestable act in US courts during the 18th and 19th centuries. In this context, it is interesting to study the evolution of the laws concerning Sodomy within the context of the state of Texas over the past few decades. Historical common law The first reference to the act of Sodomy being criminalized in Texan courts can be found way back in 1836. However there was no specific reference to it and as such, the crime of sodomy was punishable by death. After 1854, Sodomy was punishable by a fine or imprisonment. the first formal laws against Sodomy were passed by Texas in 1860 with a penalty of imprisonment of 5-15 years. However, without a proper definition of the elements involved in such acts, no conviction could take place (Donald Kommers, 2004). In 1879, changes were made so that prosecutions against Sodomy could be sustained thereafter. This was achieved by passing a law that made away with the stringent necessity to define criminal offenses clearly. The Court of criminal appeals however made it clear in 1896 that the Sodomy law was applicable only towards heterosexual activity. However, some of the trail courts began to use the law to issue convictions in cases involving fellatio. It took 13 years before the Court of criminal appeals stepped in and reversed all such convictions (Jason Pierceson, 2005). In the 1907 case of Brown vs. State, the court ruled that the Court of Criminal issued a ruling that provided no authority to sentence juveniles below the age of 16 for acts of Sodomy other than the minimum period of 5 years. Two years later, the court found that the legislature has not enacted any laws pertaining to these unnatural crimes including fellatio and as such maintained that they could not be convicted. This continued on for the next 35 years when the court overturned a conviction involving fellatio under the Sodomy law (Donald Kommers, 2004). Reason for this was attributed to the fact that the law has not been amended and has instead been reenacted. In 1943, the Texan legislature formally separated acts such as fellatio and cunnilingus from the Sodomy law, which were in line with the legislations passed by other states comprising Iowa, Nebraska and Ohio (Alan Dershowitz, 2005). “Whoever has carnal copulation with a beast, or in an opening of the body, except sexual parts, with another human being for the purpose of having carnal copulation...shall be guilt of sodomy, and upon conviction thereof shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than fifteen years.” In 1949, Sodomy laws were applied to convict an individual (Slusser vs. State) who had engaged in lewd acts with a 10 year old juvenile. However, the law was not applied to individuals who had witnessed such acts as the court believed they were not accomplices to the act. Similarly, obtaining the acts covered under Sodomy under threat involving weapons was also deemed to be acts of Sodomy and as thus punishable under the laws of the Texas state (Joyce Murdoch, Deb Price, 2001). The question of Sodomy in the case of Sodomy was argued first in 1970 in the case Buchanan vs. Batchelor, when the issue was examined in the case of such acts in private. The Texas courts maintained that Sodomy laws were confined to cases which had involved act of force, in public or in instances where minors had been included in the acts (Joyce Murdoch, Deb Price, 2001). There were many cases during the 1970s, which argued over the definition of a public place, which came to include even the cubicles inside adult bookstores. Current Common Law The Current Sodomy laws in the State of Texas are quite different to their predecessors during the earlier decades. The most recent cases involving acts of Sodomy were heard in June 2003 in the case of Lawrence vs. Texas. Until then, it was illegal for gay couples to engage in sexual acts of certain types described in the preceding section and such laws were applicable even within the private lives of these individuals (Charles Lane, 2002),. The change occurred with the case when police arrested Mr. John Lawrence and Tyrone Garner for engaging in sex, although the initial reason for the police to enter their home was over a false report involving weapons (Linda Greenhouse, 2003). The courts in Texas found these men guilty of engaging in homosexual sodomy and convicted these men on related charges. However, the case was appealed in the Supreme Court, which recognized that the government had no role to play in the private bedrooms of individuals and found that it was not appropriate to single out individuals of a minority sexual group for punishment. The decision was highly criticized by the church, which maintained that homosexual behavior was unacceptable in the larger interests of society and that such convictions were necessary to prevent people from involving in such unholy acts (Charles Lane, 2002),. Changes over the years The ruling by the United States Supreme Court brings to light the massive changes that the courts have undergone ever since the preceding century. Initially, laws governing acts of Sodomy were looked down upon by all sections of the society other than the consenting individuals. Although involving minors into the act is still deplorable and punishable by the law, the criminal courts no longer see a reason to punish sodomy by way of imprisonment. This is evident from the fact that the number of states which call Sodomy as illegal has reduced from 13 to 3 over the decades (National Report, 2003). Though the change has been slow and quite time consuming involving challenging petitions from convicted individuals, the change is nevertheless visible from the very fact that the laws governing sodomy have been better defined, thus rendering courts and states incapable of including other acts such as fellatio and cunnilingus into the context and thereby obtaining a successful conviction. This has also helped immensely in preventing wrongful implication of the individuals found to be involved in such acts. Further, whenever convictions have taken place, the number of years awarded to be served in prison has mostly been kept at a minimum (usually 2 to 5 years) and the state has rarely seen anyone being convicted for the maximum period of 15 years, which can largely be attributed to the non violent nature of Sodomy unless performed by force or using threat (Donald Kommers, 2004). Further, Sodomy has gained much public attention and social groups such as Soulforce have been formed that are dedicated to bringing an end to the spiritual hatred against homosexual behavior (Alan Dershowitz, 2005). Homosexual behavior continues to be an act highly opposed by the state of Texas, which is the reason behind the conviction discussed in this section. However, the appeal in the Supreme court clearly outlines the broader national sentiment, which confines itself to the public domain and refrains from dictating its policies within the private space of the individual. By overturning the decision of the lower courts in Texas, the court has certainly shown support for groups such as Soulforce, which are fighting for the free will of the individual. References 1. Charles Lane (2002), Court to Hear Texas Case on Gay Rights: Challenge to States Sodomy Statute Could Lead to Landmark Ruling. Washington Post, Dec 23, 2002. 2. Joyce Murdoch, Deb Price (2001), Courting justice. New York: Prentice Hall. 3. Linda Greenhouse (2003), Justices to Reconsider Ruling Against Sex Between Gays. New York Times, Dec 2, 2002. 4. National Report (2003), Supreme Court reviews Anti-Sodomy Laws. National Report: Apr 14, 2003. 5. Donald Kommers (2004), American constitutional law. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 6. Alan Dershowitz (2005), America on Trial. London: Barnes & Noble. 7. Jason Pierceson (2005), Courts, Liberalism, and Rights. Temple University Press. Read More