In some American states, sodomy is illegal, athiesm is illegal, frightening pigeons is illegal and singing only part of the national anthem is illegal. Why do we have so many laws that nobody enforces? (we also have capital punishment for minors)

I would venture to guess laziness is a key culprit, at least in regards to the laws about pigeons and nonsense like that. But with sodomy, atheism and the partial singing of the national anthem (both of which are news to me) I imagine the blame lies with [religious] views of morality and blind nationalism.

Even though two men engaging in homosexual sex in the privacy of their own homes (as was the case of the Texas couple in front of the Supreme Court this month) doesn't harm anyone, people feel threatened by it because they view the act as immoral. In the infancy of our nation, morality was viewed to walk hand in hand with legality and laws. Unfortunately, even with the realization that these views are largely unfounded and myopic, they persist and enjoy a fairly healthy "fan" base.

With nationalism, people still seem drawn by the pack mentality to want to belong. Insecurities lead them to fear that any dissent from within will threaten the stability of the group as a whole and rob them of their comfort zone (the group). Since such fears were widely held during the early days of our legislature, laws supporting them found their way into the books rather easily. Many of them have undoubtedly stayed simply because it's easier to leave them than remove them (laziness). Others may have found renewed support in light of recent threats of terrorism here at home.

Good question, Ranciduncle. I don't know how we ever expected to enforce some of those laws to begin with...the sodomy police? Additonally, I don't know why we should even keep them on the books when they obviously aren't being enforced.

Check out this link :
Dumb Laws

As I understand it, many states' unwillingness to repeal sodomy laws stems from law enforcement. A friend of mine, who is an assistant district attorney told me that sodomy laws are still enforced in cases of sexual assault so they can get slightly stiffer penalties for the offenders. Other than that, I was told, (at least in Massachusetts), the laws are not enforced.

There are allot of funny laws on the books here in lovely Massachussetts, actually... for example:

In Marlborough, MA, you may not detonate a nuclear device within the city limits.

In Boston, duels to the death are allowed on Sundays on the common, but only if the Governor is present.

It is illegal in this state to go to bed without first having a full bath.

Cyan, thats a great link!

In Ohio, its illegal to fish for whales on Sundays...



A good friend of mine is from Marion, OH :



That explains alot about him!!

Seriously, many of these laws are blatant popularist type laws and probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Who could possibly want to get a fish drunk? So lets make it illegal. If you stand against the law, you have obvious problems...

Getting rid of these types of laws is more trouble than its worth, so they go unenforced.

It is actually a sad statement that we would rather ignore a law than change it properly. Doesn't that kind of make all laws subjective?

Ummm....errr...actually, in Colorado science classes, they do get fish drunk to prove the negative effects of alcohol on the body. It would be very interesting to know how each of these laws originated.

Good question.

Does the fact these laws exist but no-one bothers to either obey or enforce them give us a mandate to enforce other laws?

Does it mean that law enforcers and pick and choose which laws they enforce and which they do not?

Is law and criminality really more about common-sense or even moral subjectivity than actual legislation itself?

About the only law I've heard here that should be kept in place, is the sodomy law. Your right, you can't enforce it (what are they gonna do, raid the bedroom of every newlywed and catch 'em in the act?) but it is helpful in cases of child molestation, sex abuse, rape, etc etc.

Hey, at least that law actually HAS a purpose, and is enforced every now and then.

Can't speak much about a law in the town where I went to college though:

It's illegal to walk down a sidewalk and knock a snakes head off with your cane.



--cheers

What does the sodomy law have to do with child abuse? Someone who molests a child is going to jail irregardless; innocent people should not be sacrificed for them.

This is an excellent point. It comes into play in cases like gambling and prostitution laws. Sometimes enforced, sometimes not. Some places yes, other places no.

I think if you're not going to enforce it then remove it.

Sodomy laws have nothing to do with child abuse or rape.
They have to do with the government watching over who you're having sex with, how you're having sex, and why you're having sex.
"The question is not what you are doing in your bedroom - but what the government is doing there."
Sodomy laws are some of the most vile, terrible, religious-right-induced laws that exist. Hitler was a big fan of sodomy laws.



You mean the purpose of mandating who you have sex with? Sorry, I'm not seeing the purpose. I think, of these laws, the ones against "sodomy" are probably the MOST dangerous - they are real and inforced. There are people in this country serving jail time for having sex with somebody who wanted to have the sex.
Your sex life is you business just as mine is my business. Sodomy laws are scary - and good 'ol Dubya supports them.

To quote my political hero, Trudeau:

"The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

Sodomy laws are generally used in rape and sexual abuse cases to add additional charges for the pervert. I am sure they are sometimes used against others, but that is rare (and intrusive).

I find this "throw out the baby with the bathwater" position very strange.

Not exactly. But it's one more thing that prosecutors can nail the offender for.


Sodomy

Please look at the definition of the word. It has nothing to do with mandating who you can have sex with.



I'm not buying that. Prove it

--cheers

Oh, I get it.... so, ifit's rare, just leave it be, eh? Just pretend it's not really happening, that the few and far in between who are sacrifising for the "greater good" are worth it, right?


Digital Patriot, they DO mandate who you have sex with as they often apply to homosexuality. (Meaning they say you cannot have sex with someone of the same sex) I know what sodomy means, thankyouverymuch.

You want proof? Alright, how about Michael Hardwick? In 1982 he was found in his room, participating in oral sex with another man, and was trialed, jailed, and sentenced to LIFE in prison under Georgia law. Nice, eh? The course was taken to the Supreme Court, who said, "The constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy." There's our supreme court for ya! Mr. Hardwick died in jail some time later, although he served over 10 years.

There are more cases as well, you just don't hear about them. I'll look them up for you... Why we have an example right here. And here. I could find more if you like.

There is then of course, the issue of statuory rape, for which 1000s are in jail, but I will not even touch that subject. It's too long and I believe there is a topic for the discussion of the issue anyway.

Under the topic of "Old Fashioned Laws" we seem to have two widely different phenomena:

1. Silly, pointless laws that seem to serve only to amuse people when they get reprinted in the "Betcha Didn't Know" column of the local newspaper. They provide further proof, if any be needed, of the famous Charles Dickens dictum that the law is an *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

2. Laws that some of us may consider "out of date" but which are not amusing at all and which ruin the lives of those who are victims of them. The best example, as has been pointed out, are the various sodomy laws still active -- and still actively defended by state governments. These are utterly evil laws, and must be attacked vigorously. The notion that such laws are "really" only there to be used against "bad guys" terrifies me. This gives law enforcement the ability to pick and choose who will be punished arbitrarily.

[A request for information: Does anyone know if there are still any laws in the USA making atheism a crime?]

They specify the included sexes only to be thourough. Sodomy is defined as anal or oral sex between a man and a woman, or a man and a man. The definition does not include the use of non-living tissue, thus exempting 2 women

How could this be aimed at only homosexuals? What about your birthday BJ from your wife? I guess that's illegal too

If that person you spoke of was engaged in something in his bedroom, behind closed doors, with a consenting adult, then it was not the business of the state to arrest him. I agree with that.

However, things were different in 1982. And it was in the south no less (far more conservative than elsewhere) I tend to think there was another motivator for that arrest.

This law is not aimed straight at homosexuals. And is not only used to persecute certain minority groups. I certainly don't like the idea of giving true sex offenders a break and a lesser sentance, by not charging them with sodomy when they molest a 10 year old.

Hmmmm, how about re-writing it so that Sodomy is sex with a person < 18?

***********

On a lighter note. Anyone hear about a new law that was passed in a small CA town, that makes it illegal to de-claw your cat? lol

--cheers

Howabout scrapping sodomy laws and make the sentencing for sexual misconduct more severe? That way you're not targeting specific acts but the general crime of abusing a minor.

Becuase when a minor is consenting AND aware of wha they're doing, it shouldn't be a crime.
I don't recall age limits in the Bill of Rights.
It's also entirely unfair to put 22-year old Billy who had sex with 16-year old Susy in jail for 10-20 years, the same time an ACTUAL rapist would get, just to result in Billy getting out of jail and marrying Susy when he's 32 and she's 26.

It really doesn't matter if it's homosexuals or heterosexals who fall victim for a law that's "for the good of society," neither of them are ok.

That is a horribly specious argument. Rape isn't in the constitution either. Should we remove rape laws?

Statutory Rape laws are tricky, but the fact is that a child CAN be exploited by an older person in sexual contact which does have a harmful effect. I like the sliding restriction laws of statutory rape... I don't know what the lowest threshold is, but once you reach a certain age, say 13 or 14 (can't remember) it becomes statutory rape for the older partner if they are older by more than three years, until the younger partner is 18.

I would like to invite those interested in a more in depth discussion of statutory rape and/or childhood sexuality to join us here Childhood Sexuality I: Legal, "consenting adults only".

No one is off-topic or anything, I just thought you may like a place to exclusively discuss that issue.

In that case, why not just introduce legislation dealing with anal rape and child abuse, and repeal anti-sodomy laws? The fact that they are still in place is, in my opinion, an affront to homosexual men.

I'd be game for that.

I agree with amlord, sodomy is and should continue to be used in dealing with pedophiles, anything that can get one of those perverts off the streets should be used. But having said that sodomy involving two consenting adults shoud be off limits to anyone