Oklahoma City may have the largest bestiality case in history — and without question the most disgusting. Diane Sue Whalen 54, and Donald Roy Seigfried, 55, are accused of training their dogs to have sex with Whalen and other women. Whalen was apparently busted by her own son who found 150 tapes of her performing sex acts with the dogs — including a mixed breed and labrador Lucky and Buddy and a blue heeler named Merlin owned by Seigfried. Seigfried allegedly filmed the events.
Whalen and Seigfried are charged with crimes against nature.
Remarkably, Seigfried is trying to get his dog back. The dogs have been accepted in a no-kill pet sanctuary. Click here.
The use of this type of law in an animal-human crime remains rare. It is punishable by 10 years in prison:
§21-886 Crime Against Nature-Penalty
Every person who is guilty of the detestable and abominable crime against nature, committed with mankind or with a beast, is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding ten (10) years.
§21-887 Crime against nature, what penetration necessary.
Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime against nature.
What is interesting is that the Oklahoma law’s history indicates that it was primarily designed to criminalize homosexuality rather than bestiality. Click here. In the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, it appears to be reverting back to a true bestiality focus.
For the full story, click here.
semorgan is a confused creepy idiot
I have no ideal why this couple would be in trouble for bestiality when its acceptable for a white woman to have sex with a black man. If that isn’t bestiality then I don’t know what is.
and perversion as well .
Mine was not a giggling. I just told what i thought & know and am still behind what i said above; to be fair, “this” event has nothing to do with crime against nature or cruelty against dogs.
Nonetheless it is still so disgracing for a human even to think of committing it .
I’m disappointed that the comments above giggle over the animal cruelty aspects of this crime.
In certain acts, the physical cruelty is obvious. In certain other acts in which the animal is induced to ejaculate, the perp could argue that the animal surely “enjoyed” it — just as a perp who fellates a child or a disabled person incapable of giving knowing consent “enjoyed” it.
There can be no consent where there can be no refusal; and no sane lawyer is going to march into court and declare that a dog (or whatever) is capable of free and informed consent.
But is consent relevant? Does an animal have a “right” not to be abused? Seems to me most of our animal cruelty jurisprudence rests on the asserted rights of the human society not to be offended by acts of egregious cruelty, not on the “right” of an animal not to be subjected to same.
Pain, enjoyment, and consent aside, there are disease issues to be considered, some of which may rise to the level of genuine public health threats. HIV / AIDS appears to have crossed to humans after arising in other primates; anthrax can easily be passed from animals to humans; and so on.
Didn’t “crime against nature” statutes fail for vagueness about thirty years ago? Charge them with animal cruelty as a backup in case the “against nature” charges fail to withstand appellate scrutiny; re-write the statute to be specific; and raise the penalties for all animal cruelty offenses at the same time.
What’s your position on the porn, Mr. Turley? Could/should it be confiscated whenever found as evidence of a crime?
This is just creepy
What a meaningless charge… As if she has tortured the animals… The dogs should be cursing to the ones who took them to the sanctuary.
“”Sure it is so humiliating and a great disgrace for a human to have sex with animals.””
But if there is a crime, it here is to have sex with animals and not a crime againts nature.
More important, there are thousands of web sites on bestiality and thousands of film productions on bestiality. Who touches those people ?! So where is the justice ?!
Any serious responses welcomed. I am looking for a completed study including physchanalytical data the suggest avenues of correction in the individuals infatuated.
No, the dog gave her a “bone of his own!” Ohhhh!
Of course, we probably shouldn’t be too hard on her.
😐
All she did was give the dog a bone.
sogmanh
1, July 23, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Is this really illegal under Lawrence
I’m guessing bestiality is pretty much illegal regardless of jurisdiction.
😐
Cept of course maybe some of the more rural parts of Alabama and possibly northern Idaho.
Is this really illegal under Lawrence, what she does in her own bedroom…. I don’t agree with it and find it more than just disgusting, but still …. I don’t see how if she was not coerced and if she did this because she wanted to…..as abhorrent as that thought is… who is the victim here…unless it was cruelty to animals, and I don’t think I will go there…
One thing is certain.
THAT dog won’t hunt.
😐
Least not anymore.
😐
Course, this case does give new meaning to the phrase, “let sleeping dogs lie“.
Give her a break.
😀
She must be “dog” tired.
O.K., I see Seigfried is involved; but what the Hell is he doing with a woman, and where the Hell was Roy??!!
“Lucky” and “Buddy.” Eeeesh…
Truly bizar and freaky! Iew!