Bizarre, Criminal law, Society

Michigan Court Narrows Definition of Sex Offender to Exclude Bestiality

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that the definition of sex offender does not include people convicted of bestiality. That means that Jeffrey Scott Haynes, 45, will not have to register after serving time for have sex with sheep.

Haynes has a long history of crimes that stretch across the criminal code from forgery to home invasion to bad checks. He added trespass and bestiality when a ranch owner caught him on his ranch in January 2005 and reported that her sleep were injures. DNA evidence proved the crime and Haynes pleaded no contest. (DNA tests appear increasingly used in such cases, here).

Calhoun County Circuit Court ordered him to register as a sex offender after he completed his sentence. He is still serving time.

The three judge panel rules that “victims” of sexual assault only include humans.

For the full story, click here.

4 thoughts on “Michigan Court Narrows Definition of Sex Offender to Exclude Bestiality”

  1. Can’t people be smart seeing that they are animals? Treating that guy the way you are treating him only tricks you into thinking you are better than he is. People are stupid animals.

  2. Can’t people be smart seeing that they are animals. Treating that guy the way you are treating him only tricks you into thinking you are better than he is. People are stupid animals.

  3. Ewe! Umm, I mean “Eww!”

    Do you suppose he thought he would avoid publicity if he didn’t have to register? Not be in the public eye? Oops. Be careful what you wish for, I guess.

    In a few years, he’ll be in the second round of a job interview and the boss will say, ‘well, you passed the background check, but, wait a minute… you look familiar…”

    Seriously, the animal rights people will be all over this. I found this ouonce when wrote a letter to the editor in which I pointed out that a Menard’s ad which showed a golden retriever penned in a 6 by 6 kennel showed a violation of Omaha’s “cruelty to animals” ordinance. The law forbid providing a dog over 40 lbs. with less than 40 square feet of space, so anyone imitating the ad, I observed, risked a conviction for “cruelty” which would be hard to explain away. I assumed people would be upset about this intrusion on liberty but overwhelmingly the replies focused on the need to protect animals.

  4. I agree with the panel. Maybe this guy could have an “emergency rule” amputation like our friend in Kentucky.

Comments are closed.