New Jersey police officer Robert Melia Jr. will not face criminal charges for allegedly having sex with five calves under a perfectly bizarre ruling by Judge James J. Morley. We previously discussed the case, here. Morley dismissed animal cruelty charges on the grounds that the cows may have enjoyed having sex with Melia.
Morley ruled that oral sex with cows cannot constitute animal cruelty since the cows aren’t talking and may not have been “tormented” or “puzzled” by the experience.
In a simply amazing exchange with prosecutors, Morley went into the uncertainties of man-cow relations: “If the cow had the cognitive ability to form thought and speak, would it say, ‘Where’s the milk? I’m not getting any milk,'” You are allowed to drop your coffee in amazement at this point.
Morley went on to explain that children are comforted by pacifiers and perhaps cows are equally pacified by police officers in these cases: “They [children] enjoy the act of suckling,” the judge said. “Cows may be of a different disposition.” You are allowed to throw up in disgust at this point.
Morley ignored that one cow head-butted Melia in the stomach and appeared far from happy. The prosecutor objected that the cows were “very upset” by Melia’s action and stated “I think any reasonable juror could infer that a man’s penis in the mouth of a calf is torment. It’s a crime against nature.” The problem is that New Jersey does not currently have a ban on bestiality as opposed to animal cruelty.
Morley did note “I’m not saying it’s OK. This is a legal question for me. It’s not a questions of morals. It’s not a question of hygiene. It’s not a question of how people should conduct themselves.” That is reassuring. However, since the cows can never complain about sexual abuse, Morley’s view would effectively end cruelty prosecutions absent physical injury. While “no means no,” “moo” means nothing in Morley’s court. Any defendant could use the Morley defense of “the cows enjoyed it.”
Melia is currently on suspension from the force in Moorestown. His girlfriend, Heather Lewis, is also accused in a case alleging sexual assault on three young girls. Child pornography was also allegedly found in his home.
Lewis is also accused of sexually assaulting a juvenile male.
Not does it defame “Jersey” cows everywhere, but Morley’s ruling gives Moorestown the unique claim to fame as the new vacation spot of choice for the bestiality set (New slogan: “You Can’t Say Moorestown Without Moo.”). I simply cannot understand the judge’s reasoning. While Melia will likely be put away on the other charges, Morley has created some disturbing precedent in this ruling that needs to be appealed by the prosecutors.
A man in Mumbai was less lucky with his judge. He claimed that he could not be charged with having sex with a dog because the dog could not swear out a complaint, here. The court rejected the claim.
Gyges:
Would you please allow me to cherry picking the following.
“In this case, society decided that having sexual relationships with animals is wrong.” –Gyges
With out a bestiality law in New Jersey, prosecutors cannot charge it.
From the Philly.com article, by J. Nark,
Although a bill was introduced in 2005 to ban bestiality, New Jersey still has no explicit ban on the sexual penetration of animals, which is why the Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office charged Melia with animal cruelty. –J. Nark
I think … a clear case of abuse of a living creature.
— Gyges
Yes I agree with you.
I wonder why the grand jury didn’t get to see the tape? Which might have made a stronger case for the judge to convict on the animal cruelty charge.
David,
The reason this isn’t a matter of consent is simple: Animal’s aren’t people. Animals are viewed as property in the eyes of the law.
My car can’t give consent, neither can a cow. Now just because something is your property, doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want with it, we have all sorts of laws regulating property use. In this case, society decided that having sexual relationships with animals is wrong. You think that it’s because we think it’s icky, I think it’s because it’s a clear case of abuse of a living creature. I don’t expect to change your mind on the matter, but I’ll give you one (though flawed) comparison: My dog would probably enjoy drinking anti-freeze, but I’d still be charged with abuse for giving it to him.
Well Mr. Ed,
Appropriate for this is, Do you know how to tell when you are getting close to East Lansing? Well, all the sheep are backed up to the fence.
Is this not where in Jackson, MI, the men have mustaches and most of the women do as well?
I went to Michigan State, known adoringly at UofM as Moo U. The biggest college there at that time was Ag. The biggest school was Packaging Engineering; packages made from trees, which are planted in the ground and therefor agriculture.
Ok now, we have Ball State, Bringem Young or PA going to be known as Moo U?
Animal Cruelty, Offensively Tasteless, or Innocent Fun?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/dogs-in-crazy-costumes-ph_n_298682.html?slidenumber=0#slide_image
Where is our friend, mr. ed, when you need him? Certainly he has a perspective far different from ours on this topic, and he’s hoof out a mean arithmetic, too.
mr.ed says this ain’t kosher, even if it’s a cow. Let’s mooooove on.
To FFLeo:
Couldn’t agree more about using humor. Yes, I guess I’m in my element here contributing to this “silly thread.” I find laughter a good cathartic for the frustration and/or outrage I feel at times–considering eveything that’s been going on in this country in the past decade.
I must admit I find the story about officer Melia and the cows disturbing. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction!
Ms. M.
From your bio, I see that you are a former teacher and write children’s poetry. I think you have found the requisite age group within this silly thread. Oh well, it helps to try humor in these times of hardship…
I never met an English teacher I did not like until I got 2 male Ph.Ds; 1 for college Freshman English (R&R) and the other in a 300-level English Literature class. Never get a male Ph.D. instructor for any English class!
Here is an interesting article from yesterday’s L.A. Times that relates to animal cruelty: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cruelty23-2009sep23,0,1482217.story
billy says…”C’mon Mike he’s porking farm animals! Great Caesers Ghost!”
—
I have to agree with billy on this one! I don’t buy the suckling defense (Really?!? Wow!!!).
PS. billy, in the spirit of civility currently circulating through these pages, I’d like to extend an olive branch of peace to you. I know we’ve disagreed before, and I was fairly final in our last exchange. I’d like to set that aside, and in the spirit of Bush-Cheney (tongue-in-cheek), move forward. 😉 I apologize if I’ve offended any anyway. I look forward to the continued discussion…
Elaine,
Empirical evidence could be anything. How do you know when a cat doesn’t like to be smoothed? How do you know when a dog with a broken leg is in pain? If the calf tries to get away, if it cries for help, or if it is otherwise clearly distressed, then I say that would constitute animal cruelty.
But I’m not an animal psychologist. They would undoubtedly give you a better answer than I.
Mike,
I said: I’m not saying that to have sex with another man (or woman) is as immoral as having sex with an animal.
I don’t know how else to say it. I’m NOT (repeat: not) saying that the morality of homosexual sex is the same as the morality of bestial sex. It is not as immoral, nor as amoral, nor as moral: their moral values, whatever they may be, are different.
My sentence was constructed to say they AREN’T of the same moral value. Since we’re talking about immorality, I used the word ‘immoral’. If I say “Murder isn’t as good as charity”, am I espousing the moral virtue of murder? No, of course not.
FFleo:
On mr. ed and Wilbur, all I can say is: I knew it!
C’mon Mike he’s porking farm animals! Great Caesers Ghost!
As long as it was a JERSEY cow, who cares?! Gotta rep the State, make it known for something! MOOO-VE over officers, that heifer is lovin’ it!
“is as immoral”
Dave,
You’re not saying that it is as immoral as bestiality, but the “is as immoral” connotes to me that you do believe that homosexuality and/or possibly sex, is immoral at albeit a lesser level. My question was basically given that sentence construction do you believe that homosexuality and/or perhaps sex is immoral at any level.
The root problem is the state has a very poorly designed set of laws around this issue. Bestiality and forced bestiality (any bestiality involving an animal not the property of a defendant) should be seperate well-defined offenses – or legal. Clean and simple laws can prevent judges from doing goofy things as in this case.
To Dave:
I understand why the judge may have determined that Melia was not guilty of cruelty to animals. I do find some of the judge’s comments bizarre–when he talked about pacifiers and suckling babies, for example.
My question is: What kind of empirical evidence could be used to prove animal cruelty in a case such as this? If not a head-butt from one of the calves–then what?
To Elaine,
I see what Turley is saying, but it ignores the fact that simply claiming the animal enjoyed it is secondary to actual empirical evidence to the contrary. Killing an animal slowly and painfully can’t be excused with the ‘they enjoyed it’ defence, because they quite obviously didn’t.
In cases where it’s not so obvious that the animal didn’t enjoy it, all we can do is make a judgement call.
We were not in the court. We do not know the reasons the judge concluded that the man was not guilty of animal cruelty. We can cry foul till we’re blue in the face, but I’m willing to trust that the judge made the right decision until demonstrated otherwise.