| Quentin |
05-12-2011 02:11 PM |
It's a funny notion, but alas, an incorrect one.
As (Loyola) law professor Rick Hasen explained on ElectionLawBlog.org:
Quote:
The problem with this interpretation is that the statute itself explicitly distinguishes between "persons" and "animals," prohibiting sex acts between the two groups. A court facing a question of interpreting the statute would almost certainly read the statute's use of the term "animals" as "non-human animals," both to avoid absurdity and to conform with (1) the intent of the drafters; (2) the purpose of the statute; and (3) a commonly used (if scientifically inaccurate) understanding of the term "animal" to exclude humans.
|
True, the legislature should have provided a statutory definition of 'animal' to make it absolutely clear how they were using the word in the statute, but I suspect Hasen is correct in his analysis. ;-) |
