Crime against nature


The crime against nature or unnatural act has historically been a legal term in English-speaking states identifying forms of sexual behavior not considered natural or decent; they are considered legally punishable offenses in those states. Sexual practices that have historically been considered to be "crimes against nature" include masturbation, sodomy and bestiality.

History and terminology

For much of modern history, a "crime against nature" was understood by courts to be synonymous to "buggery", and to include anal sex and bestiality. Early court decisions agreed that fellatio was not included, though mainly because the practice was not spoken about when the common-law definition was established Likewise, sexual activities between two women were not covered. Over time, particularly starting in the early 20th century, some jurisdictions started enacting statutes or developing precedents that extended the scope of the crime to include fellatio and, sometimes, other sexual activities.
The term crime against nature is closely related to, and was often used interchangeably with, the term sodomy.
Until the early 19th century, courts were divided on whether the act needed to be completed in order to be a punishable offense. This question was deemed sufficiently important that, in 1828, English law was explicitly amended to specify that proof of ejaculation was not necessary for convictions for buggery and rape. The crime was not limited to same-sex activities, and, in case of an act between two adults, both participants were guilty, regardless of consent. Attempted or completed act of sodomy, committed by a husband against his wife, was grounds for divorce in common law.
Historically, the offense was usually referred to by its longer name, the detestable and abominable ''crime against nature, committed with mankind or beast. This phrase originates in Buggery Act 1533, with words "crime against nature" substituted for "vice of buggery" in the original, and it was present in one of these forms in criminal codes of most U.S. states. Specific acts included under this heading were typically deemed too detestable to list them explicitly, resulting in a number of vagueness-based legal challenges to corresponding statutes. One of the most recent, and one of the rare successful challenges, is the 1971 Florida case of Franklin v. State''. On the other hand, just seven years prior, a similar challenge failed in North Carolina.
Penalties for this offense varied greatly over time and between jurisdictions. Crime against nature remained punishable by death or life imprisonment both in the UK and in many U.S. states well into the 19th century. Liberalization of sexual morals led to reduction of penalties or decriminalization of the offense during the second half of the 20th century, so that, by 2003, it was no longer a punishable offense in 36 out of 50 U.S. states, and was only punishable by a fine in some of the remaining 14.

Current use

Currently, the term crime against nature is still used in the statutes of the following American states. However, these laws are unconstitutional to enforce for sexual conduct between consenting adults in light of Lawrence v. Texas. The crime against nature statutes are, however, still used to criminalize sexual conduct involving minors, incest, public sex, prostitution and bestiality.
Except for the above eight states, all other states in the United States have repealed their "crimes against nature" laws. Furthermore, in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court held that nonremunerative sex between consenting adults in private was protected by the Constitution and could not be criminalized under "crimes against nature" laws. Thus, fellatio, cunnilingus and anal sex can no longer fall within the scope of such laws.

Similar laws

See also Sodomy laws.