When the United States Supreme Court invalidated all state sodomy laws in the landmark 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling it didn’t take those state laws off the books. Last night in my state, two men, in what appears to be a domestic dispute/sexual assault case that occurred in private, were charged by the police under the North Carolina’s ridiculous “crimes against nature” law (CAN). From the Raleigh N&O:
Raleigh police first charged Nelson Keith Sloan, 40, of Grand Manor Court, who called them to his apartment about dawn, saying he had been attacked.And, in the ultimate outrage - the police did not charge Flynn with sexual assault. As you read, the police captain 1) doesn’t believe a sexual crime occurred; and 2) doesn’t have a problem with arresting the men under this law, when everyone knows a heterosexual couple would never be charged with CAN.Police later filed the same charge against Ryan Christopher Flynn, 25, of Glen Currin Drive. They also charged Flynn with simple assault for biting Sloan. And they charged him with communicating threats by telling Sloan he was going to disembowel him and show him his innards.
“This looks like a case of a consensual act that may have gotten out of hand,” said Raleigh police Capt. T.D. Hardy. “The law is still on the books. Our detectives got involved in it last night and decided this was the best thing to do. What the D.A.’s office will do with it, I don’t know.”
Sloan, however, said he was the victim of an assault. “I didn’t allow anything,” he said Saturday after being reached at home by phone. “They knew it and turned it around and arrested me. I have never been so humiliated in all my life. It’s just awful.”
More below the fold.
What exactly is this law?
Offenses against Public Morality and Decency.The penalty is up to 3 years in prison. These cases almost never make it to trial, but the point is time and money are wasted as a result of these charges, and in this case, lets an actual crime — sexual assault — go unpunished. The North Carolina Gay Advocacy Legal Alliance (NCGALA) further states§ 14-177. Crime against nature.
If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.
In order to convict someone of CAN, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an act of penetration occurred (that is, the state must prove that a penis was inserted into someone’s mouth or anus, or that a tongue was inserted into someone’s vagina or anus).Sane legislators have been trying to get this law wiped off of the books for years, but the fundies have deep-sixed any efforts to do this.
State Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, a Carrboro Democrat and attorney, has tried for years to rescind the state statute, but the General Assembly hasn’t been willing to do it.Kinnaird’s effort to repeal CAN was railed on by the Right back in 2001 as a measure that would “amount to promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.”“I press it every year,” she said Saturday. “It would be politically difficult, but that doesn’t matter — it’s unconstitutional.”
So, while we celebrate the achievement of California’s Supreme Court ruling that gay couples may marry, down here in NC, where that possibility is nowhere on the horizon, we’re at the mercy of biased law enforcement officials too lazy to actually correctly assess and charge criminal activity by using an unconstitutional law to persecute a sexual minority.
More in this DKos diary, Q-Notes, and over at BlueNC.
Related:
* Maxine Doyle is Forgotten Today…
11 Responses to “NC outrage: two men charged with sodomy - even after Lawrence v. Texas”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
What does ‘in private’ have to do with it if one guy sexually assaulted the other? They arrested both guys, but one guy seemed to feel that he’d been the victim of a crime.
“What does ‘in private’ have to do with it if one guy sexually assaulted the other?”
I think it’s that they’re charging both men under a law that was declared unconstitutional, provided the activity was occurring in private. They can charge the one with sexual assault, but they can’t constitutionally charge both with sodomy.
Imagine the hatred you would have to feel for someone in order to arrest him after he’d been sexually assaulted. I don’t see how the Raleigh police can pretend that they’re fulfilling their duty to protect the public.
Seems to me that this would be as much false arrest and imprisonment as arresting a black person for being in town after sundown. But there are probably places where they still do that too.
*But there are probably places where they still do that too.*
Of course, but they’re at least smart enough to make up a charge against them of an actual crime. Loitering, public disturbance, maybe plant some weed on them…
Eyargh.
World worries me sometimes.
Why should ANY jurisdiction be bothered by such trivialities as Supreme Court rulings and constitutionality when it is clear that our current Justice Department pays no attention to the rule of law either.
Under the current regime in the White House, and their lackies in the AG’s office there has been a complete breakdown of the most basic civil rights enforcement in this country - why should this surprise anyone?
The cop is an asshole. But fortunately, he only has so much power. The DA would get laughed out of court if he tried to press the charges.
Since Lawrence v. Texas is a widely known decision, Sloan may have a civil case against the police for false arrest.
If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.
I think this is a terrific law. Environmental polluters are finally going to have to clean up their act.
Weird that they think you might be dumping toxins in the river with your dog, though…
What it sounds like from the description is a domestic violence case where they decided to arrest the victim, too, but had to come up with some kind of charge in order to do it.
I’m guessing the message is, “Don’t call the cops if your boyfriend is beating you up — we don’t care and we’ll arrest you on a bogus charge if you make us come out there.”
So it’s illegal to give a woman oral sex, but not a man? Or did I read that law wrong?