Related Experiment Videos
Commentary: Zoophilia and the law
Rebekah Ranger1, Paul Fedoroff2
1Ms. Ranger is Research and Laboratory Technician, Forensic Research Unit, and Dr. Fedoroff is Head of Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Behaviours Clinic, the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
|December 11, 2014
Summary
Definitions of zoophilia and bestiality are confusing, with inconsistent legal implications. We argue against viewing sex with animals solely as a risk factor, advocating for zoophilia as a treatable psychiatric disorder instead.
Area of Science:
- Psychiatry
- Criminology
- Animal Law
Background:
- Current definitions of zoophilia are ambiguous.
- Legal statutes and sentencing for bestiality lack consistency.
- Existing diagnostic criteria may be insufficient for accurate assessment.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critique existing definitions and legal approaches to zoophilia and bestiality.
- To challenge the notion that a history of sex with animals is a primary risk factor for human harm.
- To advocate for improved diagnostic criteria and treatment for zoophilia.
Main Methods:
- Literature review and critical analysis of existing research and legal frameworks.
- Comparative analysis of diagnostic criteria, including the DSM-5.
- Argumentative synthesis of psychiatric and legal perspectives.
Main Results:
- Common definitions of zoophilia are confusing and require clarification.
- Legal definitions of bestiality and sentencing are inconsistent.
- Sexual interactions with animals should be assessed as indicators of zoophilia, a psychiatric disorder, rather than solely as risk factors.
Conclusions:
- Improved diagnostic criteria beyond the DSM-5 are needed for zoophilia.
- Treatment should focus on promoting healthy sexual interests and ensuring animal safety.
- Zoophilia should be recognized and treated as a psychiatric disorder with available interventions.