1006 Words5 Pages
III. Extreme Pornography Moving on to the next part of the case, the police finds out that Adam's sister, Eve, has images of bestiality and necrophilia saved on her computer. Both bestiality and necrophilia fall under the category of extreme pornography. Extreme pornography usually refer to any sexual representations that entail violence and are only published for sexual arousal. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (CJIA) 2008 strictly forbids the possession of any kind of images deemed to be pornographic and/or extreme. Subsection (6) and (7) describes in detail the description of extreme representations; having "sexual intercourse or oral sex with animal" and having "sexual interference with human corpse" are both stated on the section 63(7) of the CJIA. In addition, any act that "threatens a person's life, ... which results..., in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts, or genitals, ... or is grossly offensive..." are also regulated under the same law. Subsection (8) states that possessing not only hard copies of the images but also computer-stored data is subject to being prosecuted. Thus, the image files Eve had of bestiality and necrophilia on her computer are illegal under CJIA s.63(1). The convict can be punished with two years of imprisonment if faced with these charges. To add on more information about necrophilia and bestiality, the SOA 2003 also includes sections about them. According to the SOA s. 7(1), if a person penetrates a dead body, he or she is found guilty of committing a criminal offence. Performing an intercourse with an animal as well is considered an offence under s. 69 of the SOA. In addition, bestiality entails moral issues as animals cannot give consent about what can or cannot be done to the... ... middle of paper ... ...CA does not take the intentions of the publisher into account. Therefore, it is difficult to distinguish the boundaries or art, literacy, or any other subjective categories along the same line. The defences in the 1978 Act only supports the use of obscene material that are solely for legitimate reasons such as medical and scientific research. In brief, the 'legitimate reason' in the PCA is defined more narrowly than how it is under the OPA. Therefore, as stated before, even though both the cases of Beth and Eve can bring up the public good defence as their means to be exonerated, they are not necessary the same. While Eve is protected under the OPA public good defence which provides bigger range of defence which can have power as long as the act does not involve children, Beth can be protected under the PCA because she is using the photographs for medical reasons.

More about d

Open Document