03/03/11
The original statute, enacted in 1805, carried penalties for an ''...abominable and detestable crime against nature, committed with mankind or beast.'' While not specifically mentioning sodomy, American courts followed precedent set under English law in determining that ''crimes against nature'' included sodomy, whether between couples of the same or opposite sexes. The act was amended in 1896 to specifically criminalize oral and anal sex and the court determined that this prohibition extended even to married couples. As a prohibition against sodomy, the statute is irreconcilable with the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence, but in 1982 Louisiana modified it again, this time providing harsh criminal penalties for soliciting oral and anal sex in exchange for compensation, making it the only state to distinguish between this and other forms of prostitution. As a result, this portion of the law is distinguishable from the laws struck down in
Lawrence.
Louisiana also has a law banning prostitution that encompasses oral and anal sex and provides for less stringent penalties, but that isn't the only difference between them. Convictions under the Crimes against Nature act used to include registration on the state's sex offender registry, but the act was amended again in 2010 to not trigger registration on the list until a second conviction. By contrast, no number of convictions under the state's general prostitution laws carries a requirement to register as a sex offender. Those who have single convictions prior to the amendment of the act are continued to be listed as sex offenders, and nearly 40% of all registered sex offenders in New Orleans were convicted under this law.
Like most states, registration in the sex offender database is a lifetime scarlet letter. Registrants have their status stamped in bright orange letters on their driver's licenses and are required to inform neighbors and local churches and schools of their status. The Crimes against Nature statute is the only triggering law that does not involve violence, force or the exploitation of minors, but that distinction is not made clear on the sex offender registry.
A group of anonymous plaintiffs has brought forward a suit naming Governor Jindal along with other state and local officials asking for relief under the 5
th, 8
th and 14
th amendments. In addition to asking the court to strike down the law as unconstitutional, the plaintiffs are asking to have their names stripped from the registry.
