Which countries had explicit bestiality bans enacted since 2010 and what were the penalty ranges in each?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Since 2010 a wave of explicit statutory bans on sexual acts with animals — often framed as clarifying animal‑welfare law — have been enacted in multiple countries and U.S. states; the best documented, with clear penalty figures in the provided reporting, is Denmark , which set prison terms of up to one year for a first offence and up to two years for repeat offences [1]. Other jurisdictions cited in contemporary reporting and summaries that adopted explicit bans or modernized laws after 2010 include Germany (ban re‑introduced on reunification-era gaps in 2013) and a list of countries and U.S. states where new prohibitions or tightened statutes were reported as having been enacted since 2010, but the sources supplied do not consistently report precise penalty ranges for each of those statutes [2] [3] [4].
1. Denmark — an explicitly reported penalty range and the political rationale
Denmark passed an explicit ban in 2015 and the law prescribes prison terms of up to one year for a first offence and up to two years for repeat offenders; legislators said they wanted to stop Denmark being a destination for “animal sex tourism” and to bring the country in line with neighboring states [1].
2. Germany — an explicit statutory ban after long legal ambiguity, penalty not specified in these sources
Germany moved to close a legal gap by explicitly outlawing sex with animals in legislation adopted after debates in the early 2010s, reversing the post‑1969 permissive approach that had limited prosecution to cases of “significant harm”; the BBC reported the change as aimed at clarifying and strengthening animal protection, though the provided excerpt does not list the statutory penalty range [2].
3. Other national examples reported as having enacted bans since 2010 — names without consistent penalty data
Surveying the secondary sources, commentators and encyclopedic summaries list a set of countries said to have introduced explicit bestiality prohibitions or substantive legal updates since 2010 — for example Sweden, Italy, Iceland, Thailand, Costa Rica, Bolivia and Guatemala — but those summaries do not supply uniform, citable penalty ranges for each nation in the supplied reporting, so precise punishment bands for these countries cannot be asserted from the documents at hand [3].
4. The United States — a patchwork of state enactments and amendments with variable penalties
U.S. law on sexual acts with animals remains state‑driven, and the Animal Legal & Historical Center notes a spate of state amendments around and after 2010 (for example Alaska’s 2010 amendments and Texas’s 2017 overhaul), with many states adding prohibitions on photographing or filming the acts; the source confirms variable severity (misdemeanor vs felony) and legislative updates but does not give a single, nationwide penalty range because sanctions differ by state [4].
5. What the reporting does and does not allow a reader to conclude — limitations and alternative perspectives
The mapped claims in BBC and encyclopedic reporting establish that Denmark (with specified penalties) and Germany (with an explicit ban) are prominent, well‑reported post‑2010 examples, and that multiple other countries and many U.S. states modernized or clarified laws after 2010 [1] [2] [3] [4], but the supplied sources do not provide a complete, authoritative table of enactment dates and penalty ranges for every named jurisdiction; consequently, any full country‑by‑country list with exact punishments would require consulting the individual statutes or national legal databases beyond the cited reporting.
6. How to pursue authoritative penalty figures for each jurisdiction
To compile definitive penalty ranges for every country named in summaries — for example Sweden, Italy, Iceland, Thailand, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Guatemala and the numerous U.S. states referenced — the next step is to fetch the specific penal codes or amendment texts cited by national governments or legal databases and to cross‑check official government gazettes or consolidated criminal codes; the present sources make clear where law reform occurred but do not supply the complete numeric penalties for all jurisdictions [3] [4].