Which countries currently criminalize bestiality and how do their penalties compare?
Executive summary
Laws on sex with animals vary widely: several European countries criminalize bestiality with prison terms of up to two years or more, while a handful of states/countries historically permitted it (sources note Hungary, Finland and Romania as legal in the EU after a 2015 Danish change) [1]. Reporting over the last decade cites bans in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland and the UK, with penalties reduced in some places to around two years’ maximum imprisonment [1] [2] [3].
1. Historic sweep: Europe’s patchwork of bans and permissions
European reporting shows an uneven legal landscape: many Western European states—named in coverage—have explicit bans (the Netherlands, France, Switzerland) while others historically allowed sex with animals or prosecuted only when “significant harm” could be proven (Germany’s earlier regime) [2]. The BBC reported that after Denmark’s 2015 ban, Hungary, Finland and Romania remained the only EU countries where the act was still legal, highlighting how national legislatures reached different conclusions on criminalization [1].
2. Denmark’s 2015 turning point and cited penalties
When Denmark criminalized bestiality in 2015, parliament set penalties at up to one year in prison for a first offence and up to two years for repeat offenders; lawmakers said the change was partly to curb animal-sex tourism [1]. That legislative action was presented as closing a Northern European gap and prompted contemporaneous reporting that shifted the EU tally of permissive jurisdictions [1].
3. Where maximum penalties stand in reporting
Media reporting indicates the UK reduced its maximum penalty to two years in 2003, and the BBC’s 2012 coverage framed two years as a common high-end sentence after reform efforts in multiple countries [2]. Sources also describe older German law (pre-amendment) permitting acts unless the animal suffered “significant harm,” a loophole activists sought to close through legislation [2]. These accounts suggest maximum penalties commonly lie around one-to-two years in many jurisdictions after reform [1] [2].
4. Contemporary lists and online summaries — useful but uneven
Compilations and listicles repeat similar country names (Denmark, Sweden, some US states) and claim that certain nations continue to permit bestiality; such pieces can be useful for quick orientation but vary in rigor and updating [3]. The Wikipedia graphic file referenced in results indicates there are maintained maps of zoophilia legality, but the search snippet alone does not provide up-to-date statutory detail [4]. Relying solely on summaries risks omitting recent reforms.
5. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas in coverage
Parliamentary sponsors in Denmark framed the ban as protecting animals and preventing “sex tourism,” an argument that meshes animal-welfare concerns with public-policy optics [1]. Animal-rights advocates pushed for law changes in countries like Germany by spotlighting legal loopholes that required proof of “significant harm” [2]. News outlets tend to emphasize moral and welfare frames; compilations sometimes amplify shock value [3]. Readers should note those agendas when evaluating claims about which countries “allow” or “ban” such acts.
6. Limitations in available sources and what’s not found
Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, up-to-date global list of which countries currently criminalize bestiality with exact penalties by jurisdiction; the provided reporting focuses on Europe and selective national reforms [1] [2] [3]. The Wikipedia file referenced suggests broader maps exist but the snippet here does not supply statutory texts or an authoritative global tally [4]. For precise, current penalties and whether a given country’s statute criminalizes bestiality outright or only when harm is shown, readers will need to consult national criminal codes or recent legal databases.
7. How to verify country-by-country today
To compile a verified, contemporary comparison, check each country’s penal code or authoritative national legal commentary and corroborate with recent mainstream reporting or legal databases; media pieces cited here are a starting point but incomplete [1] [2] [3]. Given that the cited articles focus on European reforms (Denmark, UK, Germany, Netherlands, France, Switzerland) and note a small set of EU countries then remaining permissive (Hungary, Finland, Romania), confirm any jurisdictional claim against primary legal texts before drawing firm conclusions [1] [2].
Sources cited: BBC reporting on Denmark’s 2015 ban and EU context [1], BBC reporting on European bans and Germany’s legal debate [2], and a summarizing list article and map file referenced in search results [3] [4].