is not the point to be considered here, nor is the question of what is the proper crime and punishment to be applied to homosexual acts not in private, or induced by fraud or force.

Persons indulging in homosexual acts, to the degree that this defines their sexual activity, do not reproduce. This is readily conceded. But, it is not a crime to fail to reproduce or utterly eschew attempting to do so. Surely no one would urge that abstinence be deemed a felony. By what reasoning, therfore, can this aspect of homosexuality justify labeling acts thereof as criminal?

It is highly probable that the man to whom homosexual behavior is repugnant would find it no less repugnant because the law permitted it in certain circumstances. The sad fact seems to be the punitive laws in this area, rather than serving a socially utilitarian end, have the opposite effect. The present laws have caused charged men to commit suicide, and have created an opportunity for blackmail by unscrupulous persons, especially male prostitutes. Older homosexual men have seduced boys out of fear of being blackmailed by older male partners, with the ironic result that the law endangers the very young it purports to protect.

There are also harmful social aspects of the present laws. These laws are ineffectual in reducing the incidence of homosexual acts appreciably, and they are enforced inequitably. They are, for example, hardly ever enforced against females committing homosexual acts and they, generally, only affect the poor and desperate who publicly seek mates. This hardly seems fair, that all cases are not even treated equally. (Walter Jenkins is an example)

The purpose of criminal statutes is to set forth with all precision those acts or omissions which the statutes prohibit and to state what the penalty shall be for failure to comply. Where

statutes go beyond this, and contain language which does not serve to define the crime, but rather describe it in moral terms, one may justifiably wonder why.

In 14 States, the offenses contained in the sodomy statutes are referred to as "abominable" and "detestable." Not even the crime of premeditated murder is described by adjectives of cen-

sure; neither are other sexual crimes such as fornication, rape, adultery. In fact, no other crimes are so described. THE STATE'S RIGHTFUL CONCERN

Most impressive is the MODEL PENAL CODE, prepared by the American Law Institute, article 213, which provides that private sexual relations (homosexual or heterosexual) shall be criminal only where children are victimized, coercian is involved, or other serious imposition is practiced. This basic principle has been implemented in one American jurisdiction as of January 1, 1962, namely, Illinois, where a series of criminal law reforms were passed in 1961. One result was the enactment of sections 11-2, and 11-3 of the Criminal Code, which provides that sexually deviate behavior is punishable where force or threat thereof is involved. The acts of consenting adults, committed in private, are no longer criminal, be the deviation homosexual or heterosexual. Subsequent sections cover cases where minors are involved.

The present statutes represent the enforcement of a code of morals for its own sake, a grave misuse of American Criminal Law. Morals and their inculcation are not the province of the and consensual acts, of adults, in private are beyond the proper scope of the law.

state,

It is also heartening to see and to note that more and more voices are being raised against the governmental imposition of morals in this area. Although homosexual acts are still sinful