In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ONE Oneof thefunctionsofthe WolfendenCommittee , establishedby theBritishgovernmentin 1954, was to reviewthe law and practicerelatingtohomosexualoffenses. Whileitsrecommendations eventuallyledtothepartial decriminalizationofsame-sexsexualactsbetweenmen, LeslieJ. Moran'sessayfocuseson how the "homosexual" and his "offences"weredefinedby the committee.Hefinds that while the termshad no legalhistory,thecommittee "discovered" the meaningofhomosexualityassexual identity,assexualacts,and ultimatelyasa knowledgeof the (male)bodyproducedby authorizedspeakers . Thus,a new categoryof legalwrongwasinventedin orderthat it might bedecriminalized .Moranarguesthat in sodoingthe committeerevealedthe incoherence ofitsown knowledge abouthomosexuality . As a result , that knowledgebecame vulnerableas a siteofcontestation. The Homosexualization of English Law LeslieJ. Moran ON THE first of November 1953 the editor of the LondonSunday Times directed the attention of readers to "A Social Problem ." The specific topic was male homosexuality. The problem was said to be evidenced in a dramatic growth in the number of prosecutions and convictions of men for buggery, gross indecency, and the offence importuning of male persons. The editorial noted that trial agendas were said to be "packed full of cases of indecent assault and gross indecency between men." The judiciary had spoken of the shock and indignation of having to deal with "gang]s] of homosexuality ." In response to this, on August 24, 1954, the British government inaugurated a review of the criminal law and the penal system to be conducted by a committee , later known as the Wolfenden Committee after its chair, Sir John Wolfenden. Its assignment was to consider the law and practice relating to homosexual offenses and the treatment of persons convicted of such offenses by the courts , and the law and practice relating to ofThis research has been undertaken with the financial assistance of the Nuffield Founda tion and the British Academy . Special thanks are due to Alain Pottage. who commented on an earlier draft of this essay. and to Anne Barron . Lucia Zedner, Peter Rush, and Alison Young, for their conversations and support . Copyrighted Material 3 4 LeslieJ. Moran fense s against the criminal law in connection with prostitution and solicitation for immoral purposes .' An immediate and enduring problem that dominated the review was the meaning of the phrase "homosexual offences ." On the one hand, the committee found that the term was neither defined by the government ministers who had set the agenda for the committee nor already known within the law; it neither referred to a particular named offense nor to a discrete category of criminal offenses known to English or Scottish law.? Nor was the task of the committee assisted by the contemporary enactment of a wider general legal category of "sexual offences." While the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 (4&5 Eliz.2 c.69) purported to bring together all of the existing offenses in England and Wales relating to the sexual, it did not organize those offences by way of a division between heterosexual and homosexual offenses. On the other hand the phrase "homosexual offences " was deployed as an organizing category by the committee and by many of the organizations > and individuals who contributed to the review . This drew attention to the fact that the term already had a certain legibility and currency, at least within popular discourse , and certain specialist official discourses, if not formally within the law . However, the repeated citation of the phrase did not appear to resolve the difficulties over its meaning . In an early draft of its final report the committee commented that at every stage we have been driven to face the questi on of terminology . From the literature of the subject, from the memoranda submitted to us, from our conver sations with witnesses , and from our own discussions , it has become clear that an accepted termin ology is an essential precondition to any useful discussion of this tangled and complicated matter ." As such "homosexual offences " appeared to be not so much a phrase that had no meaning but more a phrase that had man y different and problematic meanings . The repeated use of "homosexual offences " seems to have sustained and compounded the committee 's problems regarding the meaning of the phrase . In the final instance, the problem of the meaning of "homosexual offences" plays an important role as the enigma in need of resolution at the heart of the Wolfenden review . It is thu s important to recognize that the phrase forms part of the mechanics that promoted a great proliferation of speech about homosexualit y in general and about "homosexual offences" in particular that dominated not onl y so much of the proceedings before the committee but also its own deliberations and its final report . The phra se also has a significance...

Share