SECTION III:
OPTIONS
34. There are three clear options to be considered in responding to the Law Reform Commission's proposals and these are described in this section.
Option 1: No change to the present law.
35. The Law Reform Commission's recommendations may be seen as inconsis- tent with traditional values on sexual matters and the retention of the present law is clearly one of the options for the future. In deciding on this option members of the public will wish to consider the arguments for and against change presented in Section II. It might be concluded that any change in the law would inevitably carry with it an unacceptable risk of a deterioration in the standards of public behaviour, a threat to young people and possibly to standards of public health. For many people these issues would outweigh any case which has been presented for change.
36. It should be noted that the law is not strictly enforced at present (paras 17-19 above). The police do not give a high priority to investigating offences committed in private between consenting adults. If the weight of public opinion indicates that the retention of the present law is the preferred option it might be necessary to reconsider the current approach to these offences.
Option 2: Removal of the criminal penalties for homosexual acts in private between consenting adults.
37. The Law Reform Commission recommended this option but added that at the same time the law on public behaviour, exploitation and corruption of a homosexual nature should be strengthened. This option would remove the criminal penalties for homosexual acts only when committed in private by consenting men over the age of 21.
Option 3: Reduction of the penalties for homosexual acts in private between consenting adults.
38. Under this option homosexual acts in private between consenting men of or over 21 would remain a criminal offence but the penalties would be reduced.
39. Statistics on sentences for gross indecency show that even when the act has taken place in public, e.g. in a public toilet or bathhouse, the maximum penalty (imprisonment for two years) is rarely imposed. Of the 19 men convicted in 1986 for acts of homosexual gross indecency, 13 were fined between $500 and $3,000. The most severe penalty, imposed on four men, was three months' imprison- ment, suspended for two years. There was a similar pattern in 1987. Eleven men were convicted, of whom six were fined $500-$600; again, the most severe penalty was three months' imprisonment, suspended for two years. In 1986 there was one prosecution for homosexual buggery in private between two
12