|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 6, 2011 5:43:13 GMT -5
Anyone care to explain to me what the point of gaoling BOTH of them is?
|
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Aug 6, 2011 5:45:30 GMT -5
Both adults, both found mentally competent to stand trial and you can't realistically claim that only one of them did it...
|
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Aug 6, 2011 6:04:09 GMT -5
While I'm personally not into the idea of incest, don't they need that space in the jail cells for, I don't know, those who actually harm people?
|
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Aug 6, 2011 6:12:48 GMT -5
Yeah...this is squicky but its also kind of...you know, a victimless crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 6, 2011 6:15:13 GMT -5
Both adults, both found mentally competent to stand trial and you can't realistically claim that only one of them did it... Well, first of all the reason I am against incest (at least inter generational incest, like this) is that I strongly suspect the elder person has very strong influence over the younger, so I don't think the younger person can actually give fully informed, uncoerced consent. That said... if charging criminals is about stopping people from hurting others, and both parties to this "crime" are to be gaoled... just who was hurt here? Or is it possible for a crime to exist where there are only perpetrators, and no victims? I really get that this situation is probably bad for everyone involved in a number of ways, but how does putting them both in gaol help anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Aug 6, 2011 6:25:19 GMT -5
I'm sure there are differing levels of influence in every relationship. Regardless of how unequal the influence of each person is, they both still have the ability to say no if they want it to stop.
There is no logical reason to punish people for engaging in consensual sex.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Aug 6, 2011 6:31:04 GMT -5
The only issue I can see coming from this is incest babies, so that's probably why something had to be done about it, though I don't think prison is really necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 6, 2011 6:42:35 GMT -5
Gotta agree with malicious_bloke. Point to consider, she sought him out for the purpose of continuing a sexual relationship. She was no longer in a position where he had any sort of power or authority over her to coerce her into the situation and she knew full well what she was doing. Whether that desire is born of some mild-altering trauma or not is a matter for due consideration by the courts in how to proceed for her sentencing, (perhaps counselling is in order, or there's the possibility that she was always the instigator,] but ultimately the decision was hers.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 6, 2011 6:54:09 GMT -5
The only issue I can see coming from this is incest babies, so that's probably why something had to be done about it, though I don't think prison is really necessary. Yes, that is a concern, but as I think has been noted elsewhere, the likelihood of congenital defects arising among a first generation inbreeding incidence is significantly less than the likelihood of congenital defects arising from a woman over 40 giving birth. And since we don't make women over 40 who give birth go to prison... |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 6, 2011 6:55:56 GMT -5
Gotta agree with malicious_bloke. Point to consider, she sought him out for the purpose of continuing a sexual relationship. She was no longer in a position where he had any sort of power or authority over her to coerce her into the situation and she knew full well what she was doing. Whether that desire is born of some mild-altering trauma or not is a matter for due consideration by the courts in how to proceed for her sentencing, (perhaps counselling is in order, or there's the possibility that she was always the instigator,] but ultimately the decision was hers. I don't think its as simple as that. But for the sake of argument, even if we all accept that they both gave their full, adult, informed and uncoerced consent to have sex, putting them in prison achieves what, exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Aug 6, 2011 7:04:57 GMT -5
My best guess on why this is a crime...
Incest is much more likely to be a crime of power than one where both parties are consenting. Proving both parties are really consenting (as opposed to a result of trauma) is beyond the role of the courts. Rather than have to analyze in detail all parties, it is easier to just say "it's a crime."
To drawn a parallel to another possibly-victimless crime, prostitution... Sure, there are some men and women in the industry who are being vicitmized, but others do it of their own free will. (Not long ago, there was a true story going around the ABA about a young lawyer in California who was moonlighting as an escort in order to pay off her student loans.) But saying "well, it's OK if everyone consents" risks woman who are too terrorized by their pimp to admit they are not doing this willingly. So instead, prostitution - even when all parties really are doing it of their own free will - is blanket illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 6, 2011 7:25:45 GMT -5
My best guess on why this is a crime... Incest is much more likely to be a crime of power than one where both parties are consenting. Proving both parties are really consenting (as opposed to a result of trauma) is beyond the role of the courts. Rather than have to analyze in detail all parties, it is easier to just say "it's a crime." To drawn a parallel to another possibly-victimless crime, prostitution... Sure, there are some men and women in the industry who are being vicitmized, but others do it of their own free will. (Not long ago, there was a true story going around the ABA about a young lawyer in California who was moonlighting as an escort in order to pay off her student loans.) But saying "well, it's OK if everyone consents" risks woman who are too terrorized by their pimp to admit they are not doing this willingly. So instead, prostitution - even when all parties really are doing it of their own free will - is blanket illegal. But if we accept this is so, wouldn't it make more sense to determine which party is the victim, and prosecute the perpetrator accordingly, rather than throwing BOTH parties in prison? |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 6, 2011 7:39:54 GMT -5
My best guess on why this is a crime... Incest is much more likely to be a crime of power than one where both parties are consenting. Proving both parties are really consenting (as opposed to a result of trauma) is beyond the role of the courts. Rather than have to analyze in detail all parties, it is easier to just say "it's a crime." Which explains why the courts keep needing to be reminded "She was asking forit" is not a valid defense for rape. Because there is a Lawful Stupid equivalent for evil as well as Good. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 6, 2011 7:52:42 GMT -5
My best guess on why this is a crime... Incest is much more likely to be a crime of power than one where both parties are consenting. Proving both parties are really consenting (as opposed to a result of trauma) is beyond the role of the courts. Rather than have to analyze in detail all parties, it is easier to just say "it's a crime." Which explains why the courts keep needing to be reminded "She was asking forit" is not a valid defense for rape. Because there is a Lawful Stupid equivalent for evil as well as Good. I think for the most part courts are past the "she was asking for it" as a mitigating factor these days. Juries, on the other hand... |
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 6, 2011 8:28:10 GMT -5
Are you arguing criminal culpability, severity of charge, or the merits of the prison system itself?
|
|
