Criminalizing Incest as a society, Why?

[DechCJC]

I'm sure there are disadvantages to the outcome, but I don't think imprisonment is a fair punishment (if any). I don't actually know the facts tbh, are children from created from incest malformed in some way? I guess you should put some kind of restrictions on it if that's the case, but aren't there at least dozens of ways this could happen? Aren't there other issues that go ahead and most of the time are overlooked (such as underage sexual intercourse, at times as young as 12 years old or lower)?

I don't know, when I look at the subject I just think that "It's just... wrong", but that's just mostly because i've been raised to believe it's wrong; Honestly, I don't know what makes this that much more serious than other sexual offenses.

[Vorticough]

Yeah, I kind of sympathize for them, even as a conservative. It strikes me as ridiculous that society is embracing things like homosexuality (which to me is far more strange than a brother and sister) but still condemning incest. Either traditional ideals should remain in tact, or anything should go. There is really no legitimate case to make for in between.

Mostly because gays have far, FAR less of a chance to make defective children, (Or often enough, won't have children at all) assuming that is, one of said gay men doesn't do some in vitro fertilization to say, his sister.

Children whose biological parents have a close genetic relationship have a greatly increased risk of congenital disorders, death and disability at least in part due to genetic diseases caused by the inbreeding.

[Mithfin]

Please start reading my posts.


I know who you're referring to, my point is purely that I've answered the question.

Regarding the question about punishment, once the dominant individual in an abusive relationship is positively identified (and they almost always are) they are imprisoned. The victim, in the vast majority of cases, will be psychologically counselled.

Well, so incest is always a rape, and anti-incest laws are actually anti-rape ones and the closest one is a federal law about statutory rape (both wanted a sex, but one is dominant by definition). But, statutory rape (according to Wiki) is punished by 0-15 years, not the lifetime in prison! Why? How an incest between adults is worse than a statutory rape?

And still, there are a lot of ambiguities in that. For instance, if I understand it right, stepfather can marry his adult stepdaughter and fuck here blind, as they are not "blood-relatives". But according the "incestual rape" conception, they are in the same abusive relationships, as father and daughter! Why the stepfather is not punished in that case?

[pucGG]

We just had another thread like this.

Incest is biologically beneficial in the long term.

It should be legal.

I want to hear more about this

[Deleted]

I have good idea:
Lets widen the thing out a bit. Before you even think of creating offspring, you and your significant other half have to go to the doctor and have your genes checked.
Then you hand those results in to the family ministry, complete with a filled out reproduction permission request form.

Now wait a few months and you will receive the answer. If it's all green, you are good to go. If not, you better not become preggers, else you will be detained in a mothers institute until the state's child (not your child, you never had the permission to have one) is born. Then you are tried and put behind bars.

Ofc, the mother's institute also awaits you if you do something that might cause harm to the unborn (alcohol, smokes, drugs and many other things compiled in a big book handed to you with the reproduction permission).


Happy this is only a little thought, not reality?

Personally: As long as love is there, let them do what they want. Though I'd suggest to make at least a check for inherited defects during preganancy compulsory.

[amberkilloran]

Why the stepfather is not punished in that case?

Well actually, in the United States, they are. o: According to Wiki, at least (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_re...#United_States).

Happy this is only a little thought, not reality?

Personally: As long as love is there, let them do what they want. Though I'd suggest to make at least a check for inherited defects during preganancy compulsory.

On a personal note, I'm not for rooting out all people and throwing them in jail screaming "Incest! Feel bad!"; Because as Sahugain illustrates, it's just silly. I do, however, think that people should consider the welfare of their children when choosing one's partners. The law is simply there to protect the greater good of society. 25 years, though, seems a little harsh to me...

[Pua]

Quite a few bits and pieces in here, so if I miss something important let me know.

Well, so incest is always a rape, and anti-incest laws are actually anti-rape ones and the closest one is a federal law about statutory rape (both wanted a sex, but one is dominant by definition). But, statutory rape (according to Wiki) is punished by 0-15 years, not the lifetime in prison! Why? How an incest between adults is worse than a statutory rape?

Don't forget, that some incestuous relationships don't conclude that one party was "the aggressor"; some conclude with the reality that both parties were mentally handicapped to the point where they couldn't make a consensual decision. In these cases, imprisonment remains unlikely and psychological counseling is the most likely outcome for both.

Your real question, I feel, is why "incest" is a separate crime to "rape" when the crime is essentially the same. And that's a very good question, to be fair. For me, I think it's because statutory rape deals with cases where it's clear that sexual (as in, physical) violence has been used on a non-consenting adult, while "incest" accepts that the abuse may also be psychological.

Of course, this moves into water where crimes such as "racially-aggravated assault" come in. Surely, an assault is an assault? In most cases, yes, but the crime of assault doesn't factor in the psychological implications of something that may be racially motivated.

Clearly you can apply that thinking to any form of prejudice or bigotry.

And still, there are a lot of ambiguities in that. For instance, if I understand it right, stepfather can marry his adult stepdaughter and fuck here blind, as they are not "blood-relatives". But according the "incestual rape" conception, they are in the same abusive relationships, as father and daughter! Why the father is not punished in that case?

I think the law is always going to be ambiguous, but let's not forget that the law has to be adjudicated - which it is. In western civilizations, we employ judges who will use a jury to determine the facts of a proceeding, and then apply the punishment as they best think it befits the crime. When someone says "the punishment for [insert crime here] is 25 years - that's ridiculous!", they're misunderstanding how the law works.

There is a difference (often a huge one) between maximum punishment and the punishment a judge actually doles out. The maximum punishment is the absolute worst a judge can do to an offender, while the actual punishment is invariably far less. If we assume for a moment that two consenting adults of sound mind got involved in an incestuous relationship and found themselves in front of a judge for it, they would be extremely unlikely to face the maximum sentence.

We also need to remember that the law isn't always about punishment, it's also frequently about deterrence.

The two are not always the same thing.

[brirrspliff]

How is it [brother and sister having children] "so wrong", just because you feel like it's wrong? Fact is, both are abnormal sexual orientations that are brought on by genetics.
Is it that because homosexuals can't reproduce?

no, it's about genetics. i do not expect you to understand this, but please listen to people who do.

[amberkilloran]

For me, I think it's because statutory rape deals with cases where it's clear that sexual (as in, physical) violence has been used on a non-consenting adult, while "incest" accepts that the abuse may also be psychological.

A clarification: Statutory rape occurs when one party involved is below the age of consent (ie. 16-18 in the United States, varying from state to state). The minor can state they consent and believe they consent, but the state asserts that people below a set age do not have the mental facilities to provide consent. You are referring to aggravated rape (http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78529, Louisiana State Legislation).

[Yarathir]

Because children resulted from incest are often malformed. Physically, mentally or both. A malformed child is a burden on both itself and society and there is no conceivable reason why such a child should be forced into existence because some ppl couldn't hold their pants on.

At least this is why in the case of m/f relations. M/m or f/f, I don't give a crap.

Children where the mother smokes or drinks a lot during pregnancy also have a risk (although not quite as high, but the risk IS THERE, that is what should matter) to be "damaged". Then why isn't it illegal?



Hell, why isn't it illegal to have a child when either parent has a disease that is 70-90% likely to carry on to the child?



I'm not denying Incest is a bad thing, at least children derived from such relations, but look at the two above questions and then see how much society apparently cares about the health of a child. It's a double standard, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

[Pua]

A clarification: Statutory rape occurs when one party involved is below the age of consent (ie. 16-18 in the United States, varying from state to state). The minor can state they consent and believe they consent, but the state asserts that people below a set age do not have the mental facilities to provide consent. You are referring to aggravated rape (http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78529, Louisiana State Legislation).

I'm discussing Scottish law in the main, but this is a fair clarification (and applies pretty equally to Scottish law, too).

Thanks.

[amberkilloran]

Children where the mother smokes or drinks a lot during pregnancy also have a risk (although not quite as high, but the risk IS THERE, that is what should matter) to be "damaged". Then why isn't it illegal?

Hell, why isn't it illegal to have a child when either parent has a disease that is 70-90% likely to carry on to the child?

I'm not denying Incest is a bad thing, at least children derived from such relations, but look at the two above questions and then see how much society apparently cares about the health of a child. It's a double standard, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

*shrug* Maybe it should be. Maybe we should make at the very least the prior illegal. Though you might be hard pressed to find legislators who would be willing to back that, as there is certainly a lot of ways that can be taken. Perhaps it can be used to attack polluters? Second hand smokers? Then there is the implication of drinking or using any number of drugs while unaware of a pregnancy. Laws aren't complete nor are they perfect.

[Mithfin]

Quite a few bits and pieces in here, so if I miss something important let me know.
I think the law is always going to be ambiguous, but let's not forget that the law has to be adjudicated - which it is. In western civilizations, we employ judges who will use a jury to determine the facts of a proceeding, and then apply the punishment as they best think it befits the crime. When someone says "the punishment for [insert crime here] is 25 years - that's ridiculous!", they're misunderstanding how the law works.

There is a difference (often a huge one) between maximum punishment and the punishment a judge actually doles out. The maximum punishment is the absolute worst a judge can do to an offender, while the actual punishment is invariably far less. If we assume for a moment that two consenting adults of sound mind got involved in an incestuous relationship and found themselves in front of a judge for it, they would be extremely unlikely to face the maximum sentence.

We also need to remember that the law isn't always about punishment, it's also frequently about deterrence.

The two are not always the same thing.

http://www.volokh.com/2010/12/12/incest/

Looks like the question asked here already was discussed to the death in the US law professor's personal blog two years ago. Fore me, the more I read about it, the more it became obvious, that these laws are clear remnants of immense influence of christian religion on US law system, but people nowadays are ashamed of that for some reason.

[Pua]

http://www.volokh.com/2010/12/12/incest/

Looks like the question asked here already was discussed to the death in the US law professor's personal blog two years ago. Fore me, the more I read about it, the more it became obvious, that these laws are clear remnants of immense influence of christian religion on US law system, but people nowadays are ashamed of that for some reason.

I think there's a lot of truth in that, and accept that while the law may not be perfect it's generally pretty good at what it does; namely, providing liberty for most of the people, most of the time.

What annoys me is why people are still arguing about procreation, while you and I (plus a couple of others) moved on from it long ago.

[shise]

Why?

Because it's literally insane. There's a potential risk of genetic problems. Plain simple.


I honestly don't care about ethics and morals, that's a bunch of crap, however, I would never understand the point of doing such weird thing...

[Darksoldierr]

What about normal couples with a hightend chance of concieving children with birth defects should they not be allowed to have kids?
As far as i know they still can. Even without the birth defect issue people would still dislike incest because society finds it wrong just like being gay was wrong once and to some still is.
Is it ok for to two homosexual brothers to be with eachother? They can't have kids yet participate in incest doesen't hurt anyone does it?

"hightend chance of concieving children with birth defects", yes, then you shouldn't risk it. That is my opinion. You cannot gamble on a human's life.
As i said, i dosen't care, what are you into, aslong as you dont endanger your partner or your possible future child. If you have bad genes or any other sickeness which could be transitioned to your children, you shouldn't play with it.

I speak easilly, since luckily, i dont have any sickness, and probably i dont even have the right to judge others, but for selfish reasons, gambling on a human's life is terrible thing to do.

[amberkilloran]

What annoys me is why people are still arguing about procreation, while you and I (plus a couple of others) moved on from it long ago.

I think the reason for honing in on procreation specifically in because it potentially represents a compelling government interest; ie. A healthy population is a diverse population, and a healthy population is a robust one. As I mentioned in my first post (page 10), the effects of inbreeding can spread through several families over a long period of time allowing for increased hereditary diseases, such as hemophilia. Because inbreeding can, in the long run, lead to weakened populations, the government has a compelling interest. At least, that's how I would look at the argument behind focusing in on procreation.

As a sidenote, incest being taboo is a very old topic, reaching far beyond Christianity. The Greek fable of Oedipus is a good example, for one, and was forbidden in 295 in Rome. However, there are many more examples of incest being not such a big deal (ie. Europe until the 1900s, Egypt, Japan, Korea), most often appearing in royal houses wishing to "keep the blood pure", as it were.

[S7orm]

i find somehow funny that the states around the bible belt have the most rigid penalties on this particular subject (you know, adam and eve)

[Hitei]

I think the reason for honing in on procreation specifically in because it potentially represents a compelling government interest; ie. A healthy population is a diverse population, and a healthy population is a robust one. As I mentioned in my first post (page 10), the effects of inbreeding can spread through several families over a long period of time allowing for increased hereditary diseases, such as hemophilia. Because inbreeding can, in the long run, lead to weakened populations, the government has a compelling interest. At least, that's how I would look at the argument behind focusing in on procreation.

By that logic the government should ban any person with hereditary genetic defects from getting married or having sex.

[teddytous]

i find somehow funny that the state around the bible belt have the most rigid penalties on this particular subject (you know, adam and eve)

I could be wrong, but I think their the states that have had the most trouble with the issue in the past.