| |
|
I have just been reading about the proposed reform of the UK law on sex offences. One of the offences that is proposed for reform is incest. Which got me thinking.
As it stands, and as I understand it, the present offence of incest consists of sexual intercourse (penile vaginal penetration) between persons within a specified degree of consanguinity. The degree of consanguinity is, for men - grand-daughter, daughter, sister or mother (lawful wedlock is not a factor), and for women over the age of 16 - grandfather, father, brother or son. "Brother" and "sister" includes half-brother and half-sister. There is also a mental element to the offence, namely that the person "knows" the other person to be father, mother, brother etc. etc.
For the purpose of this thread, I want to focus on adult consensual incest.
It seems to me that one basis of the law relating to incest is eugenic, but that is not the end of the story. For example, if a man (25 years old for argument's sake) has had a vasectomy, wears 2 condoms, and has penile/vaginal sex with his twin sister, who is medically proven to be unable to bear children, they are still committing the offence of incest if they know of their consanguinity. But on the other hand, if they have anal or oral sex, no criminal offence is committed. Also, the law does not prohibit sexual intercourse by or with a person with a serious hereditary condition where the genetic risks, should conception occur, may well be higher than with blood relations. More puzzling still - sex between grandmother and grandson appears not to be unlawful (though as both of mine are dead, it would be - but not incest.)
The bare bones of the government's proposals for reform in this regard appear on page 27 of this pdf document, Protecting the Public. You will see that there are plans to widen the scope of incest to cover other types of familial relationships (adoption, fostering, quasi-marital relationships etc.) Those proposals to me seem sound, desirable and welcome.
It is the second proposal which is more thought-provoking. Well, less the proposal than the rationale for maintaining a type of offence that appears to be unlawful under the existing legislation. From the Home Office document, para 59: "The second offence, Prohibited adult sexual relationships will cover sexual activity between certain blood relatives, as defined. Despite involving consensual adults it is generally believed that all such behaviour is wrong and should be covered by the criminal law. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that some adult familial relationships are the result of long-term grooming by an older family member and the criminal law needs to protect adults from abuse in such circumstances."
I have 2 concerns: 1) criminalising something because "it is generally believed that all such behaviour is wrong and should be covered by the criminal law" is EXACTLY the same thinking behind the pre-1967 criminalisation of the "unnatural acts" of "buggers," and is an approach rejected by the widely accepted Wolfenden report; and 2) I am disturbed by the notion that someone should be criminalised for behaviour stemming from abuse they received at the hands of another.
It's a strange one; if you had asked me for a quick gut reaction yesterday, before I had given it any thought, on whether adult, consensual incestuous sex should be a criminal offence I would have given you a swift "yes." The more I think about it, the muddier the issues become. So, your thoughts. What is the basis for the criminalisation of incest between consenting adults? Blunkett says most people think it is wrong (presumably on moral grounds), are you one of those people? Perhaps more generally, what are your views on the law as moral enforcer when it comes to your (and others') behaviour in the bedroom/public lavatory/windy common/fetish club? |
|
|
