Okay guys, got a big one for you here. This story comes from Montana, and it’s pretty disgusting as you’ll soon see. These laws allow underage persons to be held as legally culpable for sleeping with their parents as the parents themselves. While I strongly believe that consensual incest between adults should not be a criminal offence (actually, pointing that out is one of the main purposes of this blog), having sexual encounters with an underage person should be, whether that minor is related to you or not. Okay, let’s jump in shall we:
Lawmakers will review a loophole in Montana’s incest law that allows 16- and 17-year-olds to be held as complicit as their parents.
Well I should hope so, seeing as these particular cases involve minors.
The Montana Supreme Court suggested the examination in upholding the conviction of a man sentenced to life in prison for plying his 17-year-old daughter with methamphetamine and having sex with her in 2013.
Well then, that particular case is disgusting because somebody who is high as a kite wouldn’t have been able to consent even if she was over 18, in the same way that somebody could be too drunk to consent. This is clearly a case of RAPE, and his actions would have been illegal had they been committed against an unrelated young lady.
He sought to have his conviction overturned, saying jurors should have been cautioned about trusting her testimony because, he argued, she could have been charged as an accessory.
I’d love to know where that warped logic comes from. How could she have been charged as an accessory when she was high from the drugs he gave her? This is probably the reason why the conviction remains in place.
Montana law does not allow a person to be found guilty based solely on the testimony of someone who could be considered an accessory to the same crime, unless that testimony is corroborated. The defendant also argued the state did not have enough corroborating evidence.
Except that clearly a jury thought otherwise. The idea that corroborating evidence should be needed before a conviction of any crime is sound, because it would reduce the number of wrongful convictions. That said, the crime here should not be labelled as incest, it should be labelled as date rape of a minor, which is exactly what this disgusting spectacle was. Calling what is clearly a rape case ‘incest’ is actually insulting, degrading and offensive to all those who are in or who have been in consensual incestuous relationships.
In its ruling last week, the state Supreme Court said the daughter could not have been charged as an accessory, but as a willing participant over the state’s legal age of consent — 16 — she could have been charged with committing incest herself. Prosecutors opted not to charge her.
Huh? I thought we had already established that this was a case of the father drugging her and raping her, how could she possibly have been charged either as an accessory or a willing participant? Furthermore, even if incest was legal (as it should be), the man responsible for this would still be behind bars for committing a rape.
If she is guilty of ANYTHING it could be that she took the drugs willingly, but even that we do not know whether she did, or whether he slipped them to her. Either way, he raped her while she was high and unable to consent which is a far worse offence than taking drugs.
The court also ruled the state provided adequate other evidence, including witnesses who testified that the father had given the girl drugs, that the girl and her father shared a bed, pillow and blanket, and that the girl told other people about the sexual activity.
If it was consensual then she would have known to keep her mouth shut. Those of us who have had consensual incest do not want to be in trouble ourselves or want to get our family partners into trouble. If she was going around telling people, then that to me sounds like a cry for help.
The Associated Press is not identifying the man to avoid identifying his daughter as a victim of a sex crime.
Exactly, she’s a rape victim, that’s what I was saying all along.
It is believed to be the first time a defendant tried to use the apparent loophole in the 1983 law, his appellate attorney, Colin Stephens, said Friday.
well by all means close the loophole, but for the love of God legalize incest now and prosecute people like this bloke for the offence of RAPE. Don’t drag the word incest into it.
“Applied to consenting adults or to siblings, the statute properly treats both actors in an incestuous relationship as responsible for the offense,” Baker wrote. “And the statute rightly makes a stepson’s or stepdaughter’s consent ineffective if the child is under 18.
Well, between consenting adults (or siblings close in age) it shouldn’t be a criminal matter in the first place, it’s a waste of state resources and is in fact harmful and cruel. We need to lose the incestophobia and gain some common sense here.
“But when, as here, a father has sexual intercourse with his underage natural daughter, her consent to the act makes her his partner in crime.”
Why would the law be different for natural children than for stepchildren? That doesn’t make any sense. Also, in this case it wasn’t consensual incest, it was drugged up rape.
Democratic Rep. Jenny Eck of Helena, a member of the Legislature’s Law and Justice Interim Committee, said Friday she hadn’t heard about the apparent loophole but would raise it at the committee’s August meeting.
“I think it would be something that we could pretty easily deal with in the (2017 legislative) session,” she said. “I can’t imagine there would be anybody on the other side of this.”
The man’s appeal noted that Alabama law specifically says no one can be convicted of incest based on the uncorroborated testimony of the other person. Montana prosecutors pointed to a 2001 California Supreme Court ruling that “a child under 18 who has an incestuous sexual relationship with an adult is a victim, not a perpetrator of the incest, and this conclusion remains valid even when the child consents to the sex.”
The crime should be sexual activity with a minor, it doesn’t matter if the minor is a relative or not. It’s articles like this one that make everyone think about incest in terms of sexual abuse of minors. The particular case they were on about, in which a father drugged his daughter in order to have sex with her IS a case of sexual abuse clearly, we can all agree on that, but again, using the word ‘incest’ to describe something so horrible it is something that I find disturbing.
Courts in Idaho, Iowa and Arkansas have also ruled that incest cases require corroborating testimony, but Montana authorities noted those rulings were made in the early 1900s.
North Carolina law allows people ages 16 and older to be held criminally responsible for their involvement in an incestuous relationship.
if they’re both above the age of consent in their state, and they are both consenting then it shouldn’t even be a criminal matter. But again, this in particular case that sparked off the discussion the man would have been charged with rape, plain and simple.
Nonetheless, the Montana Legislature, “either intentionally or unintentionally, has left an ambiguity in the law in the rare circumstance involving incest and ‘victims’ over the age of consent,” wrote Stephens, the father’s appellate attorney.
“The Legislature may wish to take a fresh look at the incest statute to address this paradoxical result,” Justice Baker wrote.
Your putting the word victims in markers means that you recognise that sometimes incest is consensual. If you’re persecuting consenting adults then that is immoral and has to stop… and one day it will, our movement will see to that. You cannot oppress us forever, because we do not accept our oppression as valid.
If somebody is raping a family member, then call it what it is, rape, please don’t call it incest. It creates a confusion in the public mind where they confuse people like us who have had wonderful and fulfilling loving relationships with our relatives, with monsters like this guy who drugged and raped his daughter. There is no comparison or similarity between the two. Rape is rape, and consensual sex is consensual sex. We agree that rapists belong in jail, but leave consenting adults alone.