Thursday, July 02, 2009

This should not be a matter for the law

The NZ Herald reports how the Auckland District Court is hearing a case of a woman who was almost 30 meeting a man who was probably (but not certainly) her father who was in his 40s, and having a sexual relationship, is not something that should be a matter for the criminal justice system.
So it may disgust many, it may offend people of many religions, but it is a victimless crime - this is NOT a case of exploitation or force, just two consenting adults. It appears to be a more a case of the girl's mother being upset, which is frankly not a reason for criminal prosecution.
So here's an idea, a simple change to the Crimes Act so that incest is not an offence if both parties are over 18 and consent.
Of course we all know no MP will take this up, because of fear of being branded perverted and having strange priorities, but then again that's how many thought in the 1960s and 1970s when consenting adult men were thrown in prison for sexual activities with each other. Very few are prosecuted inappropriately under this law, but surely it is time to tidy up this nonsense and ensure none do. It ruins the lives of people who make misguided decisions, and most of all becomes a weapon for upset partners or relatives to use against those who are acting as consenting adults.
I'd prefer an omnibus bill to remove all victimless crimes, after all why should people be thrown in prison for this?


Anonymous said...

Correct because it really is nobody else's business.
Far to much minding everyone else's business by too many people with nothing much to do.

KG said...


Mark.V. said...

So long as they ensure no children result I have no problem with the two being in a relationship.

jarbury said...

Yay I can agree with you on something Liberty!

What a bloody waste of time and money this is.

Unjust said...

Am I Guilty...If I were standing in a bank wearing camouflage clothing, holding an empty satchel, when a robbery took place?

If I knew one of the robbers, 10,20 or 30 years agao?

If I leased the premises next door to the bank and I had a power drill, breaking equiment, crowbars and cutting equipment, the tools of my trade?

If no evidence of my connection to the robbers equipment, vehicles or person could be found?

I have been found guilty by presumption, coincidence and without ANY PROOF of connection...

I have been found guilty by association!

Madeleine said...

The consenting adults argument was last seen in the civil unions debate where Matt and I spent a lot of time pointing out what it entailed - precisely what you are talking about here.

Of course it does not stop here, the argument commits one to believing that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want - whether its shagging their relatives, shagging the dead, or shagging the same sex; the argument equally follows for consensual pedophilia, where the parents consent for an adult to have sex with their child.

For me, any line of argument that entails things that are this intuitively flawed is evidence of a flawed line of argument.

While I agree that adults should not be nanny-stated into moral behaviour, there is more to the ethics of morality than just consent.

Libertyscott said...

Madeleine: You know better than that. You talk of consenting adults, but consensual pedophilia is a contradiction. Parents have no right to treat their child as property, so this is a nonsense just as it is a nonsense for a man to consent for another man to have sex with his wife, whether she wants to or not. It is NOT the same as adult relatives.

You may make arguments about morality around it. However, it is not the job of the criminal law to intervene when there is no victim.

If adult relatives have sexual relations, then why is it anybody else's business? The only two reasons anyone tends to object is "yuck" to which the answer is "nobody said you had to do it", and "what about inbreeding", to which the answer is "should the law regulate who reproduces with whom"?

You might make a stronger case for those with inherited congenital disabilities being prosecuted for breeding, than relatives. However, this case was not about it - it was a distressed mother taking vengeance against her daughter and the father of the daugther. Few have the criminal law to use as a tool for such a vile purpose.

Anonymous said...

If they both want to conduct their lives like that it doesn't really have anything to do with anyone else, however the woman in this article tired of her relationship with her father/partner and chose to pursue a married man with two children while her partner was dying of cancer. This is something wrong with that.

Anonymous said...

Didn't you like my post Liberty Scott. What is show is this woman is a predator and deserve everything that she gets. She has assisting in destroying a marriage, a family and the lives of two wonderful children who will never be able to forgive their father for what he and she did to their mother. She is the worst kind of woman, sleeping with another man when her so called soul mate and the man she loved on many levels and whose love was deeper then anything was dying of cancer. She is a morally corrupt person who doesn't think of anyone else except for herself and what she wants. She needs to re-evaluate her life and realise that eventually karma will come back to bite her fair and square in the ass. No one cares that she slept with her biological father but the fact that she could f.... another woman's husband whilst the man was dying and the other woman didn't have any idea what was going one is enough to tell people she has no morals at all. Put this comment up for all to see, I dare you!!!! She doesn't deserve the support that you have given her.

Libertyscott said...

Anonymous: The criminal law cared about one thing, the alleged incest.

It isn't a crime for people to have sex with people outside marriage. Nor should it be. I don't want a state Taliban going around incarcerating people for what they do in their personal relationships.

You're the misogynist here. The man is just as culpable as the woman.

You may judge her, but it is not for the state to do anything about it. It is no one else's business but the parties concerned.

Anonymous said...

Not it isn't a crime to have sex with people outside of marriage, however it does attest to the morals of people. Believe me I am not condoning or excusing the man either but it does show this woman's is the morally upstanding person you make her out to be.