NCJ Number
96637
Date Published
1984
Length
26 pages
Annotation
The recent recommendations regarding the retention of incest laws from the Criminal Law Revision Committee (CLRC), an influential English agency, are largely unsatisfactory and less commendable than proposals advanced in the mid-1970's by Australian commissions.
Abstract
Incest may be a classic example of offense based on taboo rather than justifiable needs. Critics argue that the criminal offense should be abolished and new laws enacted that specifically address the sexual abuse or exploitation of those too young, disadvantaged, or inexperienced to be able to give effective consent. The Mitchell Committee in South Australia and the Australian Royal Commission on Human Relationships took this approach, focusing on keeping criminal liability within secularly justifiable grounds and protecting children against further abuse. In contrast, the Scottish Law Commission and the English CLRC recommended retaining incest as a separate offense. The CLRC report reflects an uncritical moral hostility against incest, citing the need to prevent deformed children from being born, to protect young children from sexual exploitation within the family, to prevent impairment of the child's development, and to give social agencies the law's support. The CLRC does not cover a sufficiently wide range of relationships, the age of consent for brother-sister incest is high, parent-child incest is an offense regardless of age, and incestuous conduct is confined to sexual intercourse. The Scottish and English reports show limited interest in preventing future harm from the abuser or trauma and stigma produced by the judicial process. This moralistic approach is counterproductive; the prevention of harm from incest is best achieved by remedial programs administered as an alternative to jail or prosecution. Footnotes are included.