Active Users:354 Time:04/07/2025 06:34:42 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Re: Some personal opinions in the form of answers. Tim Send a noteboard - 12/01/2011 11:01:50 PM
Tim was going to ask this the other day (he's just had an exam for criminal law) but forgot so I have decided to do it for him.

1) Do you think (consensual) incest should be illegal? Please give your reason.

Assuming that the participants are all of age (which is a necessary predicate of consent), I think that incest should not be illegal. However, incest which leads to a pregnancy and birth of a child should allow for the child (or a guardian on the child's behalf) to sue the incestuous parents for damages for genetic disorders, or for the state to imprison the parents if they were unable to pay.


Have you had what we call "wrongful life" cases in the USA? By this I mean where a child sues the parent for bringing him/her into the world, claiming that no life at all is better than a disabled life. If so, what happened? Our courts have rejected that argument.

2) What about necrophilia?

I think it should be legal. Inanimate objects such as corpses are simply property, and human corpses are property that does not belong to anyone and must be disposed of by law. Sex with an animal corpse might lead to valid claims for damage to property (for example, a cow that was to be sold to a rendering facility but was damaged during the sexual act), however. Necrophilia with human corpses could in certain circumstances give rise to civil lawsuits for intentional infliction of emotional distress (for example, having sex with a corpse and sending photos of the act to the grieving relatives).


Interesting that you call corpses property. In Scots law a corpse can't be owned. (I think this comes from Roman law, on which our property law is based). Neither is it a person. Did you really mean "property", or just "not a person"? Who owns a corpse in New York law?

I'm not sure that necrophilia is a crime in Scots law – I've just completed a course in criminal law and it wasn't mentioned anywhere – but there is a crime called "violation of sepulchres".

While I personally find both sexual acts to be repellent, I cannot find any legitimate reason to make either illegal.


Precisely why I asked. I challenge anyone to find a justification for criminalising consensual incest and necrophilia that doesn't also cover homosexuality.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.

—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.

—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
Reply to message
Some legal questions. Rebekah - 12/01/2011 06:16:23 PM 657 Views
Yes to both Maria - 12/01/2011 06:31:14 PM 413 Views
Incest isn't necessarily about children. Rebekah - 12/01/2011 06:33:20 PM 385 Views
Re: Incest isn't necessarily about children. Macharius - 12/01/2011 06:57:10 PM 378 Views
Incest with children is outside the scope of the question posed. Tom - 12/01/2011 08:38:39 PM 356 Views
Who brought children into it? Tim - 12/01/2011 11:04:12 PM 359 Views
No and depends snoopcester - 12/01/2011 06:44:02 PM 405 Views
Re: No and depends Macharius - 12/01/2011 07:01:35 PM 360 Views
Re: No and depends snoopcester - 13/01/2011 10:08:15 AM 362 Views
Re: No and depends Macharius - 13/01/2011 01:47:54 PM 358 Views
Re: No and depends snoopcester - 13/01/2011 03:01:42 PM 317 Views
No and yes, because of the issue of consent. Joel - 12/01/2011 07:11:31 PM 346 Views
Only people can provide consent. Corpses are not people, just rotting meat. *NM* Tom - 12/01/2011 08:40:02 PM 151 Views
I suppose that's fair, but I wouldn't try selling it to the family. Joel - 12/01/2011 08:56:30 PM 365 Views
You're confusing two separate issues. Tom - 12/01/2011 09:01:55 PM 366 Views
I think the trauma to the familys could (and probably should) be considered criminal as well. Joel - 12/01/2011 09:07:57 PM 329 Views
How? Why? Tom - 12/01/2011 09:40:32 PM 372 Views
I thought the rights of next to kin were pretty generally recognized. Joel - 13/01/2011 09:54:39 PM 314 Views
And I certainly don't think consensual incest should brand someone a sexual predator for life. Joel - 12/01/2011 07:20:32 PM 401 Views
Some personal opinions in the form of answers. Tom - 12/01/2011 08:37:25 PM 389 Views
Re: Some personal opinions in the form of answers. Tim - 12/01/2011 11:01:50 PM 348 Views
Of course a corpse is property. Tom - 13/01/2011 05:27:34 AM 369 Views
Apparently it isn't, at least in California. Tim - 13/01/2011 09:35:29 AM 422 Views
Strangely Camilla - 13/01/2011 07:13:17 PM 293 Views
consensual necrophilia? moondog - 12/01/2011 09:40:44 PM 358 Views
Re: consensual necrophilia? Rebekah - 12/01/2011 09:43:40 PM 334 Views
no to both random thoughts - 12/01/2011 09:43:28 PM 357 Views
I'm afraid I'm struggling to see what your actual argument is. Tim - 12/01/2011 11:14:29 PM 354 Views
My argument is that society has the right to say some things are just wrong random thoughts - 13/01/2011 12:12:01 AM 345 Views
Hm? nossy - 12/01/2011 11:07:19 PM 365 Views
Well said (on both) *NM* ironclad - 12/01/2011 11:22:08 PM 159 Views
Interesting... globug0822 - 13/01/2011 12:16:50 AM 354 Views
yes to both *NM* Aisha - 13/01/2011 06:21:39 AM 139 Views
Re: Some legal questions. Novo - 13/01/2011 08:33:18 AM 358 Views
Re: Some legal questions. Darth_Katie - 13/01/2011 07:06:04 PM 366 Views
hhmmmm mick - 14/01/2011 03:55:38 AM 339 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes