Mother-Son Incest Case

[Sheilbh]

That's definitely a factor and especially for that bridging generation. I mean Bangladeshi politics is an important factor in East London politics in the Bengali areas.

I think there's cultural and economic factors too. As I say it looks like the Muslim community is following the Indian/Jewish model of integration which was integration into the middle class. So Irish immigrants and Caribbean Black Brits moved and integrated and started inter-marrying into their local, working class, community. The Jewish and Indian communities didn't, generally the kids that went to university integrated and inter-married straight into the middle class.

Signs are that the Muslim community is following a similar trajectory so they're now mainly doing well educationally - there are exceptions in the North - and inter-marriage has doubled in the past ten years (there are now 'halal' interfaith ceremonies from some imams). It's not yet near the level of the US (it's about a quarter the rate in the US) but is a pretty good signifier of integration.

I think because of cultural conservatism and the key link to the home country - arranged marriage especially in the Pakistani community - has slowed the pace.

[viper37]

Eh, I'm okay with the state prohibiting things that are so against the broad social morality.

like homosexuality?

Not anymore.

depends where.  Do you think it is socially acceptable in the Deep US South?  In Saudi Arabia?  In Nigeria?  In Russia?

So by broad social morality (which presumably we were talking about the west), you think of one are of the US and some backward countries?

Just about anywhere in the world, really.  If we outlaw things simply based on broad social morality, as it was done in the past, lots of things would still be criminalized.  I just don't think it's a good standard to decide something.

[crazy canuck]

Try as I might, unless you think eugenics is a great idea, I can't think of a single good reason why law should intervene in this case.

Been over this ground every time you shill for incest.  Parents have control over their children.  The law ought to err on the side of caution to ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children.

[Martinus]

Try as I might, unless you think eugenics is a great idea, I can't think of a single good reason why law should intervene in this case.

Been over this ground every time you shill for incest.  Parents have control over their children.  The law ought to err on the side of caution to ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children.

Only that none of these reasons apply in this case.

[garbon]

Try as I might, unless you think eugenics is a great idea, I can't think of a single good reason why law should intervene in this case.

Been over this ground every time you shill for incest.  Parents have control over their children.  The law ought to err on the side of caution to ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children.

Only that none of these reasons apply in this case.

I'm not sure our government should waste time in amending laws to apply perfectly for such unicorn cases.

But that said, I also think there should be discretion used on whether or not we prosecute certain crimes. Here it seems like the only reason to prosecute is because it is nominally a crime and it is icky. I don't think any claim of greater good can apply to this case.

[grumbler]

Been over this ground every time you shill for incest.  Parents have control over their children.  The law ought to err on the side of caution to ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children.

Interestingly, the New Mexico incest law doesn't refer to control at all, only degree of blood relationship.  One can have sex with adult stepchildren that one has had control over when they were minors, so the law does not "ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children," it simply prevents icky genetic pairings. i suspect that yours is a post hoc rationalization of the law.

[Valmy]

I'm not sure our government should waste time in amending laws to apply perfectly for such unicorn cases.

But that said, I also think there should be discretion used on whether or not we prosecute certain crimes. Here it seems like the only reason to prosecute is because it is nominally a crime and it is icky. I don't think any claim of greater good can apply to this case.

Yeah that is my thought as well. The prosecutor should have let this go. The law was not intended for cases like this and the whole reason we have human prosecutors is for judgement calls like this.

[The Brain]

The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.

[garbon]

The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.

Laws are applied unevenly all the time.

[The Brain]

The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.

Laws are applied unevenly all the time.

And a state that applies a law which leaves no room for uneven application unevenly is acting in an unsound manner.

[The Minsky Moment]

Interestingly, the New Mexico incest law doesn't refer to control at all, only degree of blood relationship.  One can have sex with adult stepchildren that one has had control over when they were minors, so the law does not "ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children," it simply prevents icky genetic pairings. i suspect that yours is a post hoc rationalization of the law.

That's New Mexico but many other states explicitly cover adoptive relationships as well.

It's not unusual for state criminal codes to have their origins in codifications of common law defined crimes or ad hoc legislative enactments over centuries, and then just to stay put by legislative inertia.  That's what happened in New Mexico - there was a compilation in the 1950s, a big codification project in the 1960s and many of the criminal statutes have been untouched since then, including that one.

[Malthus]

The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.

Laws are applied unevenly all the time.

Separating the sheep from the goats, as it were.

[And the Brain from either.  ]

[grumbler]

That's New Mexico but many other states explicitly cover adoptive relationships as well.

I saw that.  I just noted that the New mexico law cannot currently be justified as being one that prevents an abuse of the parent-child relationship, because it refers only to biological relationship, and exclude adoptive ones.  I fully support laws that prevent the sexual abuse of parent-child relationship (or any relationship of authority).  I don't think Mew Mexico's law, as written, does that.

[DontSayBanana]

The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.

Prosecutorial discretion has always been a thing.  There are cases that might clearly be a crime according to the definition of the law, but it would not be worth the time, the expenditure, or the controversy to bring an indictment.  It sounds like the prosecutor should have recognized this as one of those cases.

[The Brain]

The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.

Prosecutorial discretion has always been a thing.  There are cases that might clearly be a crime according to the definition of the law, but it would not be worth the time, the expenditure, or the controversy to bring an indictment.  It sounds like the prosecutor should have recognized this as one of those cases.

If the lawmaker wishes exceptions to be made then the law will be designed to allow them. I think the rule of law is superior to Putin style selective application.