Guilty pleasures or conscious immoral decisions you take?

[The Brain]

Sigh. You are famously dense, CC, so I have tried to be patient. You want my honest impression? My impression is that you are too thick to understand this discussion at any interesting level.

Says the guy who thinks its ok for a father to screw his daughter.

One of my few guilty pleasures.

[crazy canuck]

Sigh. You are famously dense, CC, so I have tried to be patient. You want my honest impression? My impression is that you are too thick to understand this discussion at any interesting level.

Says the guy who thinks its ok for a father to screw his daughter.

One of my few guilty pleasures.

[garbon]

It has to do with the power imbalance in the relationship.  If you do not understand the power imbalance between child and parent then there is little I can do to explain it to you.

While I hear that - is it really proper to suggest that in all cases there will be a power imbalance in the relationship?

[Josephus]

I guess what CC is saying is the same sort of rule applies with adult-adult incest as with, say a priest or a doctor and his patient.

[garbon]

Confidentiality?

[Ideologue]

Confidentiality?

1/2.  Check you Federal Rules of Evidence.

[garbon]

No thanks.

[Ideologue]

Good call.

Anyway, does any state criminalize physician-patient sexual relations?  It's probably against the ethical rules and thus may lead to professional sanctions (I know it will under the MRPC for attorneys, excepting preexisting relationships and iirc until one year after the atty-client relationship has ended), but I dunno about criminal laws.

[crazy canuck]

It has to do with the power imbalance in the relationship.  If you do not understand the power imbalance between child and parent then there is little I can do to explain it to you.

While I hear that - is it really proper to suggest that in all cases there will be a power imbalance in the relationship?

The assumption is yes.  Is it true in 100% of cases?  Probably not.  But we have laws to protect people in the vast majority of cases rather then risk protectijg them because of outliers.

[Malthus]

Good call.

Anyway, does any state criminalize physician-patient sexual relations?  It's probably against the ethical rules and thus may lead to professional sanctions (I know it will under the MRPC for attorneys, excepting preexisting relationships and iirc until one year after the atty-client relationship has ended), but I dunno about criminal laws.

Depends. Minnesota for example criminalizes "psychotherapists" having sex with clients (and priests with penitents).

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.344&year=2006

[garbon]

It has to do with the power imbalance in the relationship.  If you do not understand the power imbalance between child and parent then there is little I can do to explain it to you.

While I hear that - is it really proper to suggest that in all cases there will be a power imbalance in the relationship?

The assumption is yes.  Is it true in 100% of cases?  Probably not.  But we have laws to protect people in the vast majority of cases rather then risk protectijg them because of outliers.

But why? Once a "child" is financially and socially independent - where's the power? Are we thinking the parent would be emotionally abusing/blackmailing them?

[crazy canuck]

But why? Once a "child" is financially and socially independent - where's the power? Are we thinking the parent would be emotionally abusing/blackmailing them?

Yes.  The main issue is whether a child can be psychololgically indendent of their parent.

It is easy for Brain to say "I could easily tell my parents no".  But of course Brain didnt grow up in a family where parents wanted to have sex with their children.  Animals yes but not their kids... (or maybe that was the confusion). 

[Malthus]

But why? Once a "child" is financially and socially independent - where's the power? Are we thinking the parent would be emotionally abusing/blackmailing them?

The notion is that, at least according to the assumption, most folks hold their parents is special esteem even when they are not financially dependant on them, thus making it impossible for them *not* to be subject to emotional pressure or dependency (whether this amounts to "abuse and blackmail" or not).

As a matter of practicality, where parent-child incest develops, I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of cases involve the parent having sex with the child before they moved out. 

It is the same sort of arguments as are made about age of consent laws - yes, there may be the occasional 13 year old who demonstrates super maturity and thus in a perfect world ought to be able to legally consent if this could be perfectly known; but the laws cannot be drafted with this outlier in mind.

[Ideologue]

It is the same sort of arguments as are made about age of consent laws - yes, there may be the occasional 13 year old who demonstrates super maturity and thus in a perfect world ought to be able to legally consent if this could be perfectly known; but the laws cannot be drafted with this outlier in mind.

I alluded to this earlier, but I wonder if stat rape cases are so common that they could not support an individualized inquiry, as opposed to the mechanical application of a bright-line rule.

You could probably keep a bright-line rule for really young kids (maybe 14 and below?) because it would be an outlying case as you say, and for such cases we may not want to replace the element of age--trivial to prove--with an element of lack of capacity--potentially difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  But in general it would be far fairer and be more in accordance with notions of due process and the fairness of law.

(Tangentially: at the very Goddamned least, not make it a strict liability crime.  Crime should have some sort of mental element, even if it's only negligence.)

[crazy canuck]

I alluded to this earlier, but I wonder if stat rape cases are so common that they could not support an individualized inquiry, as opposed to the mechanical application of a bright-line rule.

That would violate the need for certainty in the law.