Talk:Legality of incest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Michigan[edit]

"New Jersey and Michigan do not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 resp. 16 years of age or older." Is incorrect for Michigan, in Michigan it's been classified as criminal sexual conduct in the third degree felony with up to 15 years in prison or fourth degree misdemeanor with up to 2 years in prison and/or a $500 fine under 750.520d and 750.520e of the Michigan Penal Code since at least 1996. I've removed Michigan from the paragraph but not sure how to go about listing it in the penalties.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-01-29/news/9601290060_1_incest-criminal-sexual-conduct-michigan
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28niqbnjyxyzuewlaxnnpat5bl%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-520d
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28niqbnjyxyzuewlaxnnpat5bl%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-520e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.191.189 (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sweden[edit]

This picture about Sweden is wrong but the text is right. Incest between family members ar prohibited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.195.26 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy v. Louisiana[edit]

I removed the section on the June 25, 2008 United States Supreme Court ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana for factual errors (It's not the 'USA Supreme Court,' there aren't 54 states in the Union, etc.) and because the case was about child rape, not incest. -Ddawn23 (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a billboard[edit]

Or something like that. I removed a bit of self-promotion but left the mention of the individual in question. I'd add a [citation needed] tag if I remembered how. 66.91.223.207 (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

German incest law[edit]

Why was there some kind of case study report instead of the actual legal situation? Doesn't make any sense IMHO, instead of it I'm going to write down a translated abstract from the German Wiki article [1]. 85.181.186.210 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work[edit]

There are very few references here, and mach of it has no references at all. To take just one, Belgium - "Incest is legal in Belgium." Do we have any references and what is the definition of incest in Belgium?--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As no one has come back to me on this and we have even more ones like "Incest is legal in Belgium", without telling us what the definition of incest in Belgium or any giving any kind of references to back it up. I think we shod take all the one like it out. If no one gets back to me soon, then I shall go and do.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The same thing could be said about France, since both have similar legal codes. I think I have read correctly that French laws are considerably more tolerant about incest than other countries. [2] However, there appears to have been a more recent law in January 2010 that re-outlawed incest after more than 200 years of decriminalization. [3] ADM (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom[edit]

The criminal law in the UK is divided into that of Scotland, that of England and Wales, and that of Northern Ireland. Scotland certainly has a different law of incest and so I have amended the section accordingly).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.22.29 (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I shod have seen that before...Good work. Anyone know were we can find out about the law in Scotland, Northern Ireland or any of the British territories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Don-Jam (talkcontribs) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently doing my undergrad thesis on Scots incest law. I'll add something soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the UK section says "parent (including adoptive parent), grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece", but not cousin. Are cousins exempt, and if so, why? If not, should it be added? 86.26.228.53 (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As I read section 27 of [4] (the cited supporting source), cousins (as well as current or former step-siblings, step-parents, and foster parents) are included if persons A and B live or have lived in the same household, or A is or has been regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of B. I'll leave the question of whether or not to include this info up to the editorial judgement of other editors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
That only applies if the sexual activity is with a family member under 18. There's no law against sex between adult cousins or adult step family. Jim Michael (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Royalty and aristocrats have frequently married their cousins, including The Queen, whose husband is her second cousin once removed. Hence the UK has never outlawed cousin sex or cousin marriage. Jim Michael (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This talk page entry concerning the UK was last edited in January 2014. Nothing else since? REALLY? NB I really take issue with the statement/concept/CONTROLLING POWER FUK U that the laws in the UK are "DEVOLVED". Sounds like complete bollox to me, and I have a big pair, one of which once extended to preternaturally vast dimensions. <sigh> >MinorProphet (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Brazil[edit]

The way it says makes it look like 'everything is allowed', but that uncle/niece thing. Sure consensual sex is not a crime, but the fact is, for marriage, laws are much more strict. Marriage between 'vertical' relatives (father/mother - son/daughter - grandson/granddaughter) is forbidden on all ocassions. But 'lateral' relatives closer than uncle (siblings) is forbidden, while further than uncle (cousins) is completely unhindered. I just don't know how to word that any nicer. For references (in pt-br): http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/2002/L10406.htm (official govt site with the current Civil Code of law, Art. 1.521 says about marriage obstructions (blood-family, affinity-family (in-laws, adoption), already married people and... the surviving spouse with the person convicted of killing the other spouse (lol)). 189.123.140.7 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a source for consensual sex not being a crime in Brazil, specifically in the case of incest with consenting minors? The article claims this ("[Incest] has no criminal punishment if the involved are over the age of 14") without giving a source. Brazil would be one of very few countries allowing this. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Here: [5] "Fazer sexo com o próprio filho, pela lei brasileira, não é crime." ... "O incesto (sexo entre os pais e os filhos), se ambos são maiores e nenhum está sob ameaça ou violência, é permitido pela lei brasileira, ainda que seja um tabu moral e religioso." ("Having sex with her own son, under Brazilian law, is not a crime." ... "The incest (sex between parents and children), if both are of age and none are under threat or violence, is allowed by Brazilian law, although it is a moral and religious taboo.").201.83.148.241 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This excerpt from the article to be removed: "In Brazil, any kind of sexual interaction between consanguineous human beings, or between human beings in a familial relationship by adoption or by marriage of a parent, is regarded as incest.". There are no sources because incest is not defined in Brazilian law. There is no criminal law in Brazil about that. Sexual behavior in Brazil are only criminalized if they are with violence, which can be assumed in the case of minors. Incest is only treated in civil law as an impediment to marriage. Source: [6] "Sob o ponto de vista jurídico, o incesto não é conduta típica no Brasil, ou seja, um filho manter relações sexuais com sua mãe, ou um pai com sua filha, não constitui crime em nosso país, se estes envolvidos forem maiores de idade. Essa atitude é repugnante e moralmente "nojenta", porém nosso legislador silenciou-se a este respeito." ("From a legal point of view, incest is not typical behavior in Brazil, ie a child to have sex with his mother, or a father with his daughter, is not a crime in our country, if these involved are of legal age. This attitude is disgusting and morally "disgusting" but our legislature is silent about that."). 201.83.148.241 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

India[edit]

The site:http://doctor.ndtv.com/ used as refrence seems fishy

Rhode Island[edit]

does anyone have access to this reference that purports that incest is legal in rhode island? http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE15/15-1/index.HTM appears to disagree. 108.206.152.174 (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The NDAA has an article on incest laws: Rhode Island is marked as allowing it. http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/criminal_incest%20chart%20_2010.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jathara (talkcontribs) 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The article says that "In the United States the District of Columbia and every state, except Rhode Island, have some form of codified incest prohibition." The NDAA article is clear that Rhode Island does have such laws. They are looser for Jewish communities than for the remainder of the state, but they still exist and are enforced. Likewise the article says that "Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989". While that may or may not be true, the fact that they do currently have incest laws makes the statement at best highly misleading. 108.206.152.174 (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

United States Laws[edit]

The United States Laws section ends with the following: UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has questioned the rationale behind laws prohibiting incest, at least as they apply to sex between adults.[1]

I really hate cliffhangers like that. It tells us that someone has questioned the rationale behind the laws, but says nothing about what was said or what the outcome was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.193.12 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The United States sentencing section is incredibly inaccurate. Life imprisonment is not a punishment for incest in Georgia (10-30 years, or 25-50 if minor), Alabama (2-20, or 10-20 if minor) or Mississippi (5 years and/or a fine of 500 dollars), and those are just the three I checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.90.150 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did you "check" those states? If you have sources for your claims, you can just correct the list yourself (or give the sources here and I'll do it). Alabama and Mississippi are unreferenced and may well be wrong, but Georgia has a source for using life imprisonment. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
─────────────────────────I agree with the characterization of the info in the article on sentencing as "incredibly inaccurate" -- what a mess. I've just made a couple of edits to remove two {{dubious}} tags, but I'm afraid that didn't improve things much. I see after having made those edits that the article speaks of "maximal penalties by state" and the sources on which I relied in that case specify only minimum penalties (I see that this October 22, 2014 edit inserted the word "maximal" as applying to all the listed states). This information needs to be audited state by state. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
─────────────────────────I'll make a start below and request others to contribute and/or to suggest a different approach (perhaps this info should be in a summary style detail article) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
─────────────────────────I've removed the partially completed table from here. I'm going to work on creation of an article tentatively to be titled Laws regarding incest in the United States. When that is done, I'll link it as a {{main}} article from the United States section of this article.
─────────────────────────I have finished the initial version of that detail article, designated it as a {{Main}} article for this section, and WP:BOLDly edited most detail which is covered in that article out of this section. Please improve this section and the new detail article as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Why no info on Middle East?[edit]

Why no info on these laws in the Middle East? 86.164.246.89 (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:DIY Boogerpatrol (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
What a stupid answer. I want the information because I don't already know it, so of course I can't add it myself. 86.164.246.89 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I did some quick googling. I didn't find enough to make me want to add to the article on this subtopic, but you might want to take a look at [7] [8], [9], [10], [11]. The WP article Cousin marriage in the Middle East is somewhat related. On Wikiislam, there's an article on Cousin Marriage in Islam. Some of those sources may be unreliable; the wiki sources are unreliable by definition, though they may contain cites of reliable sources. Also, there's [12]. If you research further and come up with some useful information supported by reliable sources, please consider adding the info to the article and citing the sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Australia[edit]

Regarding the details of what constitutes incest, the line: "In all jurisdictions except New South Wales incest is sexual intercourse between a “lineal ancestor” and a “lineal descendant”." seems to imply that, except for NSW, other areas do not consider sibling/half-sibling relationships as incest. A quick google search finds this to not be true (using Vic as an example):

"(4) A person must not take part in an act of sexual penetration with a person whom he or she knows to be his or her sister, half-sister, brother or half-brother." [Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s44.html]

Vic: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s44.html

SA: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262/s72.html

ACT: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s62.html

NSW: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s78a.html

QLD: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s222.html

(no time to find other states/territories)

Thus, I think the legislation of each state needs to be checked and this section needs to be reworded.

-- Highwind888, the Fuko Master 11:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If the first sentence of the Australia section ("In Australia, under federal law, sexual conduct between consenting adults (18 years of age or older) is legal,") is true without qualifications, incest between consenting adults is legal regardless of conflicting state laws. So do we need to mention these unapplicable laws so prominently? Or is the federal law claim false? The referenced Human Rights Act only states that "Sexual conduct involving only consenting adults acting in private is not to be subject, by or under any law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, to any arbitrary interference with privacy " - what does "arbitrary interference" mean here? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of image[edit]

In order not to deem the whole article as incomplete or inaccurate, I temporally removed the image of the world map with the law status, until such time is complete and accurate. Please see the talk page of the image for detailed justification. Wolfymoza (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It would help discussion if you provided a link to the removed file or its talk page here. I suppose you mean this? (Wikimedia has its own talk page for the file, which gives no evidence of errors.) Rather than remove it permanently, I would request a correction of the file at the image help desk... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine law on incest[edit]

Ukraine is listed as a country where incest is illegal. Yet the cited article 155 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code deals with the issue of sex with immature person. Paragraph 2 basically clarifies the article and sets stricter punishment if a crime was committed by a parent or guardian. As such, the issue of incestuous sex between consent adults seems to be not clarified in the code at all.

Could someone double-check my findings and maybe fix the corresponding section?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Laws regarding incest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: TBD. Redundant. See Talk:Legal_status_of_psilocybin_mushrooms#Requested_move_8_June_2017 В²C 18:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)



Laws regarding incestLegality of incest – Several different formats exist for the titles of articles regarding the legality of a particular thing. I believe that all of these should be consistent with each other and that that format should be "Legality of X" (instead of "Legal status of X, Laws regarding X, etc.) Others have noted that "legality" is a more common term when referring to whether something is legal or illegal than "legal status". Michipedian (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Laws regarding incest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)