Legalize...

[C0ckney]

This is basically the same argument made against prostitution.

not really. the kind of frameworks that could exist for legalised prostitution are not the same as those that exist within families.

[Sava]

As for the OP, I guess it depends how you frame the issue. Does making any of those things an issue for the criminal justice system improve the situation?

If crack were legal tomorrow, I wouldn't use it. Would any of you? Does putting addicts in jail help society? No. It doesn't.

By itself, intoxication causes no harm to other people. All other crimes (whether committed by crackhead or not) are still crimes. If substance abuse factors into the crime, I think individuals should be compelled to seek treatment. Aside from this, we start to get into a discussion about the merits of retributive justice.

I would support the legalization (or decriminalization) of all of the things listed. In the case of incest, I think exploitation can be punished via existing statutory rape laws. It starts to get a little muddy when we talk about instances of pregnancy. However, if incest were made legal, would you go have sex with your mom/sister/daughter/cousin? Is the fear of legal consequences currently holding back a flood of people just itching to engage in incest?

No.

[C0ckney]

I would support the legalization (or decriminalization) of all of the things listed. In the case of incest, I think exploitation can be punished via existing statutory rape laws.

that's one type of exploitation, but there are many types that can exist. you could have a situation where a one of the parties has learning difficulties for example (although of course this does not in itself, make it an abusive situation).

it seems very difficult to me for the law to get inside, and provide proper regulation for all those kind of family situations, which are almost unlimited in number and complexity. so i think that a blanket ban, even though this is a very blunt instrument that will sometimes criminalise consensual behaviour, is the best option, to ensure the protection of the vulnerable.

[Lorizael]

not really. the kind of frameworks that could exist for legalised prostitution are not the same as those that exist within families.

There are already laws against rape, child abuse, etc.

(Edit: Didn't see Sava's post.)

[C0ckney]

could you explain a little further what your point is then, becasue it seems to me that the two contexts, and problems within them, are very different.

[Lorizael]

To me it seems that in both cases, the problem arises from ensuring consent. Prostitution is readily rendered into a business, which makes regulation more or less straightforward. Incest doesn't have that framework, as you say. But a ban on incest is primarily going to overlap with a ban on child abuse. Where it doesn't, what harm is it preventing?

[Sava]

I believe there are existing laws regarding the exploitation of mentally challenged individuals that would apply.

But despite my permissive attitude, this is not an issue that I consider to be a high priority.

[C0ckney]

To me it seems that in both cases, the problem arises from ensuring consent. Prostitution is readily rendered into a business, which makes regulation more or less straightforward. Incest doesn't have that framework, as you say. But a ban on incest is primarily going to overlap with a ban on child abuse. Where it doesn't, what harm is it preventing?

i see it rather differently. the main problems with prostitution are (in my opinion): that sex workers suffer from violence, both from pimps and johns and; that they are often employed in exploitative circumstances (trafficked workers, passports taken, forced to work to pay off a never ending debt etc.). there are also related problems to do with sexual health and addiction. in other words, they are problems primarily caused by prohibition. pimps simply wouldn't exist if prostitution were legal. sex workers would be able to report violence from clients to the police without fearing of arrest or other retribution. having a proper legal framework would help to prevent employment in exploitative circumstances (well aside from the inherently exploitative nature of employment within a capitalist society, but that's another thread...).

legalisation and the subsequently more open environment would also clearly provide a better platform to resolve sexual health and addiction issues, than the current system.

consent is clearly sometimes an issue, but to me it seems to be an ancillary problem, and one that would be solved by ending or seriously limiting the opportunity for those kind of situations to arise, through legalisation.

i just don't see how the problems with incest are similar.

[Lorizael]

I guess I'm looking at consent in a broader sense. I can easily imagine instances of prostitution and incest wherein a victim allows and perhaps even says yes to sex, but is not really a consenting partner. In both cases, there are abusive, exploitative relationships at play (pimp, john, older brother, alcoholic father, etc.) which render consent impossible, even when the victim agrees or does not resist.

Prostitution has the extra problem of sexual health and addiction, yes, which legalization and regulation would help combat. But for the mutual problem of exploitation, I believe laws already exist which would cover both scenarios (not that those laws are necessarily effective, but more laws doesn't always equate with more justice), without needing laws specifically for prostitution or specifically for incest.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

All except incest (abnormal both genetically and emotionally), and polls without banana options - that is just plain wrong.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Because they're banned in the land of the free.

Land of the free - I wanted to smuggle a kinder egg, but hey - why take the risk with already unkind TSA agents. I am a coward, I know.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

On a more serious note - what Cockney wrote.

[C0ckney]

I guess I'm looking at consent in a broader sense. I can easily imagine instances of prostitution and incest wherein a victim allows and perhaps even says yes to sex, but is not really a consenting partner. In both cases, there are abusive, exploitative relationships at play (pimp, john, older brother, alcoholic father, etc.) which render consent impossible, even when the victim agrees or does not resist.

yeah i think it comes down to how you define consent. i don't think that exploitation necessarily makes something non-consensual. let's take the example of the a crack whore giving $10 blowjobs: of course you might say that she is being exploited, and i would agree, but at the same time there's no doubt that she really wants the $10 to buy crack, so she is giving consent. to me a non-consensual situation would be if someone were being forced to work to pay off a debt; or had been trafficked and had their passport taken (of course there can be many other situations where consent is an issue, these are merely meant as examples).