In academia, we often like to study and report on the crimes and controversies in society as if our world is separate and apart from matters. The arrest of well-known Columbia professor David Epstein, 46, has shattered any such illusions. Epstein, who teaches political science and writes for Huffington Post, is accused of incest –stemming from a sexual relationship with a relative over a three-year period. Some are reporting that it was a relationship with his daughter, 24.
Epstein teaches American politics and voting rights and previously taught at Harvard and Stanford. The relative is not a minor. However, Epstein can still face four years behind bars.
Here is the New York provision:
§ 255.27 Incest in the first degree.
A person is guilty of incest in the first degree when he or she
commits the crime of rape in the first degree, as defined in subdivision
three or four of section 130.35 of this part, or criminal sexual act in
the first degree, as defined in subdivision three or four of section
130.50 of this part, against a person whom he or she knows to be related
to him or her, whether through marriage or not, as an ancestor,
descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or half blood, uncle,
aunt, nephew or niece.
Incest in the first degree is a class B felony.
What is interesting is that there is no report of the woman being arrested even though she was an adult.
Source:NY Daily News
Incest arrests are unfortunately not uncommon in our country (here and here). However, they are usually cases involving minors where abuse is also alleged. It is less common, but certainly not unheard of, to have consensual incest among adults. The alleged ten-year incestuous relationship between former child-star Mackenzie Phillips and her father, rock star John Phillips is a notable example.
Jonathan Turley
Tootles,
In re: frank
There are many reasons to insult your nonsense.
“Correctness” isn’t one of them.
James M.
I am with you on that, maybe some sick sons of bitches will but the majority of men are not going to have sex with their daughters even if it wasn’t taboo.
You would actually have to be pretty sick on both accounts to have sex with an adult child. Wacko sick. White coat sick, asylum sick, well anyway you get the idea.
kay,
If the incest becomes known and is not stopped, then it encourages other parents to have sex with their children.
You really think fear of prosecution is why parents don’t have sex with their adult children?
The idea that not prosecuting will encourage a rash of adult incest is ludicrous.
Tootie:
Other than a biblical prohibition against homosexual sex, why are you against it? Especially in light of the fact that you appear to be libertarian on just about everything else?
I understand the incest, but then the Egyptian Pharaohs married their sisters and Pharaohonic Egypt lasted for, what, 3,000 to 4,000 years.
Although it doesnt appear to be the entire society which engaged in incest.
Your thoughts? I doubt too many grown women are going to have sex with their father or uncles and their are laws against having sex with a minor, so that is covered.
Don’t feed the troll.
frank:
After your ad hominem insult and claim that I don’t know what leftists think: you confirmed I was right about what leftists think when you stated that incest would be okay.
In other words, you insulted me because I was correct.
LOL
rcampbell
If a leftist (liberal, Democrat, progressive) wishes to be consistent he or she MUST justify incest (between adults) else be considered an imbecile or intellectually dishonest.
You may think “Liberals do not have to justify incest on the way to accepting homosexuality…” but that won’t change the fact that incest MUST be allowed according to the same reasons why homosexual (couplings)marriage is allowed. As the homosexuals say, who are you to forbid people from loving each other in they way they so choose?
One cannot make the argument of consent for hommosexuality without allowing it for incest (by adults). Offspring don’t even have to come into situtation. Both partners could be “fixed”. Therefore all prohibitions would be illogical according to the case made by the proponents of homosexuality.
I realize that leftists are having a hard time with this. That is because for all their cleverness or self-proclaimed expertise, or extensive education, they are always the biggest fools.
Cato:
If a whole civilization consents to robbery what’s the big deal?
The big deal is that people can consent to do many things which are immoral and destructive to their own welfare and as such lines have to be drawn somewhere or else no lines can be drawn anywhere and civilization becomes barbaric and backwards. You are arguing for barbarism, and in fact the right to choose it. You are free to do so but you ought to know what it is you are arguing for.
There is a clear pattern in history about sexual matters.
Although great civilizations, like one of those you mentioned, dabbled in sexual corruption, for most of the Roman history marriage was sacred (albeit pagan sacred). In Rome’s beginning, and during its rise to power, marriage was considered essential and divorce considered evil. Hundreds of years later all hell broke loose and sexual corruption reigned from the top to the bottom of society (including the poor and the rich, the powerless and the powerful). And like every other major and minor civilization, when this pattern became established, by the third generation (according to Unwin and Toynbee), that civilization declines and/or falls.
This is history repeating itself being led by the leaders themselves who claim power, education, and or enlightenment. And on and on it goes.
Same goes for Greece.
All this happens three generations into the sexual corruption and it has to be widespread (leaders and commoners) before the civilization starts heading backwards in development. We are not quite there yet though all the sign posts are flashing. Some classic indicators of decline and fall: barbarian invasion, economic failure, political corruption, endless Imperial wars.
In otherwords: America December 13, 2010.
You are certainly free to advocate for the destruction of civilization, but you ought to know that you are doing.
History has already proved that you are. How it is that leftists claim that right wingers don’t believe in science, but leftists continually reject the idea of cause and effect in human actions?
Civilization-wide sexual corruption (cause) ALWAYS leads to decline and failure (effect).
No civilization that has fallen falls without sexual corruption being a key feature.
frank:
I refer you to Cato at 8:52am.
“The alleged ten-year incestuous relationship between former child-star Mackenzie Phillips and her father, rock star John Phillips is a notable example.”
No it is not because it is fiction until verified. All you are doing is titillating with that statement.
I see nothing wrong with the relationship as long as children are not born from it.
@rafflaw
“Wouldn’t Woody Allen be liable under this language?”
—
Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were never married (nor did they live together). Soon-Yi Previn is not related to Allen, she was adopted by Farrow and Andre Previn when those two were married.
Like prostitution, incest hurts others. Apparently the statistical result of birth defects from such close unions is really high. If the incest becomes known and is not stopped, then it encourages other parents to have sex with their children. And spouses might be suspicious of their spouses relationship with their parents. That disturbs the parent child relationship in general.
We are stupid if we throw away the position of families in society and become just individuals.
Tootie’s attempt to ascribe to liberals the cultural laissez-faire approach of the teabagger/libertarian/Objectivist set is pathetically weak. Liberals do not have to justify incest on the way to accepting homosexuality or for any other reason–especially to a conservative. What has to be justified is conservatives’ continuing attempts to segregate, discriminate and promote hate.
Tootie: Often wrong, never uncertain.
Tootie:
arent you being a bit harsh? The Greeks and Romans did stuff like that all the time. And look how far they progressed.
Come on, get with the program. Freedom in sex but no free markets. Why cant you understand that? It’s natural to want to have sex with your daughter or niece but unnatural to want to let people trade freely.
I mean if 2 consenting adults who are related want to have sex what is the big deal? But 2 consenting adults who are related wanting to trade freely? Oh no, cant have that, all kinds of bad things will happen then. Free trade between consenting adults is the downfall of civilization or didn’t you know that? So we must restrict free trade and promote free love between animal, vegetable and mineral.
Why cant you understand? You must have a screw loose.
Tootie – don’t apologize for the bad grammar, apologize for the stupid argument.
As a died in the wool leftist I can think of no argument for incest & have no problem differentiating between what consenting, free adults do from relationships that could be abusive due to either lack of informed consent or abuse of authority.
How about, instead of you telling leftists what they believe you actually let them tell you what they believe. Of course your brain damaged world view would suffer greatly so you probably won’t want to do that.
The badly edited paragraph:
But, leftists, being the depraved fools they would not have to admit that I was correct as they have had to realize the inconsistency of their own arguments. And thus they must commend incest
The corrected version:
But, leftists, being the depraved fools they [are], would [now] have to admit that I was correct as they have had to realize the inconsistency of their own arguments. And thus they must commend incest
Apologies for the bad grammar and editing.
As usual.
The left will need to justify incest (between adults) in order to justify homosexuality and homosexual marriage. I pointed this out years ago on the internet and leftists (still fresh in the debate 12 years ago) called me crazy and accused me of the slippery slope fallacy.
But, leftists, being the depraved fools they would not have to admit that I was correct as they have had to realize the inconsistency of their own arguments. And thus they must commend incest.
All of this, naturally, benefits men and their uncontrollable lust and depravity to “do it” with everything in sight short of critters (perverts do have scruples, I suppose). Even that will break down, though, when leftists begin to point out the critters “enjoy” it. Ergo, they want it. Ergo, it is consent. This is always where sexual corruption leads.
This is all very old and very unprogressive.
It is retrograde.
It was written about thousands of years ago in the Bible. And it was spoken of in regard to savage civilizations, not decent ones. This sexual corruption is of the sort that engenders primitive backwards civilizations or ones heading there. No civilization that practices anything other than strict monogamous sexual relations within marriage advances for long.
It is like the land of Ninevah when the people were too stupid to know their left hands from their right. When uncles eyed their nieces waiting the chance to deflower her as soon as she was an adult. Mind you it is the left who promotes the lowering of the age of consent. Brothers will eye sisters waiting to get a piece of them.. Families will be destroyed and children are loved only for what pleasures men can attain from the victims of their predatory lust clothed as “affection” and “care”.
It is full-blown depravity and worthy of destruction.
I don’t favor this kind of behavior, but if there is no evidence of abuse, why can’t two consenting adults do whatever they want? Wouldn’t Woody Allen be liable under this language?