Weird "incest" question

[RonOfKs]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Kansas

Okay, so I recognize this is going to be an uncomfortable topic for many, but I REALLY need some legal advice! I have a blood nephew who is 33 (I'm 46). I'm gay, and he just got out of a relationship with another man. He visited last year, and minor sexual activity occurred under highly inebriated circumstances. Now, his ex is threatening me with incest prosecution, and in Googling it, I have to say it is terribly disturbing to see that I could get up to 25 years in prison if convicted! Do I need to be freaking out? This was mutually consensual between two adults... but, still, I am "technically" his blood uncle. (NOTE: We did not grow up knowing each other. I met him when he was nine, then we lost touch until last year.) Aaarrgh!!!

Thank you!


- Ron

 

[ecmst12]

I certainly see no compelling state interest that would justify a prosecutor spending state resources in prosecuting this. Plus, both of you are equally guilty, since you're both adults.

 

[Eekamouse]

Ga-ross! He IS related to you, you know.

 

[ecmst12]

That's not exactly a legal opinion

 

[single317dad]

That's not exactly a legal opinion

While not exactly a legal opinion, it is certainly the public sentiment that led to the passage of the laws in the first place, therefore "the spirit of the law" is rendered quite well by Eek's post.

I'm being facetious there, no offense intended

http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/statute/021_000_0000_chapter/021_056_0000_article/021_056_0004_section/021_056_0004_k/

21-5604. Incest; aggravated incest. (a) Incest is marriage to or engaging in otherwise lawful sexual intercourse or sodomy, as defined in K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5501, and amendments thereto, with a person who is 18 or more years of age and who is known to the offender to be related to the offender as any of the following biological relatives: Parent, child, grandparent of any degree, grandchild of any degree, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

(c) (1) Incest is a severity level l0, person felony.

Kansas's felony sentencing guidelines are convoluted and based heavily on prior convictions. If you got a real gung-ho prosecutor with something to prove, you could get a big hassle out of this. Proving incest would be quite difficult if neither of you admitted to the act, but facing a felony charge, if it happens, is nothing to take lightly.

 

[davew128]

Didn't the SCOTUS case several years striking down Texas sodomy laws pretty much invalidate all this stuff anyway?

 

[ecmst12]

I doubt it, it's a totally different issue than sodomy. It even says, otherwise legal intercourse or sodomy.

 

[justalayman]

Didn't the SCOTUS case several years striking down Texas sodomy laws pretty much invalidate all this stuff anyway?

the sodomy laws are irrelevant. If this was a heterosexual couple, they would face the same possibilities.



RonofKs,

is this guy willing to put your nephew in prison as well? Let's hope not because both you and the nephew are guilty of the charge. It is not the senior relative that is the only one committing a crime.

(NOTE: We did not grow up knowing each other. I met him when he was nine, then we lost touch until last year.) Aaarrgh!!!

You couldn't have phrased that differently? (lol)

 

[single317dad]

Not to pit myself against the Supreme Court, but I believe there's a valid scientific reason the law disallows immediate family to reproduce (or commit the act that leads to reproduction), whereas the law against sodomy was mainly to prevent homosexuality. That the same law applies to homosexual acts may eventually become a reason to challenge it, as those acts couldn't possibly result in offspring with congenital defects, therefore there's really no scientific reason to ban them. But, baseless laws are still laws until they're not, and OP broke this one.

 

[justalayman]

Didn't the SCOTUS case several years striking down Texas sodomy laws pretty much invalidate all this stuff anyway?

even if it did, as long as the law is on the books, it would not preclude an arrest and, at least, the initiation of criminal proceedings. Laws are not always removed from the books as they are ruled unConstitutional by the SCOTUS via a decision based in another state. Often times, they remain on the books and are removed only after they are challenged under the SCOTUS ruling. That allows a law to be tested for it's Constitutionality as some laws are not unConstitutional in whole but only require amending them to be able to comply with the SCOTUS decision.

 

[swalsh411]

Well, not to be gross, but we don't know if the OP broke the law until he says what he did. Handjobs would not be illegal.

 

[justalayman]

Well, not to be gross, but we don't know if the OP broke the law until he says what he did. Handjobs would not be illegal.

(a) "Sexual intercourse" means any penetration of the female sex organ by a finger, the male sex organ or any object. Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse. "Sexual intercourse" does not include penetration of the female sex organ by a finger or object in the course of the performance of: [in short: medical exam or lawful searches]

(b) "Sodomy" means oral contact or oral penetration of the female genitalia or oral contact of the male genitalia; anal penetration, however slight, of a male or female by any body part or object; or oral or anal copulation or sexual intercourse between a person and an animal. "Sodomy" does not include penetration of the anal opening by a finger or object in the course of the performance of: [same exceptions as above]

it would appear a handjob is about the only thing they could do without violating the law.

come on swalsh, they were drunk and they're guys. Do you really think it stopped there?