Is your state here? Incest loopholes 5:44 AM
The most common type of child sexual abuse loophole is the incest exception or incest loophole. Typically, these antiquated statutes were intended to prevent intermarriage among closely-related adults and were not designed to address child sexual abuse. However, the vast majority of incest crimes are crimes against children. Incest loopholes create two separate standards of justice, and allow child rape within the family to be prosecuted as a minor crime.
(See complete list of incest loopholes at bottom of this page)
766 Incest; class A misdemeanor
(a) A person is guilty of incest if the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person with whom the person has one of the following relationships:
A male and his child...
A male and his grandchild.
(b) The relationships referred to herein include blood relationships without regard to legitimacy and relationships by adoption.
Incest is a class A misdemeanor and is an offense within the original jurisdiction of the Family Court.
Family Preservation Loopholes
A more modern type of differential treatment of child sexual abuse in the home is often not really a loophole at all. Some states have intentionally codified pervasive and deeply-entrenched attitudes that minimize child sexual abuse in families, leaving many young victims without equal protection under the law. California, prior to PROTECT's landmark 2005 Circle of Trust victory, was the most prominent such scheme. Criminals who raped children in their own home were eligible for probation instead of prison, but only if they entered a "recognized program of treatment." The only programs recognized by California were those treating the entire "family." Thus the laws fueled and worked in tandem with a massive sex offender treatment industry to reunify perpetrators with their victims. The sex offender treatment industry often plays a role in drafting these laws (see Utah, below), and defends them by claiming that keeping sexual predators in the home with children--after a period of treatment, of course--is in the child's "best interest." Here are some examples of family reunification loopholes:
609.342 Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree.
Subdivision 1. Crime defined. A person who engages in sexual penetration with another person, or in sexual contact with a person under 13 years of age as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 11, paragraph (c), is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree
Subd. 2. Penalty. (a) Except as otherwise provided in section 609.109 or 609.3455, a person convicted under subdivision 1 may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 30 years or to a payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.
Subd. 3. Stay. Except when imprisonment is required under section 609.109 or 609.3455, if a person is convicted under subdivision 1, clause (g), the court may stay imposition or execution of the sentence if it finds that:
(a) a stay is in the best interest of the complainant or the family unit; and
(b) a professional assessment indicates that the offender has been accepted by and can respond to a treatment program.
If the court stays imposition or execution of sentence, it shall include the following as conditions of probation:
(1) incarceration in a local jail or workhouse;
(2) a requirement that the offender complete a treatment program; and
(3) a requirement that the offender have no unsupervised contact with the complainant until the offender has successfully completed the treatment program unless approved by the treatment program and the supervising correctional agent.
76-5-406.5. Circumstances required for probation or suspension of sentence for certain sex offenses against a child.
(1) In a case involving a conviction for a violation of Section 76-5-402.1, rape of a child; Section 76-5-402.3, object rape of a child; Section 76-5-403.1, sodomy on a child; or any attempt to commit a felony under those sections or a conviction for a violation of Subsections 76-5-404.1(4) and (5), aggravated sexual abuse of a child, the court may suspend execution of sentence and consider probation to a residential sexual abuse treatment center only if all of the following circumstances are found by the court to be present and the court in its discretion, considering the circumstances of the offense, including the nature, frequency, and duration of the conduct, and considering the best interests of the public and the child victim, finds probation to a residential sexual abuse treatment center to be proper:
(a) the defendant did not use a weapon, force, violence, substantial duress or menace, or threat of harm, in committing the offense or before or after committing the offense, in an attempt to frighten the child victim or keep the child victim from reporting the offense;
(b) the defendant did not cause bodily injury to the child [...]
(c) the defendant, prior to the offense, had not been convicted of any public offense in Utah or elsewhere involving sexual misconduct in the commission of the offense;
(d) the defendant did not commit an offense described in this Part 4, Sexual Offenses, against more than one child victim or victim [...]
(e) the defendant did not use, show, or display pornography or create sexually-related photographs or tape recordings in the course of the offense;
(f) the defendant did not act in concert with another offender [...]
(g) the defendant did not encourage, aid, allow, or benefit from any act of prostitution or sexual act by the child victim with any other per
[ send green star]
Institutional Abuse Loopholes
Children who are taken into state custody are often very vulnerable to abuse, especially when confined to an institutional setting. Yet, rather than afford them extra protections from exploitation and abuse, many state laws reward sexual predators who are also state employees. Here are some examples of institutional abuse loopholes:
3-314. Sexual conduct between correctional or Department of Juvenile Services employee and inmate or confined child.
(c) Same - Department of Juvenile Services employee with confined child.- An employee or licensee of the Department of Juvenile Services may not engage in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with an individual confined in a child care institution licensed by the Department, a detention center for juveniles, or a facility for juveniles listed in Article 83C, 2-117(a)(2) of the Code.
(d) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $3,000 or both.
(e) Sentencing.- A sentence imposed for violation of this section may be separate from and consecutive to or concurrent with a sentence for another crime under 3-303 through 3-312 of this subtitle.
18.2-64.1. Carnal knowledge of certain minors.
If any person providing services, paid or unpaid, to juveniles under the purview of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Law, or to juveniles who have been committed to the custody of the State Department of Juvenile Justice, carnally knows, without the use of force, any minor fifteen years of age or older, when such minor is confined or detained in jail, is detained in any facility mentioned in 16.1-249, or has been committed to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice pursuant to 16.1-278.8, knowing or having good reason to believe that (i) such minor is in such confinement or detention status, (ii) such minor is a ward of the Department of Juvenile Justice, or (iii) such minor is on probation, furlough, or leave from or has escaped or absconded from such confinement, detention, or custody, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
For the purposes of this section, "carnal knowledge" includes the acts of sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anallingus, anal intercourse, and animate and inanimate object sexual penetration.
[Note: In Virginia, a Class 6 felony is the lightest felony classification, equivalent to stealing a cable television signal.]
Sentencing Alternative Program Loopholes
In some states, preferential treatment for criminals who sexually assault children in their care is elaborate. These laws are often based on theories promoted by the sex offender treatment industry that criminals who sexually abuse their own children are not true "pedophiles," and are thus uniquely amenable to treatment. One of the most striking examples of these legal schemes today is Washington state, where the Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA) is well-entrenched. SSOSA is available to offenders who victimize children outside the family, but only when they have an "established relationship" with their victim. A 2001 report done for the state's Department of Corrections found that some in the criminal justice system there called SSOSA a "middle-aged white man's sentence" because of the type of offenders likely to get preferential treatment.
Washington RCW 9.94A.670 Special sex offender sentencing alternative.
(2) An offender is eligible for the special sex offender sentencing alternative if:
(a) The offender has been convicted of a sex offense other than a violation of RCW 9A.44.050 or a sex offense that is also a serious violent offense. If the conviction results from a guilty plea, the offender must, as part of his or her plea of guilty, voluntarily and affirmatively admit he or she committed all of the elements of the crime to which the offender is pleading guilty [...]
(b) The offender has no prior convictions for a sex offense [...]
(c) The offender has no prior adult convictions for a violent offense that was committed within five years [...]
(d) The offense did not result in substantial bodily harm to the victim; [...]
(e) The offender had an established relationship with, or connection to, the victim such that the sole connection with the victim was not the commission of the crime; and
(f) The offender's standard sentence range for the offense includes the possibility of confinement for less than eleven years.
(3) If the court finds the offender is eligible for this alternative, the court, on its own motion or the motion of the state or the offender, may order an examination to determine whether the offender is amenable to treatment.
(b) The examiner shall assess and report regarding the offender's amenability to treatment and relative risk to the community. A proposed treatment plan shall be provided [...]
(4)...(a) The court shall order the offender to serve a term of confinement of up to twelve months [...]
(b) The court shall place the offender on community custody for the length of the suspended sentence, the length of the maximum term imposed pursuant to RCW 9.94A.712, or three years, whichever is greater, and require the offender to comply with any conditions imposed by the department under RCW 9.94A.720.[...]
(7)(a) The sex offender treatment provider shall submit quarterly reports on the offender's progress in treatment to the court and the parties. The report shall reference the treatment plan and include at a minimum the following: Dates of attendance, offender's compliance with requirements, treatment activities, the offender's relative progress in treatment, and any other material specified by the court at sentencing.
(b) The court shall conduct a hearing on the offender's progress in treatment at least once a year
Most child sexual abuse cases, especially
[ send green star]
Go to Protect for all information February 10, 2007 10:45 AM
There is too much to post so please check out Protect and get the information from them and if your state has loopholes please contact youor congressmen to change them and to pass the Circle of Trust
[ send green star]