Who Could Possibly Oppose Closing the Incest Exception?

Exhibit I

PROTECT's comments bracketed in red

Written Testimony of Kathryn Beasley, Executive Director,
Children's Advocacy Centers of Illinois
at Public Hearing on Rep. Joe Dunn's "Protect ALL Children"

TO: Representative Joe Dunn
FR: Kathryn A. Beasley, Executive Director
Children's Advocacy Centers of Illinois
DATE: 14 March 2003
RE: "Incest Exception" Legislation

I am truly sorry that I could not be present for the hearing in Naperville on 17 March 2003. However, there are several representatives from the Children's Advocacy Centers in Illinois in attendance. [As far as we know, these other concerned people were there in support of the bill.] I would like to thank Representative Dunn for his commitment to the children of the state of Illinois and commend his efforts to change the law to benefit our most vulnerable population. In addition, despite my absence, I would like to put forth some issues that have been discussed regarding the "Incest Exception" Legislation.

It goes without saying that The Children's Advocacy Centers of Illinois remains a proponent of appropriate punishment for individuals who commit crimes against others, most especially children. Crimes against children are the most horrible of all crimes and all offenders should be held accountable. [Just because someone is the recipient of a federal grant does not grant them the unique status of having their self-promotional statements go unchallenged. Given what follows, it may seem to some that it does not "go without saying" that the CAC are "proponents of appropriate punishment for those who sexually exploit their own children."]

While the "Incest Exception" Legislation appears to make sense on the surface, I would request that the impact of such legislation be thoroughly examined. Certainly, each case of child abuse is vastly different and the Legal System should be afforded many options when dealing with these types of cases. In fact, cases of intra-familial child sexual abuse can be the most complicated of all child abuse cases and require special attention. [Indeed. What they do not require is special exemptions for those calculated enough to "grow their own victims." For a clear example of "special attention" for "complicated" cases, see the Taube case.]

Questions that should be considered:

  1. In the cases where the offender is the primary provider for the family, will sending this offender to prison have a negative impact upon the family or should we be encouraging the family to care for themselves? [So if the incest offender is on Welfare, he deserves to go to prison. But if he "supports" his family, he should be allowed special treatment? If the "primary provider" for his family was a drug kingpin, an armed robber, or a serial rapist, wouldn't his imprisonment have a "negative impact" on his family's finances, too?]

  2. Would prosecutors be less likely to charge a case of intra-familial child abuse if they know the only option is prison time? Would Judges or Juries be less likely to convict an offender if the only option is prison time. [This statement is profoundly insulting to all professional prosecutors. Does anyone sincerely believe juries would acquit an offender of a crime because they are concerned about the economic impact on his family? If that were true, prison overcrowding would have long-since ceased to be an issue in America.]

  3. Will the offender receive counseling in prison or will he/she be released back into society, and, more importantly, back into the family without treatment? [Why this special attention and protection only for those who commit the worst of all crimes ... Against their own children? Don't those who sexually offend against children outside the family also need "counseling?" Is the CAC on record as demanding in-prison counseling for that group? Or do they save their "advocacy" only for incest offenders?]

  4. When children disclose abuse, they are simply asking for the abuse to stop. Many times a disclosure does not indicate a dislike for their offender, but rather a disdain for his/her behavior. Therefore, children often feel that their disclosure causes tremendous disruption to the family and can be made to feel guilty for having disclosed at all. If the only option is to send the offender to jail, will this lead to further feelings of guilt? [Is this supposed to be a joke? A victim of sexual abuse feels "disdain" for the offender? No mention of terror, trauma, or tragedy for the victim ... Only this pious concern for the offender. Child sexual abuse—like domestic violence—is a crime in which society often makes the victim feel complicitous. It is the task of the "helping" agencies to combat this hideous consequence ... Not pander to it.]

  5. When children are abused, their power or control is taken away by the offender. When they disclose, the "system" steps in and takes control. Should they have some control over the punishment their offender receives? [Another example of the "specialness" of the incest offender in the eyes of the CAC. Do victims of other crimes "have control over the punishment" of the offender? Of course not. The indictment reads: "The People of the State of Illinois against "X" ... Because incest is not, as the CAC seems to be believe, a "private" crime, it is a crime against all of us. Plenty of crime victims choose to "forgive" the offender. That is a private decision. But the punishment for the offense is a public decision. The punishment society sets for any crime is a measure of how society regards that crime. Go ask any citizen if they think raping one's own child makes you a "special" offender entitled to more lenient treatment than if you raped a stranger's child.]

This statement should not be considered as a dissenting opinion to the "Incest Exception" Legislation. Instead, I hope it reflects the fact that there are not any clear answers for these very difficult cases. Certainly, this legislation has the potential to help the victims that the Children's Advocacy Centers serve. However, if it is true that the goal of the "the system" is to help victims, no legislation should be put forth that could be detrimental to their future well-being. [This is trick language, more worthy of a double-talking politician than a treatment professional. Obviously, no legislation should be "detrimental to the future well-being of victims." But this desperately needed legislative change will be "detrimental" only to those who prey on children. The best way to ensure the "future well-being of victims" is to have less of them. And, once the word gets out that Illinois is no longer a safe harbor for those who prey upon their own children, we will.]

Again, thank-you for your commitment to the children of the state of Illinois.

Sincerely,

Kathryn A. Beasley
Executive Director
Children's Advocacy Centers of Illinois

Return to "Illinois to Eliminate Child Sexual Abuse Loophole"