Who Could Possibly Oppose Closing the Incest Exception?Exhibit IIPROTECT's comments bracketed in red Email to a PROTECT member, from Tom Ryan, From: "Tom Ryan" Your good intentions are not well informed. Recent changes in the laws regarding the management of sex offenders obviate the need for this change. [Premise #1: Sex offenders who target children can be safely "managed" in the community with acceptable risk to children.] Furthermore, the original "incest exception" was created to satisfy an extremely important need to protect victims from the secondary consequences of legal action against their parents. [Premise #2: Trauma to children comes not so much from the original abuse, discovery, investigation, law enforcement and social services intervention, court proceedings and court-ordered plan of probation, but rather from the actual incarceration of the perpetrator at the end of that process.] As it is written, the law permits a flexible response to the problem of intrafamilial abuse, allowing men and women who can be treated in the community to remain as breadwinners [Premise #3 (The Breadwinner Argument)] so that the child is not abused again by being blamed for the dissolution of the family. [Premise #4: Therapists can help child victims learn to accept their dysfunctional family.] More heinous crimes [Premise #5] can be dealt with by normal criminal procedures. Your adamancy about removing this exception will do harm. [At least Mr. Ryan has the courage to admit his opposition to closing the incest exception loophole.] Return to "Illinois to Eliminate Child Sexual Abuse Loophole" |