2003.001 Sexual Ethics and Criminal Law, Lester ... - Francis Bennion

No ethical basis A primary objection to the Bill is that the
11.
proposals are not based on any discernible system
Government's
morals and values. They are grounded in a low view of human
of
They display sex-negativism ± or even sex hate ± in many
sexuality.
or indirect ways. While some sexual acts are obviously
obvious
and criminal, the vast majority are innocent and healthy.
immoral
few others are on the borderline. Here there is a grey area, which
A
to be addressed very carefully by those who lay down the
needs
law for our nation. The proposals in the Bill fail to do that.
criminal
implemented they are likely to cause much unnecessary su€ering
If
unhappiness. They ignore the essential point made in the
and
set out on a preliminary page of this report. They are
couplet
The Bill proposes fundamental changes to the criminal law governing
12.
how our people should behave sexually. A nation's laws,
its sex laws, need to be based upon accepted morals
particularly
values: what other sound basis could there be? Law does not
and
should not) operate in a moral vacuum. Its function is to
(or
agreed norms. So a proposed new law, particularly a sex
uphold
must be assessed by reference to these. Yet on this question
law,
a basis of agreed common morality the Bill is strangely silent,
of
as was the white paper on which it is based. 5
A large number of ethical propositions in the sex ®eld would command
13.
general acceptance in most societies (e.g. rape is immoral).
by consenting adults is/is not immoral). It is particularly in
incest
latter grey area that those proposing a new criminal law need
the
Protecting the Public, subtitled ``Strengthening protection against sex offenders
5 and reforming the law on sexual matters'' (CM 5668). This document,
Law and ethics
opposed to sex positivism and are therefore unsound.
The di
cult area is where there is no general agreement (e.g.
published in November 2002, is referred to below as the white paper.
9