The crime of incest is rendered invisible in the 1990's under the all-embracing
label of "child abuse", where the public eye is alerted to grave
cases of physical abuse, by a media hungry for sensationalism. Likewise,
incest is effaced amid the current outrage over the deviant outsider -
typically perceived as the paedophile.
It is the very nature of the sphere in which incest is committed, which
makes the crime 'hermetic'. The view that the patriarchal family is
somehow sacrosanct, and the debate over the public/private dichotomy
relating to child protection, adjoin to further obscure this iniquity. In
addition to this, the perpetrators of incest frequently deny, minimise or
rationalise their crime, hence making the legal sphere the only legitimate
area of redress for victims.
However, the law attempts to deal with these private moral perplexities
in the objective and constrained manner representative of the court
system. This may not be reconcilable with just outcomes.
Social policy's footing in this arena appears to be equivocal, due to
the inherent confines of the legal system. But the legal system, and in
particular the court arena, can be made more equitable, by being flexible
and amenable to innovation, through the embodiment of other areas of
expertise. Instead of being self-referential, the legal system should be
more accommodating of other esteemed knowledges, in the name of
justice.