Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 43–59 | Cite as

Vice is Nice But Incest is Best: The Problem of a Moral Taboo

Original Paper


Incest is a crime in most societies. In the United States, incest is punishable in almost every state with sentences going as far as 20 and 30 years in prison, and even a life sentence. Yet the reasons traditionally proffered in justification of criminalization of incest—respecting religion and universal tradition; avoiding genetic abnormalities; protecting the family unit; preventing sexual abuse and sexual imposition; and precluding immorality—at a close examination, reveal their under- and over-inclusiveness, inconsistency or outright inadequacy. It appears that the true reason behind the long history of the incest laws is the feeling of repulsion and disgust this tabooed practice tends to evoke in the majority of population. However, in the absence of wrongdoing, neither a historic taboo nor the sense of repulsion and disgust legitimizes criminalization of an act.


Incest—Vice Crime Immorality—Taboo Harm Wrongdoing 



I would like to thank the deputy director of Rutgers Law Library Paul Axel-Lute and my research assistant Daniel Derasmo for their help in researching this project. I am also grateful to my colleagues Stuart Green, Adil Haque, Saul Mendlovitz, and George Thomas, as well as the participants of the Vice and Crime workshop at Rutgers School of Law (Newark), 2011, particularly my commentator Luis Chiesa, for their thoughtful and challenging comments.


  1. Bergelson, V. (2007). The right to be hurt: Testing the boundaries of consent. George Washington Law Review, 75, 165–236.Google Scholar
  2. Collins, J. M., et al. (2008). Punishing family status. Boston University Law Review, 88, 1327–1422.Google Scholar
  3. Colson, C. (2011). Point of view: Scalia was right—Incest and Lawrence v. Texas. Florida Baptist Witness. Available at
  4. Duff, R. A., et al. (2010). The boundaries of the criminal law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fox, R. (1980). The red lamp of incest. New York, NY: E.P. Dutton.Google Scholar
  6. Franck, M. (2005). Could the Supreme Court embrace incest? Available at
  7. Greene, G. (1964). Sex and the college girl. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.Google Scholar
  8. Haidt, J., & Hersh, M. A. (2001). Sexual morality: The cultures and emotions of conservatives and liberals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jacoby, J. (2005). Hypocrisy on adult consent. Boston Globe. Available at
  10. Kass, L. R. (2002). Life, liberty, and the defense of dignity: The challenge for bioethics. New York, NY: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
  11. McDonnell, B. H. (2004). Is incest next? Cardozo Women’s Law Journal, 10, 337–361.Google Scholar
  12. Moore, M. (1997). Placing blame: A theory of the criminal law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Nussbaum, M. C. (2004a). Hiding from humanity: Disgust, shame, and the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Danger to human dignity: The revival of disgust and shame in the law. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(48), B6. Available at
  15. Posner, R. A. (1992). Sex and reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Reisner, R., & Wechsler, L. (1974). Encyclopedia of Graffiti. New York, NY: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Division.Google Scholar
  17. Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  18. Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1997). The utility of desert. Northwestern University Law Review, 91, 453–499.Google Scholar
  19. Shepher, J. (1983). Incest: A biosocial view (Studies in anthropology). Waltham, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Stern, C. (1950). Principles of human genetics. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  21. Tannahill, R. (1980). Sex in history. Chelsea, MI: Scarborough House Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4, 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Westermarck, E. (1891). The history of human marriage. New York: Cornell University Library.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers School of Law (Newark)NewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations