INCEST: Murder of the Soul: Chapter Five
analysis on the case of “Dimes” where the defendant was exonerated from the charge of
rape because of the agreement of the accused woman.
The victim is not necessarily always an accomplice to the crime of incest because there
is a difference between obedience (submission or surrender) and permission. Even if her
agreement is sufficient to drop the charge of rape, this should not be considered permission
from her to commit the crime of incest. It was also decided that that submission alone
does not imply agreement to the commission of the crime of rape, so it was decided that
there is a difference between agreement and submission. Based on that, it is concluded
that an agreement includes submission or obedience or surrender, but this does not mean
under any condition that obedience or submission implies agreement or consent62.
The law takes physical and mental coercion in crimes into consideration, so if the element
of coercion –as above mentioned- is proved to be a constituent of the sexual relationship
between a man and a woman, then it is a crime of rape63. While it considers blood ties to be
an aggravating circumstance that makes the penalty harsher, it rules out patriarchal control
and authority as an indicator of the absence of women’s free will in incest crimes. The
woman who is subordinate to men cannot expressly refuse the act of incest. Furthermore,
the law overlooks inequality between men and women, and imbalance of justice in favor
of men. This is due to a patriarchal society, where the age of girls or women cannot be
considered as a factor influencing the degree of control men have over any female’s life.
The connection between the law and patriarchal authority with respect to the crime of
incest is exemplified in giving the right of filing a complaint to male relatives of up to
fourth degree of blood tie on such grounds that the crime causes harm to the family.
And so, the family has the right, according to the law, to file and drop the complaint in
order to preserve its interests, ignoring the influence and consequence of incest on the
woman herself and thus being considered more as an accomplice than a victim. Such
a representation appears, for example, in Case No (1147\2008). This case, which was
considered by Ramallah Conciliation Court in mid June, 2008, was withdrawn by the
complainant relinquishing his personal right in 2011.
In Case No. 1147\2008, Commission of Incest, (H.A) filed a complaint with the Public
Prosecution against (Y.S) and (R.S), accusing them of sexual assault against his sister.
The accused were her relatives by affinity, (R.S) being her father-in-law and (Y.S) her
brother-in-law (brother of her husband). The complaint states that they attempted to
exploit the fact that her husband was in prison and assaulted her sexually while living
in their house as a servant. The complainant was surprised that the Public Prosecution
considered his sister as a third party to the complaint, and he dropped the case during trial
proceedings as a result.
An account of the case:
(H.A) who is (32) years old, was subjected to sexual assaults by her brother-in-law and
father-in-law following the detention of her husband for two years. She suffered these
assaults for four years. Her father-in-law claimed that he experienced sexual intercourse
with her upon her full consent saying “she forced and coerced me to do that”. She became
62 Al-Saed, Crimes against ethics, p. 266.
63 . Abdelmutalib. Honor Crimes. National Center for Legal Releases. P. 25.
39