The Other Shoe Drops in Indiana, Shedding More Light

The other day, we noted and commented on an arrest in Indiana. Here's word of a second arrest in the same case, and more information about the case, from Liz Shepherd at the same news website.

A second individual was charged with incest after admitting to having sexual intercourse multiple times with a male relative. 

Charges have officially been filed against William Glenn Davis, 54, 23095 Tyler Road, Lakeville; and Samantha Lyn Davis, 21,1903 West Point Drive, Warsaw. Each have been charged with incest, a level 5 felony.

They are consenting adults. This shouldn't be a law enforcement matter in the first place.

On Jan. 17, an officer with the Warsaw Police Department responded to a domestic disturbance at a Warsaw residence. The officer arrived and spoke with Samantha Davis and her ex-boyfriend. Both subjects were accusing the other of domestic violence.

So this was NOT about domestic violence between the defendants.

According to the affidavit of probable cause, the officer spoke with the ex-boyfriend, who advised that he and Samantha Davis were arguing because she was having sexual relations with William Davis. Samantha Davis admitted in July 2018, she started having sexual intercourse with William Davis at her residence. She had sexual intercourse and sexual conduct with him multiple times during 2018. The relationship between Samantha Davis and William Davis was removed from court documents.

Based on the laws and their ages, she's either his daughter or his niece; there's a slight chance she's his granddaughter or half-sister. Those are the possibilities.

So they were ratted out by her ex-boyfriend, who may or may not have gotten into a domestic violence situation with her. Too bad he wasn't an ally.

Is Indiana Still Arresting Consenting Adults?

From infreenews.com comes a report of a "President Of Local Business Arrested For Incest"...

William Glen Davis, 54, 23095 Tyler Road, Lakeville, was arrested at 5:46 p.m. Friday, Jan. 18, on a charge of incest. Davis is president of Lake City Heat Treating Corporation, 2427 N. Boeing Road, Warsaw.

Why do they include a picture, name, address, and his business? How is that relevant??? Why not hand the bigots pitchforks???

Notice the charge is "incest" and not "assault."

According to information from authorities at the Warsaw Police Department, police were notified of a domestic complaint Thursday, Jan. 17, on West Point Drive, Warsaw.

These days, neighbors can call in a "domestic complaint" and the police are usually obligated to investigate. No proof other than what the caller says need be offered. On the other hand, it could be that someone inside the home was scared and called the police. We aren't given enough detail.

Detectives went to the scene and during the interview with an adult female involved in the domestic complaint, she told police she had been having sexual relations with a relative. That relative was Davis. 

Police report the relationship had been going on for some time and was confirmed by both parties involved. 

Davis was interviewed by police and arrested following the interview. Charges have been signed and filed with the prosecutor’s office.

A few things to say:

1) She is an adult.

2) Sexual relations and assault are two very different things. He was arrested for "incest" and not assault.

3) Indiana, like most states, doesn't criminalize sex between first cousins, so unless police acted outside the law, that means this relative is either his mother (or grandmother), daughter (or granddaughter), niece, aunt, or sister, because Indiana DOES still criminalize sex between those consenting adults.

4) Perhaps they didn't know that sex between consenting adults is still criminalized in Indiana, and so they had no hesitation to tell the police they have sex? Here's what consanguinamorous people need to do to protect themselves.

More charges are expected pending further investigation.

What does that mean? That the woman, who also broke the unconstitutional law, is going to get arrested and charged? THIS IS A WASTE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES! If he assaulted her or anyone else, charge him with that. If consenting adults are having sex, that shouldn't be crime. Consanguineous sex happens every day not far from where you are reading this, wherever you are. Thankfully, most of it never results in an arrest. Stop this senseless persecution. There is no good reason to deny them their right to be together. We need relationships rights for all, including full marriage equality, everywhere.

UPDATE: She was arrested, too.

Indiana Sends Lovers to Prison

The US state of Indiana sends consenting adults to prison for having sex, even when asked to reconsider. What a waste of public resources. A ruling from the Indiana Court of Appeals on a consanguinamory case was reported by Dave Stafford at theindianalawyer.com...

A man convicted of incest for a consensual sexual relationship with his biological aunt couldn’t persuade the Indiana Court of Appeals that he was entitled to post-conviction relief.

Emphasis ours. This shouldn't even be a criminal matter. And yet, it was. So it makes sense that someone who has been convicted of such a victimless "crime" would look for any way to overturn that conviction.

The man claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue in his defense that the man’s aunt was older than 31.

Kyle Pavan of Elwood was 23 when he was charged in 2007 with the Class C felony, to which he later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison, with two years executed on work release and the balance suspended to probation. His probation was revoked in 2014, at which time he filed a PCR petition. His aunt, who was 34 at the time, also was charged and convicted.

A sentence of six years in prison for consensual sex. What a travesty! Don't let this happen to you.

In his PCR petition, Pavan relied on I.C. 35-41-4-2(e) that bars prosecution for incest, child molesting, vicarious sexual gratification, child solicitation or child seduction after the alleged victim reaches age 31. The state said the statute was inapplicable and that the prosecution was timely filed within the general five-year statute of limitations for Class C felonies.

“Pavan’s appellate argument is based on a flawed interpretation” of the statute, Judge Robert Altice wrote for the panel, because he argued his aunt was the victim.

Right. There was no victim, and this shouldn't have been a criminal matter in the first place!

The case is Kyle Pavan v. State of Indiana, 48A02-1512-PC-2125.

Can you imagine sitting up on a bench in robes and sending consenting adults to prison for having sex? Sure, it is better than throwing them off of high buildings, but it is still unjust and a violation of basic human rights.

This man and his aunt were not hurting anyone by being together, and yet both were prosecuted. There's no good reason do deny them there rights.

This needs to be dealt with ASAP. We need to remove any laws that discriminate against consenting adults for their relationships. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Another Example of Atrociously Vague Reporting

This is a perfect example of why I have a page with notes to journalists. From the great US state of Indiana comes this report at tribtown.com, with a headline reading...

Seymour Man Sentenced to 2 Years in Incest Case

Now, as we've noted many times, "incest" in legal and news talk can mean consensual sex between middle-aged adults who aren't even blood relatives. Or, it could mean some adult brutally abusing a very young child. Those are very different things.

A 43-year-old Jackson County man who recently pleaded guilty to incest received a two-year prison term in Jackson Circuit Court.

Delious Morris of Seymour entered a guilty plea on April 14 to three Class C felony counts of incest.

After accepting that plea, Jackson Circuit Judge Richard Poynter sentenced Morris to five years on each of those counts and suspended three years of each sentence. The sentences are to be served concurrently. Morris also received four days credit and four days credit time.

Here's what I found in Indiana law, the wording of which is set to change at the end of the month (but it doesn't look like the effect will change, just the labels)...

IC 35-46-1-3 Version a
Incest
     Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2014. See also following version of this section, effective 7-1-2014.
    Sec. 3. (a) A person eighteen (18) years of age or older who engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with another person, when the person knows that the other person is related to the person biologically as a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew, commits incest, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if the other person is less than sixteen (16) years of age.

Elsewhere you can find that the age of consent in Indiana is 16, except that that someone has to be 18 to consent to sex with someone who is a guardian of some sort. Since the convictions were to "Class C", we know the supposed victim is at least 16, and could be close in age to the defendant. Since no other charges were listed, such as assault or charges relating to someone being a minor, can we infer that the sex was consensual?

Two years is a absurdly short sentence for sexual assault. If the sex was consensual, prosecution at all was absurd. There are very few circumstances of "incest" where two years in prison is appropriate.

It is possible to have clarification without revealing the identity of the supposed victim, such as who contacted police. Was it the supposed victim? A neighbor? A teacher? And what did the supposed victim say to police?

It makes a difference. Either Morris is a dangerous man who has forced himself on another person, or he's been unjustly prosecuted and imprisoned.

Convoluted Legal Restrictions on Consent

Although the age of consent varies from country to country, and in the US, from state to state, this blog is generally not about altering age of consent laws. An exception to this is that I think the laws should be consistent. By that I mean that if, say, a 17-year-old can legally consent to sex with a complete stranger, they should be free to consent to sex with, say, an aunt or uncle. An example of the problem that selective restrictions cause is shown below.

Here's another one of those articles that is missing some important information. Stan Maddux wrote at Indiana's heraldgus.com...

A 45-year-old Westville-area man admitted to having sexual contact with a family member.

The man entered a plea agreement Friday in La Porte Circuit Court. Terms call for a five-year prison sentence for Class C felony incest.

Notice that the charge is "incest" and it is referred to as "sexual contact," no charges or mentions of assault of any kind. From the official state website:

IC 35-46-1-3
Incest
     Sec. 3. (a) A person eighteen (18) years of age or older who engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with another person, when the person knows that the other person is related to the person biologically as a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew, commits incest, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if the other person is less than sixteen (16) years of age.
    (b) It is a defense that the accused person's otherwise incestuous relation with the other person was based on their marriage, if it was valid where entered into.

So if half-siblings legally married in Sweden, and moved to Indiana, they could have sex all they want. But if their neighbors were half-siblings, not only could they not get married, but they could get prosecuted. Wouldn't it just be easier to let anyone of the age of consent have consensual sex with anyone else of the age of consent, and not get law enforcement involved?

Indiana Still Arresting Adults For Consensual Sex With Each Other

From wbiw.com comes this news from Bloomington, Indiana...

An aunt-nephew pair faces preliminary incest charges after being discovered in a pickup truck in a semi-state of undress Wednesday morning.

While on patrol, a Bloomington police officer came across 20-year-old Jesse Pedro, and 36-year-old Anniabell Scherill, sitting in a black GMC Sierra at about 2:20 a.m. in a parking lot on the west side of Cascades Park in Bloomington.

They are both adults. Why should they be arrested for having sex with each other? Who is the victim?

Kovach says, after questioning both admitted to having consensual sexual intercourse with one another.

That should be none of a police officer's business. DON'T TELL! Do not assist with an unjust prosecution.

She told the officer her and Pedro had been at their respective places of work prior to the incident and that she was undergoing marital issues at the time.

There is a chance, however remote, that her spouse knew and approved. But even if she was actually cheating, that shouldn't make it a criminal matter. This is a waste of law enforcement resources.

We Get Letters

I blogged back on March 14, 2011 about a case in Indiana in which adults who’d had consensual sex with each other were sent to prison.

Anonymous left a comment last night…

You've got to be kidding. You CONDONE incestual sex because they'are adults? What a sad and warped value system you adhere to. My guess is you are empty at the very core of who you are, attempting to fill that space with any and all things you can possibly indulge yourself in, only to find that place still unfullfilled. Deny it aloud, but I bet I'm dead on. You embrace biological brothers and sisters who are clearly ignorant of any decent and healthy boundaries, having sex together (shaking head at the ignorance, YOURS, that validates the ignorance of the people involved.)

Notice a couple of important things about this comment, in addition to this person choosing to be Anonymous: 1. This person never even attempts to justify his or her bigotry by giving any reason why adult siblings shouldn’t be free to be together, and 2. Unable to justify his or her bigotry, he or she attempts to personally attack me.

I am anything but empty. I have a very full and happy life, and the correspondence I get from people helped through this blog warms my heart. The “sad and warped value system” is the one that prompts people to interfere with the happiness and love lives of others. Like it or not, there are siblings who are enjoying each other in every way, some of them living as spouses, and very few of them are going to be prosecuted (although one couple prosecuted is one couple too many.) You most certainly know some, whether you know it or not.

Simply expressing disapproval does not indicate why anyone else should disapprove, let alone why adults should be sent to prison for having consensual sex with each other.

As more and more people see that there is no good reason to deny adults relationship rights, we are going to move closer and closer to full marriage equality so that an adult is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.

It is very interesting that Anonymous went back and found that entry on this blog. Hmmm.

We Get Letters that Shed Light on News Items

You may recall my coverage of a news item from earlier this year that was lacking some important information. A 36-year-old man was "accused of fathering a child with a teenage relative in 2010 received a 10-year prison sentence..." As it turns out, "accused" was a word used on purpose for the article. As I noted, the charges were "incest" not rape.

These comments were left by "Anonymous." I have edited them to clean up typing errors.

I was 16. No DNA test was shown or handed out to me or my father. We have asked on and on. They of course said yes but, they made an excuse not to. I have never seen it, nether has he. The judge only took DCS's side. They took proof from another teen (used to be friend). She ran her mouth saying lies and then bam !!!!!!!!! This s--- happens.

I don't remember by the way if we did or not, I was still going through hell and back.... and doing things I shouldn't have done... I still love my father, that will never change! And you are the only one that caught my eye; you're not dogging him. Thank you very much. If we did I'm going to deny I was a victim, period. He was never sexual towards me, ever!

Anonymous, feel free to leave comments and to contact me via email or Facebook.

Her comments greatly clarify the situation. The convicted man is her father. She was 16. The age of consent in Indiana is generally 16, though 16 and 17-year-olds can't legally consent to sex with a guardian. We have a troubled man (war veteran with PTSD and alcohol abuse) and a troubled teenager. She doesn't even know if they had sex, so she doesn't feel like a victim; he hadn't previously behaved in an inappropriate manner towards her. That the report says he was "accused" of fathering a child with her, not proven to have done so, and her comments about not being given proof of that indicate to me that he did not get her pregnant. Rather, someone else did and it is entirely possible her father never had sex with her. How credible, really, was the witness? Do we have another example of someone taking a deal even though they aren't guilty because the alternative is too much of a risk?

Is this a good use of law enforcement and correctional resources? There are 16-year-olds out there who are being traumatized by their rapist fathers and stepfathers who repeatedly rape them. That's not what happened here. It's a very sad situation.

War Veteran Sent to Prison on Incest Charges in Indiana

Once again, not enough information has been provided by journalists, and probably not enough was provided by the authorities, too. From tribtown.com comes Aubrey Woods’ report on the sentencing of Michael B. Buckner…

A 36-year-old Seymour man accused of fathering a child with a teenage relative in 2010 received a 10-year prison sentence Friday in Jackson Circuit Court.

“Teenage” can mean 13 or it can mean 19. That’s a big difference.

“You took advantage of a situation,” [Judge Bill] Vance told Buckner as he was imposing the sentence.

And…? A 36-year-old, whatever gender, can “take advantage” of consent for sex from an adult of any age, of whatever gender, without it being a criminal matter, or necessarily a bad thing. Vance no doubt “took advantage” of access to law school.

Buckner received two five-year prison terms after pleading guilty to two counts of incest, a Class C felony. The state agreed to dismiss a third count. He also received 284 days credit and 284 days of credit time.

Notice the charges were incest, not rape. If this was rape, he should have been prosecuted for rape. If this was consensual sex, this criminal case should never have existed in the first place.

Buckner said he was not a bad guy and that he wants to try to make things better for all involved, including the child he fathered.

Prosecuting someone for consensual sex no way helps their child. Notice that nothing is written about the child having any problem due to the consanguity of the parents.

Buckner said alcohol and post-traumatic stress from his time in Iraq with the military were factors in his actions.

If this was consensual sex, he should not have to offer any explanation.

The age of consent in Indiana is generally 16, though if Buckner was considered a custodian or guardian, he could be prosecuted if she was 16 or 17. But we don’t know her age, other than her been a teen. We only know that he was charged with “incest,” not any form of assault or molestation. That makes this look like consensual sex, in which case any prison sentence, especially ten years, is ridiculous. Is this any way to treat a war veteran?

Indiana Sending Consenting Adults to Prison For Sex

Lawmakers in Indiana should be embarrassed for allowing to remain on the books laws that criminalize consensual sex between adults. Police should be embarrassed for apprehending people for this “crime.” Any prosecutor, judge, or juror involved in bringing charges, convicting, and sentencing someone for this “crime” should be embarrassed.

Terry A. Hickmott of Rushville was sentenced Friday [March 4] in the Rush Circuit Court to a four year prison term after pleading guilty to Incest, a Class C Felony.

Four year prison term. Why? Where’s the threat to the public or anyone else? What a waste of taxpayer money.

Charges were filed last November by then Chief Deputy Prosecutor Philip Caviness, alleging that the now 32 year-old Hickmott engaged in sexual intercourse or sexual deviate conduct with his sisters.

Philip Caviness, you are wasting your office! Why do you care if people are enjoying sex with each other?

As part of his plea, Hickmott admitted to having sexual relations with one of his adult sisters. Hickmott’s sisters, Rachael Hickmott and Jennifer McDonald, also are charged with incest and their cases remain pending.

So, then, who exactly is the victim?

A condition of his plea agreement is that Mr. Hickmott have no contact with either sister while serving his sentence or while on probation.

How dare anyone tell an adult he can’t have contact with his own sisters when they are willing to have contact with him and apparently are in love or at least attracted to him?

“This is an unpleasant case, and thankfully cases involving allegations of adult siblings having sex with each other are rare,” Caviness said.

Unpleasant for whom, sir? Are you jealous? Rare is not good enough... “cases involving allegations of adult siblings have sex with each other” should never be criminal matters in the first place.

“Under Indiana law, consent is not a defense to the charge of incest. You simply are not allowed to have sex with your biological sibling.” Caviness continued by saying, “Chief Deputy Prosecutor Phillip Morgan handled this case since he took the job in January, and I am pleased with how he resolved it.”

Morgan should be embarrassed, too.

Morgan added, “The statutory sentencing range for a Class C felony is 2 to 8 years in the Department of Correction, and we felt this sentence was fair. Sadly this was a situation that seemed to require incarceration to make sure that this illegal activity stopped.”

In other words, they all still want to be with each other. Why not let them? I beg you to provide one good reason why these lovers should be kept from each other. I wonder how they were found out? I don't see anybody quoted in the story complaining about these people having sex.

How infuriating: sending adults to prison for having sex with each other.

This is a good example of why we need a Marriage Equality Amendment, so that every adult will have a right to love, sex, and marriage (if that is what he or she wants) with any consenting adults. Consanguinamory and consanguineous sex between adults should not be illegal anywhere.

Polling the Clergy in Indiana

The Indianapolis Star asked clergy for guidance on marriage equality in Indiana.

Kevin R. Armstrong, Pastor, North United Methodist Church…

King David had several wives, while King Solomon was commended for his 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Despite this, he goes on to write…

Marriage is not for everyone, but Christian marriage is fundamentally about how the shared gifts of two faithful people witness God's love for the world.

Why does he limit it to two?

Rabbi Benjamin Sendrow, Congregation Shaarey Tefilla…

Monogamous homosexual relationships should be recognized by the government as civil unions.

Monogamous or not, same-sex relationships should be recognized as marriage if that is what the participants want.

There are other kinds of relationships between loving adults, but only a man and a woman make a marriage.

Why not any two loving adults? Why not any number of loving adults? An adult brother and sister, or parent and adult child, or three loving adults -- why cannot these be marriages?

Virtually everyone is opposed to incestuous and plural marriage. But why? There are no secular reasons to oppose them -- certainly not the risk of birth defects from incest, which generally do not appear in the first generation of an incestuous union. Even if they did, we allow marriages between carriers of fatal diseases such as Tay-Sachs. The only reasons to prohibit incestuous or plural unions are Judeo-Christian values that have influenced society even if the source goes unacknowledged.

We have separation of church and state in the US. So there's no reason, then, to deny full marriage equality.

Donald Stikeleather, Dharma Ocean Indianapolis…

The Vajrayana Buddhist view goes beyond removing the dualistic "good and bad" labeling of the world and vows to see all parts of life as sacred, not attempting to control parts that frighten us, that appear aberrant, or are simply different.

We desire to balance and merge our feminine and masculine energies, creating a partner relationship by employing an equal, balancing force to match one beautiful energy with another. Gender is simply a construct to manage how we see the world. This commitment to another is one of awareness, learning and appreciation.

I’ll count on Stikeleather as an ally for full marriage equality.

Indiana Man Gets Prison Time For Incest

Anthoney Sims, 23, or Terre Haute, had been found guilty of rape and incest charges. If I recall correctly from previous coverage, one of his parents caught Sims with his sister.

During his sentencing hearing, Sims' father testified for the defense asking for lenience in the sentencing because it's become a family tragedy. He also stated he's "not sure rape occurred."

Is the father in denial? Is his son a monster? Or do we have a situation here in which shock of the parent resulted in a call to the police, and once the police were involved the sister had the option of either admitting to what is still a serious crime (consensual incest) or covering her own rear by telling the police it wasn’t consensual (= rape)? It is easy to imagine someone being caught by a disapproving parent having sex with a sibling and affirming the parent's assumption that it must have been a sexual assault. It is easy to imagine someone would be reluctant to tell a police officer, a judge, or a jury that they were willingly engaging in a felony by having consensual sex with a sibling, especially given the social bigotry towards people who do such things, in addition to the law against it. Maybe this really was a rape, but given the situation, there is an opening for a false conviction.

This article clarifies the sentencing…

A Terre Haute man convicted by a jury of rape received a 16-year prison sentence Wednesday in Vigo Superior Court 6.

Anthony Sims, 23, also received a five-year sentence for the Dec. 1 incest conviction, but that sentence will be served at the same time as the rape sentence.

But there’s more…

Judge Michael Lewis also recommended that Sims receive counseling for anger management and sex crimes during his prison stay, and ordered Sims to register as a sex offender.

He should have to register if he did raped her. The incest charge is superfluous, and someone who has consensual sex with another adult is not a threat to anyone.

In announcing the sentence, Lewis noted that Sims has had numerous run-ins with the law both as an adult and a juvenile.

Sounds like a troubled guy. It also sounds like the police and district attorney would be more apts to press for charges even if this wasn’t really a rape.

During the trial, the jury heard a taped interview with police in which Sims admitted that he had sex with a female relative in April 2009, and that he knew it was incest. But Sims said he did not rape her, and claimed that the sex was consensual.

The victim submitted a written statement to the court on Wednesday requesting leniency for Sims. But she also noted that she fears retaliation from family members if Sims were to receive a long prison sentence.

Is she like one of those abused wives who stick up for their batterers? The verdict on the rape charge would indicate that.

Defense attorney Christopher Shema called the case “one of the most sad” cases he has ever dealt with.

Shema had argued that the convictions of rape and incest were a double jeopardy issue for Sims, but Judge Lewis ruled against that.

Since both charges are felony sex crimes, Sims must serve 85 percent of the prison sentence. However, he will receive credit for the 654 days he has spent in the Vigo County jail on the charges.

Incest is a felony sex crime, even when everyone consents and enjoys it. How messed up is that? If not technically double jeopardy, the incest charge is indeed superfluous. The act is the very same thing for which he was convicted of rape.

Whatever the truth is in this case, a rapist should get serious prison time for the crime of rape. Consensual incest, or consanguineous sex, should not be illegal. Indiana needs to change its laws.