A joint select committee of parliament yesterday began deliberations on the Incest (Punishment) Act and the Offences Against the Persons Act to, among other things, widen the current definition of rape and give increased scope to prosecute child sex offenders.

The proposed reforms to the Offences Against the Persons Act will provide a statutory definition of rape and sexual intercourse, extending ‘rape’ beyond vaginal penetration by a penis. In addition the offence of rape will become gender neutral, meaning it can now be committed by a male or female against both male and female. It will also address the thorny issue of marital rape and abolish the presumption that a boy under the age of 14 years cannot be found guilty of rape on the grounds that boys do not attain puberty until age 14.

The main areas of change for the Incest Punishment Act will be to create a single, gender-neutral incest offence by persons of 16 years and older and broaden the scope of persons who can be found guilty of the offence to include, among others, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces and persons in loco parentis relationships (persons, not parents, in parental-type relationships with children). It also provides for the re-classification of the offence of incest as a felony, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (as is the case for rape).

Attorney General A J Nicholson, who chaired the committee sitting at Gordon House yesterday, said the intention was to bring areas of the law in line with modern trends with other countries in the Commonwealth.

According to Nicholson, the legislature should “have signed off on matters such as these long ago”. He said, however, that acceptance of the proposed amendments could spark some amount of resistance as the bills remained controversial, mainly because of the gender-neutral initiative that is being proposed.

“The amendments go into uncharted waters; the real controversy in the public domain is going to surround that very issue. There are members of the bar who don’t want us to go this route, some rebelled, but we have to find (common ground)”, the Attorney General said.

In the meantime, he said a number of individuals in society and the parliament have been pushing for such measures to tackle the problems of child abuse and child pornography.

“We can’t stand idly by and do nothing,” Senator Nicholson said.

In the meantime, government member Sharon Hay-Webster and Opposition Member Olivia Grange, who both campaigned for the amendments, said they were pleased that the issues raised by the bills were finally being addressed.

Hay-Webster, in the meantime, suggested that any punishment considered should allow for counselling and medical treatment. She was supported by Grange who further suggested that punishment be included for men who knowingly infect females with HIV/AIDS as this was not addressed by the Venereal Disease Act.

Government member Senator Norman Grant said it was time that a clear message be sent to offenders that child abuse was not welcomed. In supporting the gender-neutral stance of the bill, Grant said it was also time that society send “a clear signal of its non-acceptance” of the sexual abuse of its young boys.

“Where someone rapes and then murders I would like to see it become law where the punishment for the separate crimes run concurrently before any consideration of parole. society will not tolerate the assault sexually and otherwise of our young children,” he said.

Colonel Trevor MacMillan, an opposition member of the committee, said he was in full support of the guidance and control which the amendments would allow.

He, however, was blunt in the punishment that should be given to child sex offenders.

“.My idea of punishment might be something outside of the constitution. Death might be too pleasant,” he said.

Considerations on the Incest (Punishment) Act by a Joint Select Committee of Parliament were called off in 1995 because of the lack of a quorum of the members of parliament, and was never reconvened until now.