Oh I’m sure the Epstein family’s reputation won’t be affected at all by this innocent tryst of intra-family lust.  I’m sure all those who are related to this progressive pervert aren’t humiliated by the “enlightened” acts of this man. 

And how the hell do you know that the daughter has not been harmed from this?  Just b/c she’s an adult doesn’t shield her from physical or psychological distress.  Why do you bend over backwards to defend incest?  It raises some interesting questions.

eewww  a diddler!!!!!

The young woman in question is 24 now, which means she was 17 when Dr. Epstien started to have sex with her. Does anyone who thinks this does not hurt anyone really belive she was in a positon to make an adult, informed, and independent decision to have sex with her father?

This man is should go to jail for a long time. For the University to keep him on staff diminishes the entire Institution.

As for harming no one, I do not beleive the ignorance of some people, it HARMS EVERYONE!! This behavior makes what this society should hold dearest, the innocence of our children, and the value of strong independent women, a mockery.

Just think what he might do with students if he would do this with his own daughter.

I read one of the most popular sites on the internet that posts sex stories. (better than Penthouse Letters) and incest stories are more popular than group sex stories – go figure.

The plea bargain says that the prosecutor didn’t think this was very serious. i.e. consent vs non-consent is a serious issue. Incest per se not so much.

As to abortion – it is liberals killing their own (mostly). Let them. The trouble I see is that most conservatives do not believe (in their hearts) that they are are at war with the socialists.  Liberals killing their own is much easier for me than having to kill them myself. So I would advise against abortion but do nothing to outlaw it.

I can see nothing but problems if the government has to police my mate’s or my daughter’s reproductive organs. I just don’t want government poking around there. Having to take a pee test to get a job is a very bad idea. I’m one of the few that can’t do it (if I even think some one is watching my flow stops or won’t start). So I live on the government teat. I’d like to get off but I can’t get work in my field because of the laws. Fine. I’ll just live at your expense. Problem solved.

Maybe you’re a lone wolf because everyone finds you disgusting. I pray that you don’t have children.

Laws prohibiting private consensual sex between competent adults are nothing but the tyranny of the majority.  They have no more validity than a law against masturbating in private.  There are laws on the books in many states forbidding oral sex, and in some places any form of sex other than coitus in  the missionary position.  Are these laws to be enforced as well?  If so then I’m guilty as sin, and so are the rest of us.  The moral problems you mention are merely how the tyranny of the majority manifests itself culturally.  This is not true morality.  True morality transcends culture and consists of universal truths.

One point you raise that does have merit is the question of consent.  As her father, he was in a position of power and trust that another man would not have been in.  There is a real question of whether their sexual relationship was truly consensual, or if he was using his position as her father to manipulate her into “consenting” to a sexual relationship she did not want.  Mackenzie Phillips recently revealed that she was the victim of such manipulation by her father for over ten years. 

The issue of inbreeding is also a real concern.  Sex makes babies happen, and the children of close relatives are at greatly enhanced risk of a myriad of genetic disabilities and deformities. 

But, if we take it as a given that their relationship was truly consensual, and we accept that they were taking the proper precautions necessary to make pregnancy a remote possibility, then we are left no compelling state interest that would justify interfering in the private aspects of their lives that affect no one else but themselves.

It is my suspicion that this relationship was not truly consensual and that this young woman was sexually abused by her father.  But if that is the case, then that is the crime that the authorities should be pursuing.  The issue here is not consensual sex that the rest of us find repellent, but the rape of a young woman by the man she should have been able to trust most of all.  He should be charged and tried for rape, and if guilty sentenced accordingly. 

But If I am wrong and their relationship was truly consensual, then there is no wrong to be righted here and no justice to be done.  The only thing there is to do is leave them in peace, or at most require that he get a vasectomy. 

Being judgemental is good, it shows that you’re honest.  It’s the “tolerant” ones with nary a whisper of disapproval at even the most egregious acts that you have to watch out for.

Telling the truth means telling people things they don’t always want to hear. 

Professor E’s lawyer calls the daughter an accomplice, not a victim?  Fine, so prosecute her along with her dad and call it a twofer.  You won’t get any complaints from me.

John, in many ways I understand and agree with the “mind your own business” sentiment in your reply, but one problem I have completely buying in to the blanket permissiveness of libertarian philosophy is the very real fact that there are cultural and societal norms that have have been demonstrated to be either advantageous or detrimental to a strong and enduring society.  Excessively libertine and decadent cultures tend to stagnate and then decline.  The trick is in deciding what degree of collective intrusion on individual freedom will promote and preserve a healthy growing society (to the collective benefit of all) without sacrificing essential elements of human freedom.  I will agree with you all day that blue laws governing masturbation or permissible varaitions on the Kama Sutra are best delegated to the dust bin of history, but I don’t think it imposes an unreasonable burden on the majority of folks’ personal freedom to say “we, as a society, don’t diddle with our kids, regardless of their age.”

if this was a consensual relationship… and they are both adults…and we don’t even know exactly what sort of sexual acts in which they engaged…how the heck did the police get involved in the first place ??

Professor dumbass was cheating on his wife with his daughter.  The wife found out and was naturally not amused.  The two of them were doing a lot of “sexting” via cell phone.  Such behaviour is what the prosecution likes to call EVIDENCE.

I expect that Professor phreakypants probably had a really good lawyer and that is the only reason he’s not looking at multiple felony charges.  Maybe his daughter refused to cooperate with the police.  Hard to say without knowing more.

There is a lot about this case that really bothers me.  If this were a case of cousins getting it on, or an adult brother and sister, then I’d be inclined to assume that the relationship was consensual and therefore none of our business.  Worthy of disapproval naturally, but not something that the state should be wasting taxpayer money by prosecuting in criminal court..  But I don’t think that is what is going on here.  I think he was manipulating her into having sex with him, using the psychological power and influence that he possessed just by being her father.  I think this is another Mackenzie Phillips situation.  If so, then the police should most definitely be involved and he should be charged not with incest, but with rape.

LoboSoSlow- you must have been strained thru a sock if you would defend this. I pity any of your offspring, should you have the ability to reproduce.

Evidently these activities were legal, albeit scummy — so it makes sense to broadcast them far and wide, such that the alumni may take notice and cease sending money to Columbia University. Make the university “pay for” employing a scuzz.