@Pointless Sperg says August 8th for the indictments to reach the grand jury. I'm heavily inclined to trust his statements as TRUE AND HONEST.
I was too lazy to look up the grand jury schedule. Another kiwi did, but it checks out.
The deciding point here is how badly does the dementia have to be to constitute as sufficient mental impairment that one loses the ability to consent, and if Barb meets that criteria. Chris could probably argue that Barb was assessed to be well enough to live on her own and even drive, which suggests that she might not be impaired enough to be unable to consent. Even if they prove that Barb has dementia, it's not going to be as easy to prove rape as many assume.
The way I read it, everyone over the legal age is considered to be able to consent in Virginia, and only people under 13 are considered *never* unable to consent.
The measure of whether it's rape or not is if the person is capable of *refusing* consent, and did not refuse it, physically or verbally. It does not require affirmative consent. Able to refuse means that, in addition to be physically capable of refusing, they understand what they were doing and what the consequences could be. Thus, if Barb understood that she was having sex with Chris, and that it was a crime, then if she participated in the actions she is assumed to have consented.
Chris mentioned that she said "no" once. If he fucked her on that occasion, then he is guilty of rape. This does not cover other occasions any more than it does for non-incestuous intercourse.
Chris also mentioned that she was "confused" once. This is vague. If it means she didn't know what was happening, then Chris is guilty of rape. If it means she was just confused by the situation, then that does not constitute rape.
If at the time Barb refused consent or could not refuse consent, he did not put his penis in her vagina, but put his tongue in her or his penis somewhere else, then it is forcible sodomy, which has the same punishment as rape.
If at the time Barb could not refuse consent he instead just non-penetratively touched her privates, it is aggravated sexual battery, which is 1-20 years instead of 5-life. If she refused consent then it is sexual battery and a Class 1 misdemeanor.
If at the time Barb refused consent or could not refuse consent he put his fingers or a toy in her, then it is object penetration, with the same 5-life as rape.
You're completely ignorant of the law then, in Virginia non-pedo tier 1 sex offenders aren't barred from schools, and parks aren't included in the definition of school.
Also how are you trying to explain tiers by saying incapacitated barbussy is tier 1 incest when I just explained that if they charge Chris for that it's rape by incapacitation, a tier 3 offense WITH the ban on being near places frequented by children.
Secondly in Virginia incest is tier 1 sex offender registration, full stop.
Now back to the point, even if Chris becomes a tier 3 sex offender will have NO RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS WHAT SO EVER, Virginia law explicitly limits residence restrictions to people who offended against children.
BUT, if he is convicted of Rape by Incapacitation, he WILL be barred from loitering within 100 feet of any gamestop, toy store, walmart toy section, etc for the rest of his life as that is the sole non-pedo offense to trigger those restrictions.*
*Regular kidnapping is listed but the courts ruled it's inclusion to be unconstitutional.
If he is convicted of plain rape then he will have NO LOCATION RESTRICTIONS beyond schools.
Ah, I reread the statute and you are indeed correct about the residency/school loitering requirements. I will correct this in the FAQ.
Regarding the rest, with the caveat that you are obviously familiar with Virginia whereas I am not, and I could be wrong, but:
Based on reading the schedule for registration in
§ 9.1-902, non-minor, non-incapacitated incest
violation (§ 18.2-366) does not put you on the SOR. These are the only places where the incest statute is mentioned:
For tier 1:
2. Where the victim is a minor or is physically helpless or mentally incapacitated as defined in §
18.2-67.10, subsection A of §
18.2-47, clause (i) of §
18.2-48, §
18.2-67.4, subsection C of §
18.2-67.5, §
18.2-361, §
18.2-366, or a felony violation of former § 18.1-191.
For tier 3:
2. §
18.2-63, §
18.2-64.1, former §
18.2-67.2:1, §
18.2-90 with the intent to commit rape or, where the victim is a minor or is physically helpless or mentally incapacitated as defined in §
18.2-67.10, subsection A of §
18.2-47, §
18.2-67.4, subsection C of §
18.2-67.5, clause (i) of §
18.2-48, §
18.2-361, §
18.2-366, or subsection C of §
18.2-374.1:1. An offense listed under this subdivision shall be deemed a Tier III offense only if the person has been convicted or adjudicated delinquent of any two or more such offenses, provided that person had been at liberty between such convictions or adjudications;
Regarding incest by incapacitation vs rape by incapacitation, you're absolutely right if it's prosecuted to the maximum extent, however the incapacitation clause in the SOR statute is there for a reason -- the incest charge can function as a lesser charge in a plea bargain. The clause would be pointless if nobody was ever convicted of incapacitated incest instead of incapacitated rape.