Chris did, or what he's been accused of doing, on someone with dementia. Incest laws were designed on suspects who do that to their kids and this happens. Then another continuance? It's taking up courts time and just because the law is written in such a way, doesn't mean they're going to apply that on everyone. I really don't think so.
No, the law is written to cover all incest with immediate family, including adults, including fucking your parents. They couldn't even prosecute him if the law didn't explicitly include fucking your mother as part of the statute.
Moreover, it has a clause for fucking minor offspring, making it a more serious Class 3 felony instead of a wobbler Class 5 felony.
B. Any person who engages in sexual intercourse with his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent engages in sexual intercourse with his child or grandchild, and such child or grandchild is at least 13 years of age but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.
The reason for this is because this is not a statute built around harm caused to another, but a crime against human morals and decency. There are separate laws for crimes against a victim. That's why the incest statute doesn't bother with kids under 13 -- there are rape laws to cover that (below age 13, minors are assumed incapable of consent, rather than just being disallowed consent).
Under this statute, fucking your 12 year old kid is actually LESS BAD than fucking your 17 year old kid, but it doesn't matter as there are other penalties. This statute explicitly makes it a moral issue rather than a harm issue.
I think Chris is going to get double the time for the crime because how it's eating up courts time. I'm talking about 20 damn years in prison, not the "maximum" ten! I seriously think that because of the how severe the crime is and how it's taking up the courts time.
They can't do that. They can't sentence someone to a longer sentence than statute allows. That would violate the constitution in numerous way. If the max is 10 years, the max is 10 years. For a Class 5 felony (and remember he's not even charged in a felony court yet, so right now he's only facing 1 year) that is the explicit maximum punishment.
I recall that he says most don't even go to trail. Defendants usually set up a plea deal. The point of the Defendant is to make sure their client is given a fair and reasonable trail. This mean mitigating the possible punishments.
Some pedantic corrections:
Trial, not trail. And yes, 94% of state convictions and 97% of federal convictions come from plea agreements, not trials.
The "defendant" is the person/entity accused of the crime. The defense attorney is the person who has the defendant as a client. Collectively they are referred to as the defense.
Then Chris has the possibility of walking free with time served unless they put the pressure and charge him with a class 5 felony. Since a class 5 misdemeanor you can only be held for a year max.
Class 1 misdemeanor. Class 5 and Class 6 felonies (the lowest grade felonies -- the worst crimes like murder are Class 1 felonies), are the felonies that can be downgraded to the worst misdemeanor -- Class 1.
There is no Class 5 misdemeanor. The least severe misdemeanors in Virginia are Class 3 and Class 4, which are only punishable by small fines -- i.e. they're basically infractions but unlike an infraction they act as a negative mark on your criminal record.
Which would be harder to nail. Nonetheless with time served so in the end. He'd get anywhere from no time, to at most 9 years. Plus Virginia has a "get out jail" (joking) with autism allowing reduced sentences or punishment. If his lawyer is good enough, which he probably is as he willing took up Chris's case. He could get his sentence suspended or deferred. So if Chris manages to not break anything during probation he could walk as well.
It's not really "walking" when your sentence is satisfied with time served. You still have a criminal record (in this case a pretty fucking gross one) and you still spend a bunch of time in jail, it's just you served your time in advance.
Edit: The other idea may be, that they may charge him for something, put him in prison but then add more the law books and summon him again and charge him for another crime, to better explain what he has done, with the evidence they have. That's another possibility.
That's called ex post facto and is explicitly banned by the constitution. It was one of the factors behind the American Revolution, because at the time the English government could still apply ex post facto laws. Americans hated the idea of changing the law to punish someone for something that previously wasn't punishable.
It has since been banned by the European Convention on Human Rights, and in most nations of the world under other international conventions.
You CAN come back and charge someone with another crime at a later date, if the crime is already on the books, but that is against policy by the principle of single event in most jurisdictions, including Virginia. Furthermore, plea agreements always include a proviso that any other charges involved in the incident will not be brought.
EDIT: For instance, right now they can add more charges to Chris' case, like the crime against nature statute that bans oral/anal intercourse with family members (it is a separate statute from the main incest law, which only concerns penis in vagina). However if Chris makes a plea agreement, it will include a non-prosecution agreement for all other potential charges in the matter.
If instead Chris is found guilty at trial for incest, they still will not come back and recharge him with oral as that is against the policy of the courts, *unless* new evidence comes to light that was not known of during the course of the trial.
In addition, if they convict him of misdemeanor incest they cannot come back and re-try him for felony incest as that is the same statute with the same evidentiary requirements, which would make it double jeopardy.
EDIT 2: Also criminal indemnification does not mean civil indemnification -- so for instance even after a plea deal, Barb or her other heirs could still sue Chris for damages, but that would be pointless as Chris has no money.
EDIT 3: Technically the UK can still pass ex post facto laws, as they are not banned entirely, but they are bound by international treaty to not criminally punish people with them worse than they could have been under existing law. So for instance they could still pass an ex post facto law that opened you up to a civil lawsuit, though that would be frowned upon by the legal establishment.
The US constitution, on the other hand, flat out bans ex post facto laws entirely.
