Shouldn't Adultery be a crime?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
alright fine... woman finds out her husband has been cheating on her with some skank... she loved him with all her heart and now finds out that his love was bull****...

tell her there is nothing wrong with the act of cheating...

"Something wrong" does not equal "a felony, punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both..."

So, get divorced, start over, move on with someone else who isn't a scumbag. Or figure out that the marriage was dead years ago, and you should have moved on then. Or respond in kind. Or work it out. Whatever the hell she wants to do, but it's his problem and hers, not the state's or the taxpayer's.

Or run the mother****er over but be prepared to do time for it.

It's a private issue, and none of the state's business, unless and until she chooses the last option.

[Dinner]

The wages getting garnished is called Alimony and child support.

[Kirnwaffen]

I was thinking more along the lines of the victim getting basically everything in the divorce proceedings and the adulteror being fined and having his wages garnished...

That's what generally happens in cases like these. Men who cheat are typically left with a lesser share of the assets. Leaving them destitute, however, would, I think, be somewhat harsh...

[Al B. Sure!]

alright so in a way it is punished in most states... i was wrongly led to believe that the issue of adultery had no place in divorce court and didn't effect distribution of property, etc.

as most states, as people said, would thus indirectly punish the adulteror, that should be sufficient punishment


thanks

[Blisterz]

You know, I really hate swearing. I can't stand walking by someone on the street and hearing "man, that feels like ****. ****ed if I know".

So why not make swearing in public illegal?

And what about PDAs? (public displays of affection), don't get me started on that...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Jail?

I was thinking more along the lines of the victim getting basically everything in the divorce proceedings and the adulteror being fined and having his wages garnished...

Brutal experience moved away from that approach. Then you get into a debate and 50 witnesses on each side that he ****ed so and so, but she did it 20 years ago with the pool boy, blah blah blah. Can you say "Jerry Springer?"

If people are that concerned about it, they can prenup asset divisions for different reasons of dissolution, and the court can enforce the prenup. Again, it's a private matter (the agreed conditions in the prenup) and the court is only acting to divide the assets as specified, not getting into soap opera circus trials.

Go hang out in family law court for a week this summer, and then tell me you want to see it get worse than it is. Find out from the clerk which courtroom is handling law and motion. (Most courts set that up separately, to get as much done with as little time wasted as possible.)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
alright so in a way it is punished in most states... i was wrongly led to believe that the issue of adultery had no place in divorce court and didn't effect distribution of property, etc.

as most states, as people said, would thus indirectly punish the adulteror, that should be sufficient punishment


thanks

Most states have no fault laws regarding assets. Only seven states (last I recall, but a couple were considering changing over) are community property states, so normally, there are very few assets to be divided by the court. In the 43 non community property states, awarding assets of one party to the other is a confiscation of property, which would legally require a full trial and due process issues - in other words, a full blown lawsuit, instead of the more or less summary proceedings in a typical family law court.

[St Leo]

tell her there is nothing wrong with the act of cheating...

Lying isn't a crime. If you lie to me, I don't automatically get the right to debrain you.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Brutal experience moved away from that approach. Then you get into a debate and 50 witnesses on each side that he ****ed so and so, but she did it 20 years ago with the pool boy, blah blah blah. Can you say "Jerry Springer?"

Obviously the standard of proof is going to be pretty high; but I don't see any reason to distinguish between presenting evidence in this sort of case and doing it in other acrimonious partnership breakups.

The only people you want to disadvantage in this sort of thing are the serial philanderers. Not only do these people wreck their own marriages but often those of others too. They are a social nuisance and should be punished accordingly.

Perhaps it's not such a big deal in a huge city. But you try seeing what these people do in smaller communities where it's harder to hide. Violence is frequent.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin

In divorce cases Adultery is grounds for one of the partners to recieve a smaller share of common assets. A guy who cheats on his wife often finds the wife with 70% instead of 50%.

That seems like a sensible rule. The whole community has an interest in people having stable marriages (since it reduces competition and violence) at least some way of assuaging the wronged party must be considered.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
We'd lose a whole lot of presidents that way.

[Uncle Sparky]

Infants have less fun in infancy than adults have in adultery.

I know it doesn't contribute to the debate, but many of you haven't contributed to "I'm with Stupid - Redux" - though many of your names are turning up in the answers...

[St Leo]

The whole community has an interest in people having stable marriages (since it reduces competition and violence) at least some way of assuaging the wronged party must be considered.

Good of the Many over Good of the Few is a Bad Thing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Obviously the standard of proof is going to be pretty high; but I don't see any reason to distinguish between presenting evidence in this sort of case and doing it in other acrimonious partnership breakups.

In the US, at least, business parnerships also sue only for dissolution. (as the cause of action). Evidence of economic wrongdoing is admissible, but the most of the general whodunitness BS of typical business tort/contract litigation is avoided. The issues are basically: What are the assets and who had his hands in the cookie jar by how much? Once you know each partner's cookie jar factor, you can adjust the asset division accordingly.

The only people you want to disadvantage in this sort of thing are the serial philanderers. Not only do these people wreck their own marriages but often those of others too. They are a social nuisance and should be punished accordingly.

So don't make stupid decisions in the first place and **** them, let alone marry them.

Perhaps it's not such a big deal in a huge city. But you try seeing what these people do in smaller communities where it's harder to hide. Violence is frequent.

Keeps the "serial" aspect out if applied early enough, though.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by St Leo
The whole community has an interest in people having stable marriages (since it reduces competition and violence) at least some way of assuaging the wronged party must be considered.

Good of the Many over Good of the Few is a Bad Thing.

Unfortunately, it's reality. People who engage in behaviour that is destructive to the rest of the community should be expelled from it. Counterbalancing this is the fact that tolerating a certain amount of anti-social behaviour tends to leave everyone better off.

People who moan on about god given rights and that sort of stuff are dreamers or religious cranks. The reasons we have taboos about things like adultery and polygamy is that if we didn't we'd all be worse off.

Take polygamy for example. If you allow it, what is going to happen to all those young men who can't find wives? What are they going to do?