Should adultery be illegal?

2Scoops

RiverWilde wrote: »

The only reason the govt has introduced the civil registration bill is exactly because the number of marriages has plummetted.

You're probably right. I strongly suspect that adding legislation to make adultery a criminal offense would result in even fewer marriages. Which is what I said.

RiverWilde wrote: »

It isn't about giving the govt. the power to control private relationships, it's about protecting individuals within a relationship when their partner decides to screw half the neighbourhood and/or impregnates someone else or in the case of a woman - gets impregnated by someone else and/or brings home something nasty in the form of an std etc etc.

At this point the partner to the relationship who has kept good to the agreement - should be able to get redress in the courts if the wayward partner male or female has totally abandoned their responsibilites.

But only if they're married?

RiverWilde wrote: »

If the adulterous behaviour etc has been the trigger to end the relationship that fact should be taken into account when the marriage is being dissolved.

In terms of divorce settlements, it already is.

RiverWilde

2Scoops wrote: »

But only if they're married?

As it stands now, yes.

As regards the criminalisation of adultery. I don't think so, it's not a good idea. Turkey recently tried to introduce that and they quickly changed their minds.

Riv

philologos

2Scoops wrote: »

If they're not married, there is no contract.

Yes, I'm aware of that. There should be an incentive for people in long term relationships to get married to have this legal protection. I'm yet to see what the issue is.

ChocolateSauce

RiverWilde wrote: »

What's wrong with adultery? Oh okay :rolleyes: - it's fun to lie and cheat and wreck the life of your agreed life partner? Sorry can't agree there.

Riv

And you think all those words describe adultery all the time? That's a very (one might say) old fashioned view of the act. I would say narrow and black and white.

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't just "sex" to commit adultery. It is betrayal, and it causes grief and harm to many who find that their marriages have been breached. Trust is lost.

I think some fair and adequate form of redress should be provided to people who are hurt through this.

It still does apply to property. As it is a divorce can end in a 50/50 split of wealth, whether or not that wealth was accrued equally. Giving more than a 50% share to one party is essentially theft for the crime of lying about personal matters.

2Scoops

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware of that. There should be an incentive for people in long term relationships to get married to have this legal protection. I'm yet to see what the issue is.

The 'incentive' of a legally binding contract that punishes adultery will not encourage marriage. Quite the opposite, in fact.

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It still does apply to property. As it is a divorce can end in a 50/50 split of wealth, whether or not that wealth was accrued equally. Giving more than a 50% share to one party is essentially theft for the crime of lying about personal matters.

I take it you haven't heard of the concept of compensation ever before. I personally think one who has been grieved by deceit, lies and unfaithfulness to their marital promises is at the very least deserving of this.

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

I take it you haven't heard of the concept of compensation ever before. I personally think one who has been grieved by deceit, lies and unfaithfulness to their marital promises is at the very least deserving of this.

And how do you measure how much money emotional pain is worth?

Cod75

Im a happily devoted man, I wouldnt do it myself to my missus.

But if some people are that stupid and want to do it, then go ahead. They shouldnt be ****ed into jail over it!

Húrin

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a question which I have wondered for a while. I personally have concluded yes on this one.

I tihnk that criminalising adultery would

1. be too alien to our culture to work
2. cause damage to the institution of marriage
3. clog up the courts with needless work

RiverWilde

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And you think all those words describe adultery all the time? That's a very (one might say) old fashioned view of the act. I would say narrow and black and white.

Yes it is black and white - you're either married or you're not - if you are you have no business playing away from home (unless there is a different arrangement with your spouse).

For that indiscretion the adulterer should pay a penalty. To my mind if you want to engage in sexual acts that are not sanctioned by your spouse, you should do the decent thing and dissolve the marriage.

I'd go further than that to ask that if you cannot adhere to the agreement you made with your bride on your wedding day ... why the hell would you get married in the first place?

Riv

Affable

I'm amazed as many as 23% say yes!

JC 2K3

This is retarded.

Without even going into why it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, it simply wouldn't work.

Placing too much value on the idea that something being a crime is a deterrant to committing said crime is extremely short sighted.

The consequences of adultery are bad enough as it is if one were to get caught - the shame, the hurt you will cause to someone you once loved and possibly to your kids etc. The additional consequence of a possible jail sentence if your spose decides to bring the matter to court is hardly going to stop you.

tbh

I've not read through the whole thread but apologies if this has been discussed before.

Firstly, if you are going to imprison someone for breaking the marriage contract, it would only be fair to imprison anyone for any breech of contract, including, say a mobile phone contract. There are some people who, quite justifiably, don't believe in marriage, and prosecuting those who do (but fail) would be unfair.

Secondly, imagine the situation where a spouse has been abused by their spouse. They leave the home, and the abuse, but never divorce (possibly because their spouse won't let them). Now, 5-10-15 years down the track, the abused spouse finds someone else and begins a relationship. Their ex finds out, and brings a prosecution against them. How would you deal with that case?

interesting question, as always jakkass

Belfast

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a question which I have wondered for a while. I personally have concluded yes on this one.

I see no reason why a marriage as a legal contract should not incur a penalty on the ones who violate it, preferrably a lengthy enough jail sentence. In cases of adultery people seem to see it as an acceptable part of society. I'd like to know why people think it is acceptable though if it can cause so much pain and if it can cause serious damage to families. Surely violating a contract as great as this is worthy of such a penalty.

Also for anyone who has a bit of a clue about legal history in Ireland, was adultery ever illegal here, if so when and for how long?

I've left a poll up, I suspect that it will go a certain way, but just out of curiosity just in case I am surprised it may be worth looking at.

Contract law is normally part of civil law not criminal law.

랴연

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a question which I have wondered for a while. I personally have concluded yes on this one.

I see no reason why a marriage as a legal contract should not incur a penalty on the ones who violate it, preferrably a lengthy enough jail sentence.

It is illegal in many countries and does incur a jail sentence. A celebrity here just got sent to prison for it.

Donnelly117

it costs about 100,000 grand a year to house an inmate. so it would be a bit of a waste of money don't you think...

turgon

I just fundamentally think the state should not be a moral adjudicate, leave that up to the people.

getz

on a study by time magazine,they found that most married people have committed adultery,so it means that half the people in ireland would be in prison,

ChocolateSauce

It would also raise the spectre of false accusations...

RiverWilde

False accusations? If that is a worrying factor it doesn't say a whole lot about the relationship. If a person is innocent of the charge ... the truth will out as they say ... the accuser can either prove it or not. If however a spouse starts slinging such mud, again, it doesn't say much about the relationship.

Riv

Coriolanus

I think he means from a jurisprudence point of view. Just the fact that it goes to court is going to involve money and remember, we'd be making this a criminal offense, obliging the Gardaí to investigate each and every claim.

RiverWilde

Nevore wrote: »

I think he means from a jurisprudence point of view. Just the fact that it goes to court is going to involve money and remember, we'd be making this a criminal offense, obliging the Gardaí to investigate each and every claim.

If this 'accusation' is part of divorce proceedings anyway it wouldn't be much more of a hassle to sort out. It would also be fairly easy to put in a little legal measure to 'encourage' people not to lodge false accusations.

Riv

Coriolanus

RiverWilde wrote: »

If this 'accusation' is part of divorce proceedings anyway it wouldn't be much more of a hassle to sort out. It would also be fairly easy to put in a little legal measure to 'encourage' people not to lodge false accusations.

Riv

Eh, people go to extreme lengths to hide adultery from the courts in divorce proceedings now, when all is at stake is money and the appropriate division of property. Imagine how much obfuscation and skullduggery will arise if the guilty party is going to end up in jail?!

And the wonderful thing about an accusation of a crime is that it's very, very difficult to prove malicious intent on the part of the accusser. You only need to look at the girl who accused her neighbour of raping her when she was 13 in Galway(?). He served years in jail for a either a childish joke or maliciously intended crime. Afaik she apologised and came forward, but no charges were brought against her for effectively stealing a mans reputation and a portion of his life.

Edit: In the case I thought I was thinking of, he didn't serve jailtime but was convicted, with all the consequences that entails.

RiverWilde

Nevore wrote: »

Eh, people go to extreme lengths to hide adultery from the courts in divorce proceedings now, when all is at stake is money and the appropriate division of property. Imagine how much obfuscation and skullduggery will arise if the guilty party is going to end up in jail?!

And the wonderful thing about an accusation of a crime is that it's very, very difficult to prove malicious intent on the part of the accusser. You only need to look at the girl who accused her neighbour of raping her when she was 13 in Galway(?). He served years in jail for a either a childish joke or maliciously intended crime. Afaik she apologised and came forward, but no charges were brought against her for effectively stealing a mans reputation and a portion of his life.

I'm not a fan of the notion of locking people up for adultery, it's as daft as locking somone up for non payment of debts. I just think that if adultery can be shown the penalties should be so onerous it would cease to be a viable option for someone considering it.

To my mind the state should be liable in the case of that man who lost his freedom for so many years. They brought the case using her as 'evidence.' That being the case they should shell out a shed load of damages in reparation. It won't give him back the lost years but with a bit of luck it would encourage the state to do a better job in future.

Yes he didn't serve time but he may as well have considering the amount of damage it did to him.

Riv

Coriolanus

I don't think it should even be punishable by monetary fines or community service etc. It doesn't cause material harm. For the same reason, I'm against massive payouts in the case of libels etc. Ref Monica Leech who earned x times more for a libel case than she would have for losing both arms in a RTA. :mad:

Afaik the Miscarriage of Justice ruling opens the State to compensation claims but last I'd read, the guy in question just wants to start getting his life back together.

RiverWilde

You could argue that lost limbs (extremely tragic loss) can be replaced with artificial ones.

However, ones reputation can never be wholly restored even with a sucessful libel action. Mud sticks. Unfortunately too many people adopt the notion of 'no smoke without fire' and all that rot.

Regarding adultery I have to disagree there should be a severe penalty for that as it does harm, perhaps not physical but definitely psychological.

Riv

Coriolanus

I don't know about that. Ask most sane adults which they'd rather have happen: A: Be falsely accused of fraudulently making people money or B: Lose both arms, and I think there'd be a fair bias towards B.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. :)

johnnyskeleton

Jakkass wrote: »

I see no reason why a marriage as a legal contract should not incur a penalty on the ones who violate it, preferrably a lengthy enough jail sentence.

If you breach any other contract, you do not suffer a penalty - the only obligation is to compensate the other party. So why should a marriage contract be different (other than to enforce fundamentalist christian beliefs)?

Jakkass wrote: »

In cases of adultery people seem to see it as an acceptable part of society. I'd like to know why people think it is acceptable though if it can cause so much pain and if it can cause serious damage to families. Surely violating a contract as great as this is worthy of such a penalty.

For the majority of people it is not seen as acceptable. However, that does not mean it should be a criminal offence punishable by jail. For example, I don't think it is acceptable that people break red lights or don't repay bank loans, but I don't think they should go to jail automatically because of it.

Jakkass wrote: »

Also for anyone who has a bit of a clue about legal history in Ireland, was adultery ever illegal here, if so when and for how long?

I think it was a common law offence that didn't survive the passing of the free state constitution, but i might be wrong and don't really care.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've left a poll up, I suspect that it will go a certain way, but just out of curiosity just in case I am surprised it may be worth looking at.

What I find intersting is the way people think that they can legislate their way to a society that conforms to their belief system.

johnnyskeleton

Nevore wrote: »

I don't think it should even be punishable by monetary fines or community service etc. It doesn't cause material harm. For the same reason, I'm against massive payouts in the case of libels etc. Ref Monica Leech who earned x times more for a libel case than she would have for losing both arms in a RTA. :mad:

If anything, it shows how inadequate the awards of damages are for serious personal injury. If you think about it, 12 citizens picked off the street hear how someone was defamed by a newspaper and agree amongst themselves what the appropriate compensation is, and the media claim it is too much. A judge sitting alone determines what a personal injuries case is worth, and the media pillories them as a compo-culture gouger. Is it possible that the 12 random citizens get it right time and again, but the media will not admit to this because it hits them directly in the pocket? Surely civil cases, as much as criminal cases can act as a deterrent and someone shouldn't be denied compensation just because it interferes with a red top rag's ability to spout nonsense?