Cheat on your spouse in Michigan and spend life in prison?

[danarhea]

Adultery could mean life, court finds

Life in prison for going out on your spouse? According to an appeals court judge, it is a proper sentence. This was in his opinion on a sex-drugs case.

Article is here.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Adultery could mean life, court finds

The judge is just pointing out a pretty poorly written law, he's not intending to open that avenue to prosecution.

More of a middle finger to the legislature and the da than anything else.:lol:

 

[GarzaUK]

:wow:

Cheat on your spouse in Michigan and spend life in prison? - Yahoo! News

DETROIT, United States (AFP) - Philanderers beware: spouses caught cheating in Michigan could end up spending the rest of their life in prison.

And not the emotional kind.

The state's appeals court recently ruled that extramarital flings can be prosecuted as first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in jail.

Hmmm okay anyone else find this crazy??

 

[Cold Dirt]

:wow:

Cheat on your spouse in Michigan and spend life in prison? - Yahoo! News



Hmmm okay anyone else find this crazy??

Thought maybe this would be something you would hear about in a Red State not a liberal free love blue state.......you know liberals have no morals......so I guess I thought there would to huge piles of fresh getting it on in a blue state married or not.........:lol:

yes I find this ludicrous

 

[aps]

Leave it to someone like Cold Dirt to make a non-partisan issue partisan. How pathetic.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Thought maybe this would be something you would hear about in a Red State not a liberal free love blue state.......

Then that's your clue that this may not be a partisan issue. There's a such thing ya know. :2razz: Did you read the article? Seems it has more to do with a poorly worded law than a poor ruling.

 

[Cold Dirt]

Leave it to someone like Cold Dirt to make a non-partisan issue partisan. How pathetic.

Like you have room to talk......how typical of a hypocritical liberal

 

[GarzaUK]

Like you have room to talk......how typical of a hypocritical liberal

Moderator's Warning:

That's it. You have received MANY warnings cold dirt and you still continue to flame and be disrespectful. You've recieved a 3 point infraction for your troubles.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You know, I am glad to see some effort being applied to our hideous rates of adultery... but this is too far. I wouldn't mind seeing criminal or civil penalties for demonstrable infidelity, but it shouldn't be a felony and it certainly shouldn't carry penalties equivalent to manslaughter.

If the law is written that poorly, it needs to be invalidated and re-written.

 

[BubbaBob]

Adultry was, and probably still is, a crime in most states. For the most part the laws were written long ago, and like most laws, once written, they stay on the books forever.

As an example, in Georgia the operator of a HORSELESS CARRIAGE must, when coming to an intersection, toot his horn three times, get out of the horseless carriage and walk to the middle of the intersection, shout three times in each directon, "A horseless carriage is coming!", get back in his horseless carriage, toot his horn three more times, and proceed with extreme caution. Note I said "he", not he/she" when referring to the horseless carriage operator. Women aren't allowed to drive under the law.

One more example that, at least for the next ten years, for every law passed by the states or federal government, two antiquated, useless laws should have to be repealed.

BubbaBob

 

[GarzaUK]

Leave it to someone like Cold Dirt to make a non-partisan issue partisan. How pathetic.

Moderator's Warning:

Keep it civil aps!!! Consider this a warning.

 

[aps]

Moderator's Warning:

Keep it civil aps!!! Consider this a warning.

Okay. :3oops:

P.S. I like it when you keep me in line.

 

[Cold Dirt]

Moderator's Warning:

That's it. You have received MANY warnings cold dirt and you still continue to flame and be disrespectful. You've recieved a 3 point infraction for your troubles.

This is BS....others around here can post about anything to attack others, even if you're part of the thread and not a frickin word from you....why don't you start warning other members that really need the warning? Could it be that they are your buds? ....your just pissed because I cont to shine light onto the hypocritical liberal beliefs......must hit a nerve with you and your type because calling someone a hypocrite in common place here with both sides.......so Garza.....you going to warn everyone that calls someone a hypocrite? I can see you passing down alot of warning in the future..........:roll:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This is BS....others around here can post about anything to attack others, even if you're part of the thread and not a frickin word from you....why don't you start warning other members that really need the warning? Could it be that they are your buds? ....your just pissed because I cont to shine light onto the hypocritical liberal beliefs......must hit a nerve with you and your type because calling someone a hypocrite in common place here with both sides.......so Garza.....you going to warn everyone that calls someone a hypocrite? I can see you passing down alot of warning in the future..........:roll:

Moderator's Warning:

Please familarize yourself with the following, especially the bold: 6a. If there are any concerns over a moderators actions, please address a private message (PM) to vauge or the moderator in question. Your feedback and concerns are very valuable to the success of this board. Each and every PM will be read and investigated. Your behavior above is not acceptable.

 

[RightinNYC]

Discussed earlier, as per the threads just merged.

And yea, its mostly just a move to highlight a bad law.

 

[tryreading]

You know, I am glad to see some effort being applied to our hideous rates of adultery... but this is too far. I wouldn't mind seeing criminal or civil penalties for demonstrable infidelity...

Are you serious? This is a personal issue between married couples and the people they cheat with.

Criminal or civil penalties??? Maybe a three strikes rule?

I see problems with this-how do you prove it? Do you forcibly detain the female in question, take a sample from you know where (or sometimes other areas), and check DNA against the male in question, who you also detained?

Also, would there be different penalties for two people, married but not to each other, who have a running emotional relationship? Or would there have to be penetration?

What would the penalty be for phone sex?

Would there be a divorce penalty? Why not? People often stay with a partner who cheated on them and patch up the relationship. But after a divorce, its almost always over.

The law needs to stay out of people's bedrooms. There have been attempts in the past to outlaw sexual behaviors, and they don't work.

 

[1069]

Are you serious? This is a personal issue between married couples and the people they cheat with.

Criminal or civil penalties??? Maybe a three strikes rule?

I see problems with this-how do you prove it? Do you forcibly detain the female in question, take a sample from you know where (or sometimes other areas), and check DNA against the male in question, who you also detained?

Also, would there be different penalties for two people, married but not to each other, who have a running emotional relationship? Or would there have to be penetration?

What would the penalty be for phone sex?

Would there be a divorce penalty? Why not? People often stay with a partner who cheated on them and patch up the relationship. But after a divorce, its almost always over.

The law needs to stay out of people's bedrooms. There have been attempts in the past to outlaw sexual behaviors, and they don't work.

Excellent practical and logistical questions.
I've got a few more, but let's allow Korymir to address these, first.
It seems to me that when the government attempts to become an arbitor or referee in personal relationships, these laws are- of necessity- only arbitrarily (and therefore unfairly) enforced.


Here's a question:
Would a married rape victim be subject to legal penalties for "adultery"?
I assume not, since the adultery would've been unintentional; but would a rapist who rapes a married woman be subject to additional charges for the crime of adultery? If so, how is this fair to unmarried rape victims (that their attackers are subject to lesser criminal penalties, because they- the victims- are unmarried? Mightn't the prospect of additional charges tacked on for "adultery" cause rapists to target younger, teenage victims rather than adult women, because younger victims are less likely to be married? Surely, nobody would consider that a positive thing).
And that's only the tip of the iceberg, as far as practical concerns about "adultery" laws go.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Are you serious? This is a personal issue between married couples and the people they cheat with.

I am not certain whether or not there should be legal penalties, but I am serious that society needs to do something about this issue-- something more then winking and nodding-- because the high rate of adultery along with the rate of divorce is contributing to the moral decay of our society.

The basis of any healthy society is the family unit.

And no, I do not consider this merely a "personal issue" between the two parties. Marriage is, among other things, a social institution and a legally binding obligation; there is an entire field of law dedicated specifically to handling such "personal issues" between families.

Criminal or civil penalties??? Maybe a three strikes rule?

This is the problem. Neither criminal nor civil penalties are effective, as either would hurt the other spouse if he or she preferred to reconcile the marriage. It certainly shouldn't trigger "three-strikes" or carry any possibility of a prison sentence.

Your other points concerning enforcement are also compelling.

The law needs to stay out of people's bedrooms. There have been attempts in the past to outlaw sexual behaviors, and they don't work.

This isn't a matter of sexual behavior. It's a matter of upholding their moral and legal obligations-- voluntarily entered into-- to their spouses and families, and about being held accountable when they do not.

You are probably right that there is no way for the law to effectively curb this. However, we cannot simply ignore this problem or dismiss it as a "personal issue" that does not affect us.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Here's a question:
Would a married rape victim be subject to legal penalties for "adultery"?
I assume not, since the adultery would've been unintentional;

Obviously not. Thank you for assuming that I am not some savage to whom this fact would make little difference.

... but would a rapist who rapes a married woman be subject to additional charges for the crime of adultery?

I do not believe that to be justified, no. Besides, in cases of adultery it is not the person outside the marriage who has broken his/her vows or their filial obligations, but the person inside it.

Someone who knowingly has an affair with a married person is behaving immorally, but I would say less immorally than the person who is actually breaking their vows.

 

[GarzaUK]

What if a person has an abusive spuose who beat on him/her and he/she goes into the arms of another man/woman because they feel safer?? Is that person as immoral as a person who cheats regularly.

I think the US jail system is already crowded without people who cheat facing the old bill (jail).

 

[PeteEU]

That we have implemented tax laws and other laws to give benifits for couples who sign a piece of paper (make a contract if you may), should not mean we have to condem people for breaking that contract. Yes there are penalties when said contract is annuled, but thats contracts for ya.

This is just another religious right grab at forcing a religious state like Iran on the US. I hear Virginia right wing wackos are trying to make it harder to divorce too.

And family is not the basis of society. Laws and "clan" loyality is the basis of society, and family is nothing but a by product of this.

 

[RightinNYC]

That we have implemented tax laws and other laws to give benifits for couples who sign a piece of paper (make a contract if you may), should not mean we have to condem people for breaking that contract. Yes there are penalties when said contract is annuled, but thats contracts for ya.

This is just another religious right grab at forcing a religious state like Iran on the US. I hear Virginia right wing wackos are trying to make it harder to divorce too.

And family is not the basis of society. Laws and "clan" loyality is the basis of society, and family is nothing but a by product of this.

No, it's not. At all. If you had taken 3 or 4 minutes to read the article and the following discussion, you would know that this has nothing to do with the "religious right"

Your habit of continually stating simplistic and negative stereotypes about Americans without any sort of rational support for your claim undermines your credibility. Furthermore, it solidifies your position as the stereotypical Euro-elitist who knows absolutely nothing about America but feels trendy when he bashes it.

I sincerely hope that in the future you will recognize that this does nothing for your cause and will use your time in a more productive fashion.

 

[PeteEU]

No, it's not. At all. If you had taken 3 or 4 minutes to read the article and the following discussion, you would know that this has nothing to do with the "religious right"

Your habit of continually stating simplistic and negative stereotypes about Americans without any sort of rational support for your claim undermines your credibility. Furthermore, it solidifies your position as the stereotypical Euro-elitist who knows absolutely nothing about America but feels trendy when he bashes it.

I sincerely hope that in the future you will recognize that this does nothing for your cause and will use your time in a more productive fashion.

I have read it, and it has all the hall marks of the religious right... now if it was intended or not is another matter. It is after an old law, and back then there was no "religous right" as we know of it today. But society was very different and did not see anything wrong in putting such stupid laws on the books. That does not mean we today should agree with them or even have them on the books.

But the fact remains that states in the US and even in European countries, still have laws on adultary and other so called "sexual crimes".. for example consentual sodomy. That most countries or areas dont inforce such laws, does not mean that they are not valid still and if there is a religious wack job that gets elected, then you bet that these laws will be inforced. These laws and ideas are outdated and belong in the dark ages when the Church had massive power over the people and political establishment. The legislative in any country that has such laws on the books, have to start to earn thier pay by elimiating such idiotic things.

That I single out the US in this case, is because this article was about the US, and the US is way more religious in its laws that Europe is on average, but I dont deny that Europe most likely has similar outdated idiotic laws on the books somewhere.

Now the biggest problem is movements in the US, but also all over the world, trying to put religious doctrine into law, so that all have to follow it. As I said, I read that in Virginia, that the religious right wants to put restrictions on divorce and that only the beginining I bet.. but thats not saying they will get thier way of course.

Now to put it in perspective, Ireland and Poland on abortion, Poland and attempting to force Christianity in as the offical religion of the EU, the fight in Europe against registered partnerships for homosexuals (which the religious freaks thankfully lost) and other things that religious circles are putting pressures on politicans to force through on law.

Religion has nothing to do with politics, so stay out of it. Religion kept humanity dumb and blind for almost 2000 years, enough is enough.

 

[danarhea]

I have read it, and it has all the hall marks of the religious right... now if it was intended or not is another matter. It is after an old law, and back then there was no "religous right" as we know of it today. But society was very different and did not see anything wrong in putting such stupid laws on the books. That does not mean we today should agree with them or even have them on the books.

But the fact remains that states in the US and even in European countries, still have laws on adultary and other so called "sexual crimes".. for example consentual sodomy. That most countries or areas dont inforce such laws, does not mean that they are not valid still and if there is a religious wack job that gets elected, then you bet that these laws will be inforced. These laws and ideas are outdated and belong in the dark ages when the Church had massive power over the people and political establishment. The legislative in any country that has such laws on the books, have to start to earn thier pay by elimiating such idiotic things.

That I single out the US in this case, is because this article was about the US, and the US is way more religious in its laws that Europe is on average, but I dont deny that Europe most likely has similar outdated idiotic laws on the books somewhere.

Now the biggest problem is movements in the US, but also all over the world, trying to put religious doctrine into law, so that all have to follow it. As I said, I read that in Virginia, that the religious right wants to put restrictions on divorce and that only the beginining I bet.. but thats not saying they will get thier way of course.

Now to put it in perspective, Ireland and Poland on abortion, Poland and attempting to force Christianity in as the offical religion of the EU, the fight in Europe against registered partnerships for homosexuals (which the religious freaks thankfully lost) and other things that religious circles are putting pressures on politicans to force through on law.

Religion has nothing to do with politics, so stay out of it. Religion kept humanity dumb and blind for almost 2000 years, enough is enough.

Did more than that. Whenever religion merged with government, you had wackos persecuting people. Just look at the Spanish Inquisition, which was second only to Hitler in the number of Jews they murdered. Look at manifest destiny, another holocaust, and slavery yet another holocaust - Both of which were officially condoned by the religious establishment here in the US. But on the other side of the coin, if it weren't for religious persecution, there would be no United States, since most of who came here to eventually create America did so because they were persecuted and wanted freedom of religion. And what did they do after they got their wish and made it over here? Persecuted others, that's what. Some colonies were created by those who had fled for their lives from other colonies, who in turn had fled for their lives from Europe. Sheesh.

 

[tryreading]

I am not certain whether or not there should be legal penalties, but I am serious that society needs to do something about this issue-- something more then winking and nodding-- because the high rate of adultery along with the rate of divorce is contributing to the moral decay of our society.

The basis of any healthy society is the family unit.

And no, I do not consider this merely a "personal issue" between the two parties. Marriage is, among other things, a social institution and a legally binding obligation; there is an entire field of law dedicated specifically to handling such "personal issues" between families.



This is the problem. Neither criminal nor civil penalties are effective, as either would hurt the other spouse if he or she preferred to reconcile the marriage. It certainly shouldn't trigger "three-strikes" or carry any possibility of a prison sentence.

Your other points concerning enforcement are also compelling.



This isn't a matter of sexual behavior. It's a matter of upholding their moral and legal obligations-- voluntarily entered into-- to their spouses and families, and about being held accountable when they do not.

You are probably right that there is no way for the law to effectively curb this. However, we cannot simply ignore this problem or dismiss it as a "personal issue" that does not affect us.

If there are no penalties, then a law would be useless.

This is a personal issue only. You can't tell people who to have sex with if they are grown, married or not.

If it isn't a matter of sexual behavior, then there's no problem. Cheating is sex.