I do not know the legal status of infidelity - it DOES justify the ending of a legal contract ( marriage) so I guess its listed as a transgression of some kind. I was wonderfing if infidelity ws actual "arrested and locked up" illegal, would it make infidels think twice or not ?

Should Infidelity be made illegal ? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 01/18/06 06:46 PM
View Results

Bob:

That detterent does NOT stop murders, stealing, abuse, drugs, etc...so infidelity being illegal would not change any of that.

It is all about free will.

I'm voting no because the question seems to be whether or not I think it would make people think twice about infidelity. I don't think anyone starts an affair with the intention of getting caught and, if there's someone out there that actually does, then they'd probably try and finangle a way to hide it.

Locking people up for drug use hasn't diminished it's use in an appreciable way - and most people feel a much stronger entitlement to free sexuality than they do to freedom to drink, smoke, pop, or snort <drug of choice>.

It might make the BS's feel better for a little while, if vengence is important to them. It would probably impose enormous financial hardships to families and, I believe, it would probably be very difficult to recover a marriage if you believe your spouse sent you to prison for having an affair (can you say *resentment*?)

I don't think infidelity is right (obviously) but I don't think prison is the place to put people who cheat. I just see it doing much more harm than good: to families, to marriages, to the economy, etc.

Mys

Bob, you are asking two questions.

#1: Would making infidelity a crime reduce it?
and
#2 Should we make it illegal?

I personally do not think making it illegal would reduce it at all. It might even make it more "exciting" to sneak around and hope they don't get caught.

Character is what you do when nobody's looking.

Well, it certainly felt like a crime against me upon Dday and the damage I have since witnessed here on the boards is far worse than petty theft or skipping an amber light. However, I would still vote 'no'. I would hate to think someone felt bound to me because the law said so. Much better he would be there because he loved me. Perhaps marriage should be illegal!

No

But they could be civilly actionable. Alienation of Affection/loss of consortum claims against OP's for $$$$ more as a way to get them to leave the WS's alone. Not to mention that it should have a small effect on property division in a divorce situation. If it had a big effect then the courts would be tied up forever in "he said", "she said" so I think a 10% penalty would be beneficial. Further, a presumption that OP is unfit to be around children and that the infidelity of the WS be given A LOT of weight in the battle for custody...at least at first.

Mr. Wondering

Bob,

In the U.S. of A. the courts are so backed up now, the arresting of infidels would put, what, 25% of the population behind bars? The system would collapse.

Now if it was legal for the BS to take matters into his/her hands and pound the OM/OW flat...that would be a good thing! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

k

This is intriguing. What do you think should happen if both of the WS's are married? They file counter claims or it cancels out? That doesn't seem right.


Don't you think that courts would be tied up forever in 'he said/she said' if custody of minor children was involved? Maybe I'm naive because I don't have kids myself but I always assumed that people tended to be more worried about custody than property.

If you're going to use it in any way in custody or in financial settlements, then it seems as though there would have to be a certain, minimal standard of proof that would have to be offered plus an exact definition of what infideilty comprised. For example, I'm not sure a court would recognize EA's as true infidelity since there isn't necessarily sexual contact. We wouldn't want it to go too far the other way and have people accusing their spouse of EA's or PA's without substantial proof in order to get their way in courts.

Heh. Maybe outlawing marriage is a sensible idea <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


Yeah, but what if it was the wife/husband of the other betrayed that was physically assaulting your spouse. You'd be ok with that?

Mys

Krusht,

Let's let out the drug users and lock up the infidels. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The only way I could see it working is if maybe they created a system where you could serve your spouse and the Other Person with a "you're busted" summons whereby if they continue the affair before a divorce with the complaintant is COMPLETE then they are subject to criminal and civil prosecution.

The criminal prosecution could have a hefty name but be a little light on jail time, heavy on the penalties and restitution to the complaining party.

This would put a stop to a lot of affairs and with the time it takes for divorce, withdrawal would occur and many would choose marital reconciliation. Also, OP's would be a little more wary of involvement with a married person.

Just an idea.

Mr. Wondering

Now that would be interesting. Sort of a marital version of a restraining order.

If the cheaters work together, how do you decide which one leaves or they both loose their employement (well, that would be fair). How much of a deterrant do you think that would be for people to serve those papers if it meant a loss of potentially necessary income?

Mys

I have to dissagree on both of these statements. Which I don't find myself disagreeing much with LM, but ...

LM, it is about free will of course. But, free will is also supposed to have consequences. If society is permissive of a behavior, no matter how objectionable, or destructive, then that behavior becomes OK. You know LM, I'm OK, your OK. Your argument seems to say we shouldn't outlaw murder, stealing, or drugs, because people "do it anyway". That surprises me from you.

I believe that having things against the law is a deterrent. It may not stop all of it, but it reinforces what is right and wrong, and what is morally acceptable behaivor. Don't you think that if stealing was not wrong, more people would do it ... Simply because society has not said it is wrong? Don't you believe kids would not think "it's not against the law"?



And yes, I believe making it a crime may reduce it. At the very least it will have consequences. In Florida there is no consequence to breaking your marital contract. In fact in the right situations you can gain from your behavior.

And once and for all, is it really about reducing it? Is it really about winning? Or is it about doing the right thing. Is it about saying that if you take marital vows and you break them, that there are consequences to your destructive behavior. Because it is destructive, emotionally, financially, and to future generations.

So should it be illegal. Yes.

Debating the consequences is another question.


.

Actually, don't we have some data to examine as to how well this would work? Isn't it illegal to have an affair if you're in the military? (Maybe it's only if you're an officer or something? I don't know what the exact regs are but don't some exist?)

Any military members out there past or present who happen to know? Has it helped in the military at all?

Mys

Just as the expenses incurred in an affair are often times subtracted from the affairee's property settlement so be it with the award in a loss of consortum/Alienation of Affection claim. However, even in states that still allow these claims the payoff is not usually big enough to support undertaking the matter...BUT it packs a big punch up front with exposure to the world and scares away many a OP with just the threat of it.

BTW, North Carolina (I think) already has proof elements in place for the claim....you don't need a video tape of the infidels having sex. I believe you only need to prove they were alone in a home/motel, had the opportunity and then corroborate it with other circumstantial evidence to overcome your burden. Then the infidels must prove faithfulness. (This is my guess at how it works there).

As far as the custody thing - they already use it as a factor in many states I just wish Judges would take it more seriously especially where it is on-going. It should become a nearly overriding presumption that they are unfit. Custody Orders are always revisable...it can be adjusted later but being strong up front will help pierce the delusion that the WW will get custody becuase she's a SAHM, and blah, blah, blah.

This is all theoretical anyway. The courts really want nothing to do with these type cases.

Mr. Wondering

Infidelity **IS** "illegal" in the military. That didn't stop my H. All it would benefit me in a civil suit is if FOW'sH had pressed for a court martial, I'd have had equal recourse with FOW through civilian courts.

My vote was no. What good would it do?

Co-Worker infidelity:

Maybe --- Which ever one made MORE money would automatically be transferred or dismissed.

Mr W

Didn't we tell you? If you come up with a good enough solution, we're organizing an MB vote off and sending you to Congress to 'git 'er done.'

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Mys

lol

As if I could get the 90% Republican majority here to pull this Democrats lever.

Mr. W (don't let the name fool you - NOT a fan)

want to clarify, when I voted "against the law" I didn't mean a criminal offense.

It is a civil issue. Like breach of contract.

If you are committing to another person, in a mutually exclusive relationship and that is broken unilatterally by one party, then there should be consequences.


.

Well... FWIW, it *IS* a criminal offense in my state (misdemeanor).

If it's proven it could get you a hefty $12 fine, too!

Ya know... another thought just came to me... If you stiffen the penalty such that the adulterer could actually GET jail time, do you really think that would be a deterrant?

I mean really... Wouldn't they LIKE the "pokey"?

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />