Should adultery and psychological abuse be punishable in a court of law?

[Aštra’el]

You aren't getting there is a different between training and strengthening and abuse. Even to yourself, you can push yourself too hard to the point it does become abusive, damaging, and destructive.

What I do get is that there is a particular level of subjectivity attached to the term "abuse", and that if "psychological abuse" were in some way outlawed, many forms of training and criticisms might be twisted into criminal offenses.

I also understand there are forms of obnoxious verbal behavior that might create suffering yet needn't be against the law. Bullying, trolling, "shaming", being an a**hole to people, etc. Not that I approve of these things (or disapprove), but I would rather not see people fined or locked up over petty insults, just because someone was offended and got their feelings hurt, or became miserable and depressed because they let someone's words destroy their self confidence.

 

[anonymous9887]

How are you defining 'adultery' and 'psychological abuse' here?

Adultery: as defined by the law (Google it)
Psychological abuse: as defined clinically (Google it)

 

[McBell]

Adultery: as defined by the law (Google it)
Psychological abuse: as defined clinically (Google it)

Not helpful:

Psychological abuse (also referred to as psychological violence, emotional abuse or mental abuse)
As of 1996, there are "no consensus views about the definition of emotional abuse."
Source


Legal definitions of adultery vary.
For example,

1. New York defines an adulterer as a person who "engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse."
2. North Carolina defines adultery as occurring when any man and woman "lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed, and cohabit together."
3. Minnesota law provides: "when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery."
4. In the 2003 New Hampshire Supreme Court case Blanchflower v. Blanchflower, it was held that female same-sex sexual relations did not constitute sexual intercourse, based on a 1961 definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary; and thereby an accused wife in a divorce case was found not guilty of adultery.
5. In 2001, Virginia prosecuted an attorney, John R. Bushey, for adultery, a case that ended in a guilty plea and a $125 fine.
6. Adultery is against the governing law of the U.S. military.

Source​

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I see it as a contract that you are making with another consenting adult. If you break the contract you should go to Jail. if not then dont get married.

You do not go to jail for breaking contracts. You can get sued.

 

[Jainarayan]

So you dont think that if they started cracking down on that heavily we would see drastic changes in the country?

No. Such punishments are an archaic idea based on ancient religious laws.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Should adultery and psychological abuse be punishable in a court of law?

Psychological abuse is already an established component of many criminal and civil matters.

Punishment for adultery is a retarded idea.

 

[SomeRandom]

God no! I mean it's distasteful and a dick move, but jail time for adultery is freaking ridiculous. Big Brother much?
I'm pretty sure psychological abuse is already punishable in some places.

 

[Thanda]

Psychological abuse, yes. Adultery, no. The government has no place legislating what happens between two consenting adults.

The other spouse is not a consenting in adultery

 

[Nietzsche]

The other spouse is not a consenting in adultery

Neither spouse owns the other.

 

[Thanda]

Neither spouse owns the other.

You don't need to be owned by someone to harm them. You don't need to be owned by someone to violate their trust. You don't need to be owned by someone to destroy their world (especially children). You don't need to be owned by someone to be the cause of a dysfunctional family and, ultimately, a dysfunctional society .

 

[Nietzsche]

You don't need to be owned by someone to harm them. You don't need to be owned by someone to violate their trust. You don't need to be owned by someone to destroy their world (especially children). You don't need to be owned by someone to be the cause of a dysfunctional family and, ultimately, a dysfunctional society .

Preaching to the choir, I'm from a broken home. But the government has no place in dictating how people ought to conduct their relationships. You can't ease the pain created by a cheating husband or wife by locking them up or fining them or what not, you just make it worse for everyone involved.

 

[Thanda]

Preaching to the choir, I'm from a broken home. But the government has no place in dictating how people ought to conduct their relationships. You can't ease the pain created by a cheating husband or wife by locking them up or fining them or what not, you just make it worse for everyone involved.

The last part of my post is the part where the law becomes relevant. A country makes laws to ensure a functional society. It punishes those who do things that would make a society dysfunctional. Adultery has a long history of leading to broken homes. Broken homes have a long history of leading to broken societies.

 

[Nietzsche]

The last part of my post is the part where the law becomes relevant. A country makes laws to ensure a functional society. It punishes those who do things that would make a society dysfunctional. Adultery has a long history of leading to broken homes. Broken homes have a long history of leading to broken societies.

I'm going to be frank here, but your implication there is more than a little insulting to myself and everyone else who came out of a broken home.. I don't know if you meant it this way, but the reason I'm "broken" has nothing to do with the failure of my parent's marriage, and short of the failure being because of intentional abuse(rather than short-sighted actions based on impulse like cheating on a spouse) I doubt anyone else would either.

What you're advocating is just a few steps from thought-crime if I'm honest. Making it punishable just draws out the pain, because not only did daddy/mommy get a divorce, the one who instigated it is either in jail or financially set back significantly. There is simply no need for these measures, especially when you realize how easily they could be abused.

 

[Thanda]

I'm going to be frank here, but your implication there is more than a little insulting to myself and everyone else who came out of a broken home.. I don't know if you meant it this way, but the reason I'm "broken" has nothing to do with the failure of my parent's marriage, and short of the failure being because of intentional abuse(rather than short-sighted actions based on impulse like cheating on a spouse) I doubt anyone else would either.

What you're advocating is just a few steps from thought-crime if I'm honest. Making it punishable just draws out the pain, because not only did daddy/mommy get a divorce, the one who instigated it is either in jail or financially set back significantly. There is simply no need for these measures, especially when you realize how easily they could be abused.

Spare me the guilt trip - I come from a broken home myself. Most of the problems society faces and spends time, money and energy trying to solve have their roots in broken homes. Yet it seems as a society we have resigned ourselves to treating the symptoms of the problem rather than nipping it in the bud. And the bud is the family. Our lax attitude regarding how families are formed and dissolved is at the heart of why so many societies, communities and countries are in crisis today (that and the corruption of world leaders - who also come from homes and families though).

So I do not think a society that has hopes for a great future for itself should take lightly those who enter marriages by vow, have children in those marriages and then, with impunity, do whatever it is to break those families and leave to society a litany problems it must deal with as a result of their carelessness.

There are legal consequences for breaking most contracts in society - why no consequence for breaking marriage contracts? Are they not important enough.

 

[McBell]

Spare me the guilt trip - I come from a broken home myself. Most of the problems society faces and spends time, money and energy trying to solve have their roots in broken homes. Yet it seems as a society we have resigned ourselves to treating the symptoms of the problem rather than nipping it in the bud. And the bud is the family. Our lax attitude regarding how families are formed and dissolved is at the heart of why so many societies, communities and countries are in crisis today (that and the corruption of world leaders - who also come from homes and families though).

So I do not think a society that has hopes for a great future for itself should take lightly those who enter marriages by vow, have children in those marriages and then, with impunity, do whatever it is to break those families and leave to society a litany problems it must deal with as a result of their carelessness.

There are legal consequences for breaking most contracts in society - why no consequence for breaking marriage contracts? Are they not important enough.

Make up your mind.

Unless you know how you can put one parent in jail without "breaking up the family"...

Out of curiosity, what to you is the difference between a broken home and a dysfunctional family and which, in your opinion, is worse.

 

[Koldo]

3 years in prison

you can do time and half and 1 year 1/2 on probation

Jail time for adultery ? Seriously ? Why that harsh of a punishment ?

 

[Thanda]

Make up your mind.

Unless you know how you can put one parent in jail without "breaking up the family"...

Out of curiosity, what to you is the difference between a broken home and a dysfunctional family and which, in your opinion, is worse.

You assume the punishment is jail. You assume that punishment would apply to first time offenders. Lastly you assume not putting that person in jail will mean the family will not be broken or is not already broken.

But this is an interesting question: there is such a thing as marital rape (not so in times past). There are probably many woman who would not want their husbands arrested even if they did rape them. Does that mean we should do away with the law? No, the law is there and people are free to make use of it as they see fit. The intent of the law is deterrance. So would be the intent of the law on adultery. It does not mean people will stop committing adultery. It does not mean people would always go to jail if they did. But the threat is there and this itself will assist in reducing the prevalence of the problem.

As for your last question, it depends on the nature of the dysfunction.

 

[Nietzsche]

Spare me the guilt trip - I come from a broken home myself. Most of the problems society faces and spends time, money and energy trying to solve have their roots in broken homes. Yet it seems as a society we have resigned ourselves to treating the symptoms of the problem rather than nipping it in the bud. And the bud is the family. Our lax attitude regarding how families are formed and dissolved is at the heart of why so many societies, communities and countries are in crisis today (that and the corruption of world leaders - who also come from homes and families though).

So I do not think a society that has hopes for a great future for itself should take lightly those who enter marriages by vow, have children in those marriages and then, with impunity, do whatever it is to break those families and leave to society a litany problems it must deal with as a result of their carelessness.

There are legal consequences for breaking most contracts in society - why no consequence for breaking marriage contracts? Are they not important enough.

Your assumption relies on the notion that marriage has always been this monolithic, consistent institution. It isn't, and has never been. It changes as we change. Not to mention that we live in the most peaceful era in human history, rivaled perhaps only by Pax Romana.

We've punished people for adultery before. Like prohibition, it has never worked and served only to inflame what you were trying to stop in the first place.

 

[Nietzsche]

But the threat is there and this itself will assist in reducing the prevalence of the problem.
.

Or it will make it so the perpetrator does everything in their power to not get caught.

 

[McBell]

You assume the punishment is jail.

Fair enough

You assume that punishment would apply to first time offenders.

Fair enough

Lastly you assume not putting that person in jail will mean the family will not be broken or is not already broken.

I make no such assumption.
In fact, I would argue that the family is broken/dysfunctional and the adultery is a symptom of it.

But this is an interesting question: there is such a thing as marital rape (not so in times past). There are probably many woman who would not want their husbands arrested even if they did rape them. Does that mean we should do away with the law?

I fail to see the relevance of marital rape in a thread talking about courts punishing adultery.

But the threat is there and this itself will assist in reducing the prevalence of the problem.

So another toothless law?

As for your last question, it depends on the nature of the dysfunction.

What about the first question?