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

[Thanda]

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

They already do that, don't they?

 

[Thanda]

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.

Please tell me how adultery laws caused more adultery?

 

[McBell]

Please tell me how adultery laws caused more adultery?

I would be more interested in him telling us how adultery laws inflame family instability, which is what I suspect he is saying.

 

[Thanda]

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

I'm sure you just don't want to see it.

So another toothless law?

Nope, simply another law that isn't always prosecuted. I've been mugged a few times. Most of the time I haven't gone to the police to report it. Does that make the law against robbery toothless?

What about the first question?

Which is?

 

[Thanda]

I would be more interested in him telling us how adultery laws inflame family instability, which is what I suspect he is saying.

Yes I would be interested. I do remember though that some people are against domestic violence laws because they believe it will inflame family instability.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

As our child support laws suggests, jail time does way, WAY more harm than good in some cases. If a family is already broken, it doesn't need fractured and divided. It needs healed, if possible, and nothing less than a tolerating friendship if children are involved (not unless things are very dire and severe, and adultery just is not something severe enough to paint the other parent as a bad guy).

 

[Thanda]

As our child support laws suggests, jail time does way, WAY more harm than good in some cases. If a family is already broken, it doesn't need fractured and divided. It needs healed, if possible, and nothing less than a tolerating friendship if children are involved (not unless things are very dire and severe, and adultery just is not something severe enough to paint the other parent as a bad guy).

That is up for debate - whether adultery (a form of dishonesty) and a major breach of trust does not make you a bad guy/girl.

The point of any law is never to imprison people. The point of the law is to deter people. The hope a country has when they form rape laws is not they will be able to arrest tens of thousands of perpetrators, but that they will be able to prevent hundreds of thousands of rapes. Likewise the point of a law against adultery would not be to see how many people you can throw in jail, but affairs you can prevent, and consequently how many marriages and families you can save.

The cost of broken homes on society as a whole is a overwhelming burden of society. Just as we have done with domestic abuse laws, we should do more to prevent and deter destructive behaviour.

It is all good and well for people to say "it's just between consenting adults" but even a slight analysis of the facts reveals this is patently not true. Families are the building blocks of societies - healthy and stable families equal healthy and stable societies. Broken families lead to broken societies.

 

[McBell]

I'm sure you just don't want to see it.

If you are content with it being as clear as mud, then I see no reason to pursue clarification and dismiss it as off topic.

Nope, simply another law that isn't always prosecuted. I've been mugged a few times. Most of the time I haven't gone to the police to report it. Does that make the law against robbery toothless?

yes, it does

Which is?

The sentence :

what to you is the difference between a broken home and a dysfunctional family and which, in your opinion, is worse​

is the questions:

1. what to you is the difference between a broken home and a dysfunctional family?
   
2. which, in your opinion, is worse?

combined with the word "and".

 

[McBell]

That is up for debate - whether adultery (a form of dishonesty) and a major breach of trust does not make you a bad guy/girl.

The point of any law is never to imprison people. The point of the law is to deter people. The hope a country has when they form rape laws is not they will be able to arrest tens of thousands of perpetrators, but that they will be able to prevent hundreds of thousands of rapes. Likewise the point of a law against adultery would not be to see how many people you can throw in jail, but affairs you can prevent, and consequently how many marriages and families you can save.

Except that adultery is a symptom...
you keep ignoring that point for some reason.

The cost of broken homes on society as a whole is a overwhelming burden of society.

Is this yet another assumption on your part?

It is all good and well for people to say "it's just between consenting adults" but even a slight analysis of the facts reveals this is patently not true.

Please present your source for the above mentioned "facts".

Families are the building blocks of societies - healthy and stable families equal healthy and stable societies. Broken families lead to broken societies.

Source please.

 

[Thanda]

yes, it does

Then all laws are toothless.

The sentence :
what to you is the difference between a broken home and a dysfunctional family and which, in your opinion, is worse
is the questions:

1. what to you is the difference between a broken home and a dysfunctional family?
   
2. which, in your opinion, is worse?

combined with the word "and".

A broken home is one without both parents and children. A dysfunctional family is a family, that is having major issues, regardless of the makeup.

The last question is the one I answered quite clearly. It depends on the nature of the dysfunction - I might also add that it depends on the cause of the break up (i.e. death vs divorce).

 

[Thanda]

Except that adultery is a symptom...
you keep ignoring that point for some reason.

Are you really blaming the family for people committing adultery? That is ridiculous. There are many reasons why people commit adultery - sometimes it is because there major issues at home.

Here are some

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/more-chemistry/201403/why-people-cheat

Is this yet another assumption on your part?

An example from the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-care-disrupted-education--cost-rising.html

Please present your source for the above mentioned "facts".

Source please.

With pleasure, though it will take some reading.

http://knowledgebank.oneplusone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Family-Stability-Review-final.pdf

 

[McBell]

Are you really blaming the family for people committing adultery? That is ridiculous.

I am curious how you are able to jump to the conclusion that I am "blaming" anyone other than the adulterer, let alone the family.

Fact is, adultery is a symptom to a problem.
It matters not how you "punish" adultery if you do not address the problem that the adultery is a symptom of.

There are many reasons why people commit adultery - sometimes it is because there major issues at home.
Here are some

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/more-chemistry/201403/why-people-cheat

An example from the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-care-disrupted-education--cost-rising.html

With pleasure, though it will take some reading.

http://knowledgebank.oneplusone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Family-Stability-Review-final.pdf

Thank you for the links.
It will take some time to sort through it.

 

[Thanda]

I am curious how you are able to jump to the conclusion that I am "blaming" anyone other than the adulterer, let alone the family.

Fact is, adultery is a symptom to a problem.
It matters not how you "punish" adultery if you do not address the problem that the adultery is a symptom of.

Sure, adultery is a symptom of a problem - Robbery is also a symptom of a problem. As is rape, murder, fraud and every other crime. The question is: so what? How does that change the fact that, like all these other crimes, there should be a law against it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is up for debate - whether adultery (a form of dishonesty) and a major breach of trust does not make you a bad guy/girl.

My field is psychology. It isn't for debate. If parents at least pretend to get along and tolerate each other and are at minimum civil towards each other, it works out way better for the children. Jail time would cause further hurt, and potentially may even cause financial hardships and burdens that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Jail needs to be reserved for the violent and dangerous, not for those in broken families and relationships.

 

[Nietzsche]

Yes I would be interested. I do remember though that some people are against domestic violence laws because they believe it will inflame family instability.

Did you really just ****ing imply I'm defending people who beat their wives or husbands? ****ing really?

I would be more interested in him telling us how adultery laws inflame family instability, which is what I suspect he is saying.

You're just layering tragedy on at this point. What good is an extra punishment when this is likely to end in divorce and such?

 

[Milton Platt]

This discussion I have had with a few people before, but i wanted to get into greater depth.

Things to consider:
1. people kill because of adultery in the heat of the moment.
2. Adultery affects the whole family unit.
3. Psychological abuse can lead others to violent behavior towards the abusers.

Question I have:
Why should the victim of the 1st offense receive punishment for their actions but the 1st offender receive no consequence as far as the law is concerned.

If you decide that the behaviors should be punished, how do we go about doing that?
If you believe that they should not be punished, why do you hold that position?

Adultery is already illegal in roughly 23 states, although it is a misdemeanor in all but one, I think. Not that this counts for much, because enforcement is next to non-existent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're just layering tragedy on at this point. What good is an extra punishment when this is likely to end in divorce and such?

It's hard enough being asked which parent you want to live with, and by that point I imagine probably most children are in a very delicate and precarious position. Adding police and jail visits will only make things infinitely more stressful for a child who is already suffering.

 

[Quagmire]

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

This. ^

Although there would have to be some valid way to demonstrate and quantify the effects.

 

[Thanda]

My field is psychology. It isn't for debate. If parents at least pretend to get along and tolerate each other and are at minimum civil towards each other, it works out way better for the children. Jail time would cause further hurt, and potentially may even cause financial hardships and burdens that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Jail needs to be reserved for the violent and dangerous, not for those in broken families and relationships.

I don't care what your field is. The sentence you quoted said nothing about jail. It was actually so clear that I will just restate verbatim below

That is up for debate - whether adultery (a form of dishonesty) and a major breach of trust does not make you a bad guy/girl.​

Did you see that? Nothing about jail.

When you say only violent and dangerous people should go to jail - what do you think qualifies as dangerous?

 

[Thanda]

Did you really just ****ing imply I'm defending people who beat their wives or husbands? ****ing really?

Spare me your bursts of outrage (feigned or not). I am discussing how adultery should be a crime and should be punishable. You then said.

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.​

I asked you to explain how making adultery punishable by law would inflame family instability (which is the definition of "what [I was] trying to stop in the first place").

I then mentioned to Mestamia that I have heard this line of reasoning (family instability) in defence of dicriminalising (or not criminalising in the first place) domestic violence. And of course, as has been your penchant throughout this thread, you decided to take it personally instead of staying on topic and answering the question.