Why adultery should be a fineable offence.

[Machjo]

Why adultery should be a fineable offence.

It may seem strange at first read, but I believe one can make a strong case for making adultery a fineable offence with a few caveats.

Imagine if adultery were a fineable offence with the fine doubling for each repeat offence but the police being prohibited from spying on someone to catch him in the act and needing two reliable witnesses or equivalent (the courts determining what can be accepted as equivalent) to lay a fine.

Due to the caveats in place, a person would not need to worry about being fined for having had consentual sex with his legal-aged girlfriend in the privacy of his bedroom, but such a law could help curtail criminal activity. For example, should the police fail to prove that a man raped a woman who reported him, they could at least fine him with adultery.

Should the same man face repeated accusations yet each time escape due to lack of evidence of rape (maybe a conspiracy against him, just unlucky, rubs women the wrong way, or something else), but sufficient evidence of adultery, at least he could be fined an ever greater fine each time to smarten him up to keep out of further trouble.

Likewise in the case of prostitution. Not only must the police prove an exchange of sex and an exchange of money between the same two people, but also that the two exchanges are directly related, a very difficult act to prove. The plus side with adultery is that the police need only prove an exchange of sex and nothing else.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

How can you not prove rape but prove adultery? Also, if the woman was married too, would the police lay 2 fines?

Also, you would be unfairly discriminating against married men/women and their charter rights.

And the men is already fined for adultery --- its called divorce.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Why adultery should be a fineable offence.

It may seem strange at first read, but I believe one can make a strong case for making adultery a fineable offence with a few caveats.

Imagine if adultery were a fineable offence with the fine doubling for each repeat offence but the police being prohibited from spying on someone to catch him in the act and needing two reliable witnesses or equivalent (the courts determining what can be accepted as equivalent) to lay a fine.

Due to the caveats in place, a person would not need to worry about being fined for having had consentual sex with his legal-aged girlfriend in the privacy of his bedroom, but such a law could help curtail criminal activity. For example, should the police fail to prove that a man raped a woman who reported him, they could at least fine him with adultery.

Should the same man face repeated accusations yet each time escape due to lack of evidence of rape (maybe a conspiracy against him, just unlucky, rubs women the wrong way, or something else), but sufficient evidence of adultery, at least he could be fined an ever greater fine each time to smarten him up to keep out of further trouble.

Likewise in the case of prostitution. Not only must the police prove an exchange of sex and an exchange of money between the same two people, but also that the two exchanges are directly related, a very difficult act to prove. The plus side with adultery is that the police need only prove an exchange of sex and nothing else.

Adultery is a married person having sex with someone other than the marriage partner.

I think you're talking about fornication.

For example, should the police fail to prove that a man raped a woman who reported him, they could at least fine him with adultery.

Assuming that he was stupid enough to have sex with her in front of two witnesses.

So your point is that if a prosecutor can't prove rape, she should still be able to punish consensual sex?

 

[Johnnny]

No. You can't fine people for not wanting to be with each other. When couples start cheating this usually means it's time to find someone else.... usually

 

[Twila]

Morality policing would not fly.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Morality policing would not fly.

Beats taking on dangerous felons hurting folk. For the cops, that is.

 

[Twila]

Beats taking on dangerous felons hurting folk. For the cops, that is.

yes, people wanting a bit of strange or an ear that will listen are the most dangerous of all.

 

[Corduroy]

Seems like an odd way to give people minor penalties for rape and prostitution. Is there argument for making adultery illegal for its own sake?

 

[talloola]

How can you not prove rape but prove adultery? Also, if the woman was married too, would the police lay 2 fines?

Also, you would be unfairly discriminating against married men/women and their charter rights.

And the men is already fined for adultery --- its called divorce.

yes, and the couples already spend thousands in the divorce department, and lawyers make plenty.
trying to prove adultery, then fining people, adds more money to the lawyers pockets, and also
to the government as well.

if there were only a few cases of adultery, and our culture frowned big time, but that isn't the
case, there is plenty of cases of adultery, and like many other poor choices in peoples lives, the
vast number of cases has gone way out of range for any fines to enter the scenario.

I would suggest it be much harder to 'get married', but that has dwindled down over the years, and
so many couples are 'just' living common law, so that idea wouldn't hold water either.

people just seem to want to do what they do in their private lives, and unless they actually injure
or kill one another, they just have to be allowed to bungle along, and get divorced when they get
tired of trying, it is so easy now, when things become difficult, throw in the towel, its sad.

in my opinion, couples today move in together far too soon, pregnancy can and does occur often, then
they are tied down, make some sort of effort, but the mistake was made at the 'moving in' time,
adultery can come from many of these sorts of arrangements, as the couple really wasn't meant to
have a lasting marriage, but just a dating relationship, which is very healthy, as long as they
don't move in together.
so, it is a very complex culture we have these days when it comes to marriage, living together etc.
its all too flimsy, and the acceptance in our culture of living together, then parting ways easily
will make the lives of couples continue as is, with adultery a big part of it.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Seems like an odd way to give people minor penalties for rape and prostitution. Is there argument for making adultery illegal for its own sake?

Gotta defend traditional marriage.

 

[WLDB]

You make a case for how it would work but give no justification. There is no justification. Fining someone for something like that is total BS. I came from a broken marriage caused by infidelity even so I find the idea of fining a person or make them face any legal consequences for it just makes 0 sense to me.

 

[Machjo]

First off, yes I should have said fornication, not adultery.

Secondly, as to the question of how the police could prove adultery (or fornication) but not rape, it's because it does not need to prove lack of consent in the case of adultery or fornication, but does need to prove lack of consent for rape.

As for the question of two witnesses or equivalent, it would be to prevent abuse of such a law. What the equivalent would be would be for the courts to decide, but we could imagine it including DNA from a rape kit or similar hard proof (which can sometimes conclusively prove sex but not rape). It might still be difficult to prove paying for sex but if they were doing it in a public place with enough witnesses or CCTV seeing it, the prosecution might still be able to prove at least fornication and fine him even if they fail to prove paying for it.

Since the victim would not benefit financially from such a fine, that would not be a motive to make a false rape charge. Revenge for something? Maybe that. But I would imagine that in most cases a person accuses another of rape because it was a rape or if not a rape, then at least something borderline to it like putting emotional pressure on someone to have sex. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Even if it turns out not to be rape, even putting emotional pressure on someone to have sex deserves some kind of punishment, and a fine would be appropriate.

Making fornication a fineable offence would not make it any easier to prove rape, paying for sex, or similar crimes, but because fornication itself would be somewhat easier to prove than rape, it would give prosecutors at least something they could lay on the accused.

I think such a law could discourage rape and other sex crimes with anyone considering it being aware that even if the police fail to prove the sex crime itself, they could still fine him for fornication. This would only make it even more difficult for him to cover his tracks, not only to cover his tracks from the greater crime but also from the fineable offence which is easier to prove and harder to cover up.

 

[Curious Cdn]

"Fornication" What a quaint old expression like "Indulgences" "Infidel" or "Witchcraft".

 

[gerryh]

First off, yes I should have said fornication, not adultery.

Secondly, as to the question of how the police could prove adultery (or fornication) but not rape, it's because it does not need to prove lack of consent in the case of adultery or fornication, but does need to prove lack of consent for rape.

As for the question of two witnesses or equivalent, it would be to prevent abuse of such a law. What the equivalent would be would be for the courts to decide, but we could imagine it including DNA from a rape kit or similar hard proof (which can sometimes conclusively prove sex but not rape). It might still be difficult to prove paying for sex but if they were doing it in a public place with enough witnesses or CCTV seeing it, the prosecution might still be able to prove at least fornication and fine him even if they fail to prove paying for it.

Since the victim would not benefit financially from such a fine, that would not be a motive to make a false rape charge. Revenge for something? Maybe that. But I would imagine that in most cases a person accuses another of rape because it was a rape or if not a rape, then at least something borderline to it like putting emotional pressure on someone to have sex. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Even if it turns out not to be rape, even putting emotional pressure on someone to have sex deserves some kind of punishment, and a fine would be appropriate.

Making fornication a fineable offence would not make it any easier to prove rape, paying for sex, or similar crimes, but because fornication itself would be somewhat easier to prove than rape, it would give prosecutors at least something they could lay on the accused.

I think such a law could discourage rape and other sex crimes with anyone considering it being aware that even if the police fail to prove the sex crime itself, they could still fine him for fornication. This would only make it even more difficult for him to cover his tracks, not only to cover his tracks from the greater crime but also from the fineable offence which is easier to prove and harder to cover up.

So, consensual sex, because rape is non consensual, would become against the law punishable by a fine. Aren't you special.

 

[damngrumpy]

Nonsense, this is another of those social things like pot smoking
underage drinking and illegal gambling if Julius Caesar could not
stomp these things out how would it work in a modern society.
Besides all sectors of society engage in such activities.
Not me I have a hell of a time trying to figure out one woman let
along more than one

 

[lone wolf]

It already is.... It's called divorce (and all expenses associated with it) Why create another cash cow for the government?

 

[Ludlow]

Ferdinand and Isabella would be proud. Not only should this be punishable by law, but also blowing your nose at Dennys when folks are trying to eat their over easy fried eggs. This should be an offense punishable by three days in the stocks watching Gomer Pyle PFC reruns

 

[mentalfloss]

It's called a divorce settlement.

 

[Machjo]

Another possible addition would be that a person cannot be fined for fornication unless the accuser is also accusing him of rape. This way, it would merely serve as a fallback plan when rape can't be proven.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Another possible addition would be that a person cannot be fined for fornication unless the accuser is also accusing him of rape. This way, it would merely serve as a fallback plan when rape can't be proven.

Of course, you'd have to fine them both. Or use "prosecutorial discretion" to fine one and not the other.

Yeah, that sounds like justice. "I'm the prosecutor, and I'll lose my case but punish you anyway."