• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should adultery be a criminal offense punishable by jailtime?

Should adultery be a criminal offense punishable by jailtime?

  • Obviously! It should carry MMS and strict for 2nd++ offense..

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • Yes, jailtime.

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • Yah, first fine, then jail, mild jail time.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hmm.. Perhaps..

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No..

    Votes: 57 87.7%
  • Something else(explain).

    Votes: 4 6.2%

  • Total voters
    65
Status
Not open for further replies.
The state has no interest in applying criminal punishments due to breaches of civil contracts except to ensure due process.

I was thinking about the value in marriage counseling as a requirement for divorces where there are children involved.

As has been pointed out by Jerry, divorce has a clear negative impact on the state when children are extant in a relationship.


Edit: To clarify, I wasn't thinking about counseling as a criminal punishment.
 
But you also included rape. So why WOULD you include rape if not to liken it to adultery?

Embezzlement isn't like adultery either.

Because they are crimes that effect other people... THAT is the logical connection that I am applying.
 
The state has no interest in applying criminal punishments due to breaches of civil contracts except to ensure due process.


The "State" does what the "People" tell it to do...
 
I was thinking about the value in marriage counseling as a requirement for divorces where there are children involved.
Has the value of counseling been shown to increase the lives of the children that the state shall impose such consequences upon the people in such matters?

Its an amiable idea but I just don't think counseling is going to have such an effect on the children where the state should impose itself into such civil matters. Not to mention the costs of such a social service.

As has been pointed out by Jerry, divorce has a clear negative impact on the state when children are extant in a relationship.
I'm sure there is a correlation. I just don't see counseling as a viable solution without proof, especially when it involves the state poking their head into the private lives of its citizens.

Edit: To clarify, I wasn't thinking about counseling as a criminal punishment.
so write it into the marriage license?
 
The "State" does what the "People" tell it to do...

Of course. The state (that is the authorities; people cannot act as police or judges) can strip you of each and every one of your rights if compelling interest is shown. We can also amend the constitution to do anything we want if the "people" want it.

But try being a little more specific rather than stating the obvious.
 
Has the value of counseling been shown to increase the lives of the children that the state shall impose such consequences upon the people in such matters?

Its an amiable idea but I just don't think counseling is going to have such an effect on the children where the state should impose itself into such civil matters. Not to mention the costs of such a social service.

I'm sure there is a correlation. I just don't see counseling as a viable solution without proof, especially when it involves the state poking their head into the private lives of its citizens.

so write it into the marriage license?

I'm not 100% certain it would. There might be a real value to it, but I would need to look into the efficacy of marriage counseling in general to determine if it would actually have value.

I chose the term "might be" in the post because I am not sure either way, but I think it has a lot more chance of efficacy that imprisonment would. It would be interesting to see if it actually would be effective and have value.

Upon re-reading the post though, I can see that I wasn't really clear that I was speaking in potentialities. It could have been read as a potentiality or as a firm belief depending on perspective.

Sorry about that. I had meant it as a potentiality, not a concrete statement.

In other words, my wording of the statement was ****.
 
Because they are crimes that effect other people... THAT is the logical connection that I am applying.

Everything that anyone does at any given time affects other people. Your "logical connection" is too broad to be of any use or value.
 
I'm not 100% certain it would. There might be a real value to it, but I would need to look into the efficacy of marriage counseling in general to determine if it would actually have value. I chose the term "might be" in the post because I am not sure either way, but I think it has a lot more chance of efficacy that imprisonment would. It would be interesting to see if it actually would be effective and have value.

Upon re-reading the post though, I can see that I wasn't really clear that I was speaking in potentialities. It could have been read as a potentiality or as a firm belief depending on perspective.

Sorry about that. I had meant it as a potentiality, not a concrete statement.

In other words, my wording of the statement was ****.
On top of the precedent this would set for civil contracts:

I'm a strong believer that the gov't shouldn't do anything that's not absolutely necessary (I usually describe such as a "compelling interest"); limited/small gov't. So I'm very paranoid when people want to expand the gov't and spend more tax payer money at the drop of a hat for something of questionable effect. That's all.
 
Last edited:
Everything that anyone does at any given time affects other people. Your "logical connection" is too broad to be of any use or value.

No it isn't... you just don't like the connection.

Everything effects everything on a subatomic level... chaos theory. So if we looked at it the way that you seem to, then a distant pulsar is as much too blame as the adulterer. We have to draw the line somewhere, and that is what I have done.
 
Of course. The state (that is the authorities; people cannot act as police or judges) can strip you of each and every one of your rights if compelling interest is shown. We can also amend the constitution to do anything we want if the "people" want it.

But try being a little more specific rather than stating the obvious.

Your initial statement indicated that you were not aware of the obvious...
Re-word what you mean then...

If you say that the state has no interest in something that society has an interest in, then you are unaware as to how the system actually works. If you get it, then that is fine, but please don't attempt to insult my intelligence simply because you misspoke. It regards personal accountability...
 
Your initial statement indicated that you were not aware of the obvious...
Re-word what you mean then...

If you say that the state has no interest in something that society has an interest in, then you are unaware as to how the system actually works.
Additionally, the state can only violate rights, such as privacy, where I believe If you get it, then that is fine, but please don't attempt to insult my intelligence simply because you misspoke. It regards personal accountability...
I've stopped caring about this tangent.
 
No it isn't... you just don't like the connection.

Everything effects everything on a subatomic level... chaos theory. So if we looked at it the way that you seem to, then a distant pulsar is as much too blame as the adulterer. We have to draw the line somewhere, and that is what I have done.

You drew the line at someone's action affecting someone else, and that is far, FAR too broad. Someone's wittle feelings getting hurt isn't grounds for incarceration.
 
I've stopped caring about this tangent.


Look, I know you are a smart guy, but the whole personal responsibility thing is paramount if we are to communicate effectively...
 
You drew the line at someone's action affecting someone else, and that is far, FAR too broad. Someone's wittle feelings getting hurt isn't grounds for incarceration.


It is not too broad. They align within the realm of what is, and what could be criminal.
Breach of contract should not be taken so lightly...
Betraying the trust of loved ones, and kids should not be taken so lightly...
There should be a consequence, just as in the cases that I indicated.

I hear your opinion, and in most cases that is probably fair.
I think that in some cases, incarceration is the exact thing that should be done.

In all cases, mandatory counseling (personal) should be a consequence.
 
It is not too broad. They align within the realm of what is, and what could be criminal.
Breach of contract should not be taken so lightly...
Betraying the trust of loved ones, and kids should not be taken so lightly...
There should be a consequence, just as in the cases that I indicated.
And there is a consequence, if the person cheated on chooses there to be one. The cheater loses their spouse, if that person chooses. It is no one's business but theirs anyway. What consequence comes about is up to THEM, and no one else. That is exactly as it should be.

And yes, it is FAR too broad. Incarceration for hurting someone's feelings is absolutely ridiculous.

And breach of WHAT contract? The marriage license? Where in the marriage license does it say "sex with anyone other than your spouse is forbidden"? Because I sure didn't see it on the ones I've signed.

I hear your opinion, and in most cases that is probably fair.
I think that in some cases, incarceration is the exact thing that should be done.
What good would incarceration do? What harm is an adulterer to the rest of society? What good does it do to segregate them from everyone else?

In all cases, mandatory counseling (personal) should be a consequence.
Counseling should never be mandatory. Especially marriage counseling. How much good is it going to do if the two parties involved don't need or want it? You force two people to go sit in a room with a shrink, and then what? You can't make them talk. You can't make them engage. You can't make them listen. You can't make them help each other do anything if they don't WANT to. It's perfectly pointless and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
 
Last edited:
And there is a consequence, if the person cheated on chooses there to be one. The cheater loses their spouse, if that person chooses. It is no one's business but theirs anyway. What consequence comes about is up to THEM, and no one else. That is exactly as it should be.

And there should be further consequence... it is completely logical.


And yes, it is FAR too broad. Incarceration for hurting someone's feelings is absolutely ridiculous.

No, it is not too broad. Think what you like.
It is a logical analogy and I am done with this point.


And breach of WHAT contract? The marriage license? Where in the marriage license does it say "sex with anyone other than your spouse is forbidden"? Because I sure didn't see it on the ones I've signed.

Marriage contract to a degree... oral contract certainly.


What good would incarceration do? What harm is an adulterer to the rest of society? What good does it do to segregate them from everyone else?

It is not about doing good. It is an ethical argument regarding consequnce.


Counseling should never be mandatory. Especially marriage counseling. How much good is it going to do if the two parties involved don't need or want it? You force two people to go sit in a room with a shrink, and then what? You can't make them talk. You can't make them engage. You can't make them listen. You can't make them help each other do anything if they don't WANT to. It's perfectly pointless and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

That is why I carified that it should be (personal) indicating the adulterer by him/her self.
 
And there should be further consequence... it is completely logical.
For hurting someone's feelings. Pahlease. It's far from logical.

No, it is not too broad. Think what you like.
It is a logical analogy and I am done with this point.
There is no logical analogy there, but I'm glad you're done with the non-point.

Marriage contract to a degree... oral contract certainly.
What oral contract?

It is not about doing good. It is an ethical argument regarding consequnce.
which occurs if the person cheated on wishes it to occur. Just as in any other personal relationship. Lying in not illegal. Hurting someone's feelings is not illegal.


That is why I carified that it should be (personal) indicating the adulterer by him/her self.
Which is even more ridiculous! Cheating is a symptom of a problem in a relationship. A relationship requires more than one person. Problems in a relationship require more than one person. Fixing those problems require all the participants to... well.. participate willingly. Even if your suggestion made any sense it all, my point about the unwillingness of the individual still stands.
 
You drew the line at someone's action affecting someone else, and that is far, FAR too broad. Someone's wittle feelings getting hurt isn't grounds for incarceration.

Why does it have to be about feelings instead of something legitimate?
 
Why does it have to be about feelings instead of something legitimate?

She thinks adultery and the constant adultery in this society is a good thing, a thing to defend, one of the freedoms we should all appreciate.

She thinks it would be stupid for the people hurt in an adultery case to have the RIGHT to press charges if thats the only solution. She thinks it better that this option is not given, and that there is no punishment for adultery at all.
 
Why does it have to be about feelings instead of something legitimate?


Thank you! :2razz:

And Maximus has a lot of that correct.
rivrat has cheated with married men and thinks that it is justifiable.
It is an old debate between us and I am not that interested in doing it again.
 
She thinks adultery and the constant adultery in this society is a good thing, a thing to defend, one of the freedoms we should all appreciate.

She thinks it would be stupid for the people hurt in an adultery case to have the RIGHT to press charges if thats the only solution. She thinks it better that this option is not given, and that there is no punishment for adultery at all.

I'll put it this way, are you willing to pay for the jails to put all of the adulterers into? Are you really willing to be taxed so that you can punish someone for adultery?

Just maybe there is a role for civil courts in generating some sort of Tort of adultery. That way societies tax input is limited to the operation of courts, put individuals can be compensated for a wrong committed against them, while at the same time society puts out signal that it wants to limit adultery.

Jails are horrible terrible places, probably the worst places that we have in modern societies. The deprivation of freedom, shoving someone into a tiny little cell is a horrendous punishment. And I am of the view that such places should only be left to the most violent offenders or the greatest fraudsters.....

So maximums would you pay more tax for the criminalization of adultery?
 
I'll put it this way, are you willing to pay for the jails to put all of the adulterers into? Are you really willing to be taxed so that you can punish someone for adultery?

Easy solution. Perhaps we could incarcerate less people for smoking weed? And replace (some)drug related jail time with treatment instead. That would solve it pretty easy. Even so no one, not me at least is taking about lifetime in jail for adultery, but possibly 2-3 months, depending on the cases, and 3-9 months for repeated offenders.
 
Last edited:
Why does it have to be about feelings instead of something legitimate?
What's the something legit it would be about then?

She thinks adultery and the constant adultery in this society is a good thing, a thing to defend, one of the freedoms we should all appreciate.
Where did I ever say cheating was a "good" thing? Please point out to me where I stated what you have just attributed to me.

She thinks it would be stupid for the people hurt in an adultery case to have the RIGHT to press charges if thats the only solution. She thinks it better that this option is not given, and that there is no punishment for adultery at all.
Yes, I do think the idea of someone pressing charges for their wittle hurt feelings is quite stupid.

The punishment for adultery is the same as hurting someone would be in any other relationship: The relationship suffers and/or is ended. There is no need for state intervention for hurt feelings.
 
Adultery is one of the worst thing one human can do to another, but is not a punishable crime in the west, and normally not around the world either. Adultery is described in the bible as one of the very worst sins, yet we have not practiced this in the west for at least several centuries or even millenniums. Why should it not be illegal? Would you prefer your wife cheated on your or that your car was stolen(then aid back by insurance)?

In comparison, people who use or carry drugs in the US can get jail time of between 1-25 years for relatively small amounts, even Cannabis.

Adultry is not even close to being one of the worst things you can do to a person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom