• 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.
Because I can't think of any laws where we punish people for being a jerk?

Usually you don't argue why something should be legal. You usually argue why it SHOULD be illegal. Otherwise we get into infinite amount of debates like "why should breathing air or walking on two feet be legal?"

The point of this forum is to debate. And 99% of the time it will have absolutely no impact on anything other than the members and perspectives.

I would like to see well written or thought out reasons why adultery should be okay. As it is very easy to get reasoning why it should not.
 
Adultery is an offense punishable by the Uniform Code of Military Justice for all military personel. An offense that warrents a ruined military career, but perfectly acceptable in accordance to the morality of civilians? A clear chain of command involving a Commander-in-Chief, yet acceptable because he's a civilian member?

It's a joke how the military is kept to a higher moral standard than others, yet criticized for barbarians and thugs.
 
Last edited:
Adultery is an offense punishable by the Uniform Code of Military Justice for all military personel.

I didn't know that. What are the punishment guidelines?
 
The point of this forum is to debate. And 99% of the time it will have absolutely no impact on anything other than the members and perspectives.

I would like to see well written or thought out reasons why adultery should be okay. As it is very easy to get reasoning why it should not.

Because there is no compelling state interest to prosecute such cases.

Because being a jerk isn't a violation of your rights granted by the constitution.

Because prosecuting the private actions of consenting adults is arguable unconstiutional.

Its an offense of civil matter, not of criminal matter.
 
I would like to see well written or thought out reasons why adultery should be okay.

Nobody in their right mind, besides a lush adulterous person, would argue it is ok.

Smoking cigarettes is not "ok"..... This does not constitute it as being illegal. Eating 5 double cheeseburgers every day is not "ok".... etc...
 
I didn't know that. What are the punishment guidelines?

Non-Judicial Punishment or Court Martial. Article 134.

(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation.

(1) Nature of offense. Adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member.

(2) Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. To constitute an offense under the UCMJ, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Adulterous conduct that is directly prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious, and measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember. Adultery may also be service discrediting, even though the conduct is only indirectly or remotely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Discredit means to injure the reputation of the armed forces and includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem. While adulterous conduct that is private and discreet in nature may not be service discrediting by this standard, under the circumstances, it may be determined to be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Commanders should consider all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the following factors, when determining whether adulterous acts are prejudicial to good order and discipline or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces:


(a) The accused's marital status, military rank, grade, or position;

(b) The co-actor's marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces;

(c) The military status of the accused's spouse or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the armed forces;

(d) The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces;

(e) The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct;

(f) Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct, such as whether any notoriety ensued; and whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ;

(g) The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency;

(h) Whether the accused or co-actor was legally separated; and

(i) Whether the adulterous misconduct involves an ongoing or recent relationship or is remote in time.

(3) Marriage. A marriage exists until it is dissolved in accordance with the laws of a competent state or foreign jurisdiction.

(4) Mistake of fact. A defense of mistake of fact exists if the accused had an honest and reasonable belief either that the accused and the co-actor were both unmarried, or that they were lawfully married to each other. If this defense is raised by the evidence, then the burden of proof is upon the United States to establish that the accused's belief was unreasonable or not honest.".

Lesser included offense...Article 80—attempts




I know a Sgt that was busted to Corporal and a full Bird Colonel that was escorted out the Corps. And for a Marine to screw around inside another Marine's marriage? It's over.

Why do you think the military was so pissed off that Clinton got away with it? A Commander-in-Chief only when someone needs killin'?
 
Last edited:
Nobody in their right mind, besides a lush adulterous person, would argue it is ok.

Smoking cigarettes is not "ok"..... This does not constitute it as being illegal. Eating 5 double cheeseburgers every day is not "ok".... etc...

I never said it was ok I just said it shouldn't be punishable.
 
Because there is no compelling state interest to prosecute such cases.

Because being a jerk isn't a violation of your rights granted by the constitution.

Because prosecuting the private actions of consenting adults is arguable unconstiutional.

Its an offense of civil matter, not of criminal matter.

Seeing what adultery can and often does to the "cheated" party, I would have to disagree that there is no compelling state interest to prosecute.

I see marriage as a contract (among other more personal things) and if one breaks that contract, the act should be punishable by X.
 
Non-Judicial Punishment or Court Martial. Article 134.






I know a Sgt that was busted to Corporal and a full Bird Colonel that was escorted out the Corps. And for a Marine to screw around inside another Marine's marriage? It's over.

Why do you think the military was so pissed off that Clinton got away with it? A Commander-in-Chief only when someone needs killin'?

Thanks. I see the need in the military for this. I don't think that translates to civilian life very well though.
 
Seeing what adultery can and often does to the "cheated" party, I would have to disagree that there is no compelling state interest to prosecute.

I see marriage as a contract (among other more personal things) and if one breaks that contract, the act should be punishable by X.

It's not very pragmatic to prosecute.

I see little gain and more cost to the state. That is why it's not a compelling state interest.
 
Seeing what adultery can and often does to the "cheated" party, I would have to disagree that there is no compelling state interest to prosecute.
and what's the state interest? Someones feelings got hurt? So we should now prosecute people for lying or calling people hurtful names? I guess a more fundamental question is, before I verge on creating strawman arguments, is what exactly is the compelling interest of the state?

I see marriage as a contract (among other more personal things) and if one breaks that contract, the act should be punishable by X.
If its in the contract then its enforceable, in civil court.
 
and what's the state interest? Someones feelings got hurt? So we should now prosecute people for lying or calling people hurtful names? I guess a more fundamental question is, before I verge on creating strawman arguments, is what exactly is the compelling interest of the state?

Murder, psychosis, should I go on? The reaction to adultery is often times quite detrimental to one or more parties involved.

If its in the contract then its enforceable, in civil court.

'tis why I think it should be in the contract. At the moment it is not specifically noted.
 
Murder, psychosis, should I go on? The reaction to adultery is often times quite detrimental to one or more parties involved.
So is the reaction to being dumped. Should we make it a crime to break up with/divorce someone too?
 
So is the reaction to being dumped. Should we make it a crime to break up with/divorce someone too?

Breaking up/divorcing someone is hardly comparable to cheating.

Do you really think it to be that simple of a matter?
 
Breaking up/divorcing someone is hardly comparable to cheating.

Do you really think it to be that simple of a matter?

How is it not comparable when you're talking about pain and suffering? Some people are crushed... devastated... suicidal... murderous when dumped/divorced. Why do consider their pain of less consequence than the pain of someone who was lied to?
 
Murder, psychosis, should I go on? The reaction to adultery is often times quite detrimental to one or more parties involved.



'tis why I think it should be in the contract. At the moment it is not specifically noted.

Link to showing that being cheated on is a cause for psychosis?

People murder for all sorts of reasons. Should we outlaw those reasons too?

It would seem that you are justifying honor killings.
 
How is it not comparable when you're talking about pain and suffering? Some people are crushed... devastated... suicidal... murderous when dumped/divorced. Why do consider their pain of less consequence than the pain of someone who was lied to?

I suppose I consider it different for reasons beyond my comprehension.

To me, cheating is more than just a lie. It's a destructive act perpetrated by a willing individual.
 
Link to showing that being cheated on is a cause for psychosis?

People murder for all sorts of reasons. Should we outlaw those reasons too?

It would seem that you are justifying honor killings.

I'm "justifying" killing now?

I could've sworn I was stating my perspective on cheating...
 
I suppose I consider it different for reasons beyond my comprehension.

To me, cheating is more than just a lie. It's a destructive act perpetrated by a willing individual.

So your stance is emotionally based?
 
So your stance is emotionally based?

I wouldnt necessarily call it emotional. As there is nothing in my life to suggest that it should be treated as such.

Unless all thoughts are emotion :2razz: then I suppose we'd all be emo as ****!
 
I'm "justifying" killing now?

I could've sworn I was stating my perspective on cheating...

You are saying that cheating caused murder. As if the murderer didn't have a choice in the matter. The responsibility lies with the murderer, not the cheater.
 
I wouldnt necessarily call it emotional. As there is nothing in my life to suggest that it should be treated as such.

Unless all thoughts are emotion :2razz: then I suppose we'd all be emo as ****!

You said it was beyond your comprehension. This means you haven't used logic to arrive at your stance. That only leaves emotion.
 
So is the reaction to being dumped. Should we make it a crime to break up with/divorce someone too?

In the absence of marriage, there is no assumption of monogamy.

It is imposable to cheat on a boy/girl friend.

***
In light of some recent arguments, I’m re-thinking my position. The state is a signing party in the marriage, so if another party breaches the license, doesn’t the state suffer damage? If so, that’s a ‘criminal offence’. It would be easy to add up the costs in government assistances and juvenile crime and call these damages to the state.

In offering jail time as deterrence, the state does have a compelling interest in that marriage for the upbringing of children…..hmmm….
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom