• 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.
Why bother having laws and sentences then? If we didn't have the laws would the incidence of child-adult sex remain the same, increase or decrease?

Does the threat of imposition of sanction act as a deterrent?

Of course, nobody is saying that it doesn't. The point is that the punishment has to be rationally related to the crime.

Again, if you really want to stop people from cheating on their taxes, just make it punishable by death. Sound good?
 
Why bother having laws and sentences then? If we didn't have the laws would the incidence of child-adult sex remain the same, increase or decrease?

Does the threat of imposition of sanction act as a deterrent?

With pedophilia, there is a victim. It's not so much retribution as it is isolating them from society for society's safety.

Cheaters aren't a danger to society.
 
You can link to the constitution in a lot of cases, for example weed, online poker just to mention two examples that goes on freedoms, that I assume you are hinting at?

What I'm hinting at is we do not criminalize things because they hurt other people's feelings, nor do we criminalize things simply because we find them distasteful. That is, for lack of a better word, dumb.
 
Witnesses to what? Officiating what?
The marriage. Basically they witness the willing signatures of the husband/wife. Or, witness the ceremony if there was one. But all the state wants is the signatures of the officiate (basically a notary - in fact, can be just a notary in some states), the husband and wife, and the witnesses all attesting to the fact that the husband/wife wish to be married.

On this, for the most part, you would be wrong. There might be a required form, but there's a requirement for a ceremony. See my questions immediately above.
No, no ceremony required "for the most part". Especially not in the state that I can perform marriages. And even if there is some requirement for some words to be spoken, it would simply be "do you take him/her to be your husband/wife?" Already mentioned this.

I never said they were -- but in most ceremonies, including civil ones, they're usually done.
But not required.


On this fine point I don't disagree, however marriage is more than just companionship. It usually involves the parties making personal and financial sacrifices for the benefit of their union. A wife who abandons her schooling or career in order to move to another location can point to specific sacrifices she made based on the promises made involving their marriage. She can therefore also point to specific damages that resulted from the violation of the marital contract in that she wouldn't have made those sacrifices if she were not married.
If someone made sacrifices for someone else, that was THEIR choice.

Have you ever been cheated on? Me neither.. There is no way that you can know how you would react.. Perhaps you would be one of the people who tied a knot around your neck and died because of it..
Yes, I have been. I got over it.

...after you keyed her car and wiped your ass with her handbags, right?

"I dug my key into the side of his pretty little souped up four wheel drive
Carved my name into his leather seats
Took a Louisville slugger to both headlights
Slashed a hole in all four tires
Maybe next time he'll think before he cheats"
 
With pedophilia, there is a victim. It's not so much retribution as it is isolating them from society for society's safety.

Cheaters aren't a danger to society.

Thanks for your answer but it wasn't an answer to my question. Someone upthread posited that the introduction of judgment and punishment would be enough to modify the behavior of some spouses who were on the verge of committing adultery. Someone else, possibly you, said that such laws would have no effect.

I imagine that there exist borderline pedophiles who don't even interact with children in order to avoid creating temptation which could be acted upon BECAUSE they don't want to face the risk of punishment. However, if we removed that risk of punishment, then I imagine that some of these borderline pedophiles would indeed move to act on their impulses.

Do you disagree? Why would human decision making be different with respect to adultery than any other area where consequences have to be weighed before action is taken?
 
Thanks for your answer but it wasn't an answer to my question. Someone upthread posited that the introduction of judgment and punishment would be enough to modify the behavior of some spouses who were on the verge of committing adultery. Someone else, possibly you, said that such laws would have no effect.

I imagine that there exist borderline pedophiles who don't even interact with children in order to avoid creating temptation which could be acted upon BECAUSE they don't want to face the risk of punishment. However, if we removed that risk of punishment, then I imagine that some of these borderline pedophiles would indeed move to act on their impulses.

Do you disagree? Why would human decision making be different with respect to adultery than any other area where consequences have to be weighed before action is taken?

You can imagine that they exist. That doesn't make it so. People who commit compulsive crimes don't think that they will get caught or don't even consider the consequences. That's what makes it a compulsion.

Tell me, how many people who cheat plan on getting caught? How many criminals plan on getting caught?
 
What I'm hinting at is we do not criminalize things because they hurt other people's feelings, nor do we criminalize things simply because we find them distasteful. That is, for lack of a better word, dumb.

I cant think of any other thing in our society today that is ahead of on a list of things that should be criminalize, than adultery, and I can think a lot of things that is less justifiably illegal than adultery.
 
You can imagine that they exist. That doesn't make it so. People who commit compulsive crimes don't think that they will get caught or don't even consider the consequences. That's what makes it a compulsion.

Tell me, how many people who cheat plan on getting caught? How many criminals plan on getting caught?

Murder is also part of human nature, same as sex and indirectly cheating. That would not justify murder as legal, nor general violence, which can also be compulsive behavior and natural to humans.
 
Murder is also part of human nature, same as sex and indirectly cheating. That would not justify murder as legal, nor general violence, which can also be compulsive behavior and natural to humans.

Murderers are locked away to protect society. Society needs no protection from cheaters.
 
You can imagine that they exist. That doesn't make it so. People who commit compulsive crimes don't think that they will get caught or don't even consider the consequences. That's what makes it a compulsion.

Are you really staking out the position that compulsion is a binary state, rather than one of degree? Secondly, that people don't modify behavior in response to threats?

Really? There are alcoholics and non-alcoholics and alcoholics all go on total benders and there is no degree of moderation in alcoholism, so that some alcoholics go on benders only on the weekend, or after work, or on special occasions while other alcoholics refrain from getting drunk by attending programs or avoiding temptation. These folks don't exist. If you're an alcoholic then you're on a permanent bender and the degree to which alcohol affects you is uniform for every alcoholic.
 
Yes it does actually need protection from such a horrible act, which is now rather a norm than a rarity.

You have got to be kidding me? If someone has sex with other than a spouse, laws are in effect civilly as they should be. No one is physically or financially hurt by cheating. So it should not be a criminal offense.

I figure you had someone cheat on you, or just have no clue.

Whats next? The thought police???
 
Last edited:
I cant think of any other thing in our society today that is ahead of on a list of things that should be criminalize, than adultery, and I can think a lot of things that is less justifiably illegal than adultery.

Really? You can't think of any other thing worse than someone cheating on someone else? Seriously?

Well let me tell ya hon. I CAN. And have experienced actual criminal assaults that were far worse than anyone EVER cheating on me. I would take being cheated on a dozen times to the physical assaults I suffered. Somehow, I'm betting that most rape, molestation, torture, beating, vicious assault, attempted murder and murder victims would too. In fact, I'm quite willing to bank on it.

Essentially you want to make lying illegal and punishable by jailtime. Because that's all cheating is. Pretty laughable that you find simply lying to someone to be so much more atrocious than physical acts of violence. I'd go as far as to say insulting, actually.
 
Are you really staking out the position that compulsion is a binary state, rather than one of degree? Secondly, that people don't modify behavior in response to threats?

Really? There are alcoholics and non-alcoholics and alcoholics all go on total benders and there is no degree of moderation in alcoholism, so that some alcoholics go on benders only on the weekend, or after work, or on special occasions while other alcoholics refrain from getting drunk by attending programs or avoiding temptation. These folks don't exist. If you're an alcoholic then you're on a permanent bender and the degree to which alcohol affects you is uniform for every alcoholic.

You ignored the fact that people don't plan on getting caught. They think the consequences don't apply to them.

Not all alcoholics are the same. Professionals classify them as level 1, levels 2 a and b, and level 3. It's a progressive disease. They don't black out every time they drink. There are skid row alcoholics and there are functional alcoholics. While they do all have common traits where they are unable to control their drinking once they have that first drink, they are not all carbon copies of each other.
 
Yes it does actually need protection from such a horrible act, which is now rather a norm than a rarity.

I don't need protection from cheaters. Even if my wife cheats on me, it doesn't hurt society. It only hurts our relationship. You don't need to worry about my marriage.
 
I cant think of any other thing in our society today that is ahead of on a list of things that should be criminalize, than adultery, and I can think a lot of things that is less justifiably illegal than adultery.

Just because something hurts a person's feelings does not mean we can criminalize it. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
 
You ignored the fact that people don't plan on getting caught. They think the consequences don't apply to them.

You're responding to sample bias. Idiot criminals who get caught declare that they thought they'd never get caught. The prospective criminals who refrain from criminal action because they are aware of the consequences and the risk of getting caught are outside of your sample.

Look at what happens with looting during war. The incidence of looting increases during civil disturbance because the some of the folks on the margin, who refrained from theft during normal times now engage in theft because the odds of punishment have changed.

There are bookkeepers who dream of embezzling but don't because they don't want to get caught. Create a circumstance where the risk of getting caught is diminished and some of those bookkeepers will cross the line and embezzle. There are men who would drug a woman and have sex with her but refrain because they don't want to pay the price if they are caught. Guarantee them that they won't get caught and some fraction of those men will cross over and take advantage of that woman.
 
Just because something hurts a person's feelings does not mean we can criminalize it. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

What about using drugs then? Why should that be illegal? It hurts no one else than yourself.
 
Re-read my thread, that was NOT what I said at all.

Sure looks to me like that's what you said.

I agree that there are things that are currently criminal that should NOT be.

But I can't see anything being "on the list behind" making adultery criminal. Making lying criminal just because someone's feelings might get hurt? What's next, make it illegal to look at other women/men because your spouse's feelings might get hurt? Make it illegal to break up with someone because their feelings might get hurt? You do realize that people kill themselves over someone breaking up with them, don't you?
 
You're responding to sample bias. Idiot criminals who get caught declare that they thought they'd never get caught. The prospective criminals who refrain from criminal action because they are aware of the consequences and the risk of getting caught are outside of your sample.

Look at what happens with looting during war. The incidence of looting increases during civil disturbance because the some of the folks on the margin, who refrained from theft during normal times now engage in theft because the odds of punishment have changed.

There are bookkeepers who dream of embezzling but don't because they don't want to get caught. Create a circumstance where the risk of getting caught is diminished and some of those bookkeepers will cross the line and embezzle. There are men who would drug a woman and have sex with her but refrain because they don't want to pay the price if they are caught. Guarantee them that they won't get caught and some fraction of those men will cross over and take advantage of that woman.

I understand your sample bias point. But you ignored Tucker's point that the current outcomes of getting caught are worse than jail.

Looters may loot out of survival or to insure they have assets in case war causes economic collapse.

Your bookkeepers point is exactly what I am talking about. They think that they won't get caught.

Do you have proof that these men exist that would rape if they could get away with it?
 
I understand your sample bias point. But you ignored Tucker's point that the current outcomes of getting caught are worse than jail.

If I didn't comment on it that doesn't mean that I did, or didn't agree with it, it just means that I'm rationing my time to comment on points that I find interesting. Frankly, I can't even recall what that point was.

Do you have proof that these men exist that would rape if they could get away with it?

Look at what happens in war zones. What was the incidence of rape in the Bosnian conflict to the incidence of rape today, now that order has been restored? Look at Darfur, look at Somalia, look at Rwanda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom