should adultery be illegal

moral code to criminal law ?

Published on August 10, 2004 By mignuna In Personal Relationships

presently there is no legal culpability for committing adultery in our 'western' world.

the criminal code of “civilised” countries does allow for legal, monetary, or other compensation for physical or “visible damage”. this extends to take into account “emotional” consequences for a limited number of “approved” pre-existing circumstances (ie: 'victims’ of crime compensation act'; which makes certain allowances for a victims’ mental distress).

in the eyes of the law, an individual is not culpable for any emotional damage they cause, intentional or otherwise, provided they did not break any actual “law”. an action only becomes illegal when it is legislated against and a law is passed either banning or in some other way limiting it’s application to certain circumstances.

so what might happen to the world if our moral ‘code’ became law ?. what if we were bound by legal requirement to behave in a morally ‘correct’ way ?. it has been suggested that the base of a healthy society is the family unit. were adultery to be illegal, chances are it would become paradoxically at once more attractive but less widespread.

if it became a crime to have sex outside of your marriage, or with a person you know to be married regardless of your marital status, doubtless the civil libertarians would cry foul, yet mans’ insistence at exercising his every ‘right’ regardless of the damage to society will ultimately liberate nobody.

fewer ‘affairs’ would lower divorce rates, both by forcing those who view marriage as a ‘non-serious’ commitment to think again before marrying, and by preserving the marriages we already have. fewer unwanted pregnancies would occur, and in the longer term, juvenile crime as a result of broken homes would also decrease.

if facing a criminal charge, single people may think twice before they become sexually involved with somebody who is married. (and the possibility of being charged with ‘adultery’ on your permanent record can’t be very enticing either).

as long as we break no ‘official’ laws, we are free to do whatever we like to each other regardless of the consequences. should i desire, i may seduce a married man, entice him away from his family, break the hearts of his children and shatter the life of their mother.

i may watch young people grow up fatherless, rob the childrens’ grandparents of their presence in their lives, and wreak financial ruin on a man who has built a home and family. i may do all of that with complete freedom, as i’d only be morally wrong at the moment. however, should i do nothing to that same married man but bump his car at a traffic-light, i have committed a crime.

(making it illegal to devastate a family on purpose may even mean we have to jettison some of the other silly laws we have to make room for it. the way we are going, soon people will be able to sue you for clearing your throat after 10pm. but you can still go ahead a trash a bunch of lives, that’s cool).

although ‘adultery as a crime’ could never happen in this modern world, will the taste we have developed for being able to do ‘whatever we like’ unhindered ultimately be our undoing ?.

because sometimes things may not cost money, but everything we do eventually gets paid for somehow.

Comments (Page 1)

Texas Wahine

on Aug 10, 2004

Interesting post. I love reading your thoughts.

I wonder what it is that makes some faithful and others not? We are all faced with temptation to indulge ourselves in a sexual attraction or to create a relationship based on our desire to feel desired or interesting. What is it that makes the difference between giving in to the temptation and choosing to realign ourselves with our spouse?

Sally jacobs

on Aug 10, 2004

I loved this article Mumsy, but I'm afraid I don't totally agree with it. I do in a way. For this to happen would ultamately be a good thing, to make people think about other peoples feelings, to not enter into marriage so easily, they are all good things. I don't think it is right to make laws based on peoples emotions though. People can not control their feelings, or their passions, and in cases where it is adultery maybe they should, especially when children our involved. Adultery is not right, but neither is smothering someones emotions. People have to learn from their mistakes when it comes to things like these. The punishments life will eventually deal to them will be far greater than any law, in my opinion.

dharmagrl

on Aug 10, 2004

Thought provoking article.

If marriage is a legally binding contract, why is breaching that contract (ie cheating, adultery) not illegal?

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 10, 2004

If marriage is a legally binding contract, why is breaching that contract (ie cheating, adultery) not illegal?

breach of contract usually carries civil penalties, not criminal penalties, unless some sort of fraud is committed. Brach of a marriage contract also carries with it civil penalties.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this post completely. We cannot be so quick to try to usher in our little utopia; people have a right to make stupid decisions, plain and simple. We COULD legislate that parents have minimum income levels to have children, too...and then we theoretically wouldn't have any children in poverty (because we could take them from their parents as soon as they are discovered). But the longterm repercussions of such a society would be devastating. I cannot see that it would create a more moral culture, just a more hypocritical one.

Here's a thought, as well. If adultery were illegal, it is highly possible that sex crimes and murder would increase. Think of it this way: Joe Blow has an illegal, adulterous affair with Jill Shmoe. Joe wants to end it and get back to his wife and family. Jill doesn't, and threatens to call the police and have Joe arrested. With criminal penalties to consider as well as the loss of family and esteem that happens in our current society, Joe Blow conveniently rids himself of the problem.

I'm not saying this is a necessary end, just one that we should consider before trying to impose a more totalitarian government on the people.

historyishere

on Aug 10, 2004

An argument could also be made that making adultery illegal might make it more attractive to some people, not less. Some people like to live dangerously, and adding a criminal aspect to it... well, the thought of not only getting away with it without their spouse knowing, but without the law knowing would make it an irresistable adrenaline rush.

True, such a hypothetical measure would perhaps stop casual and opportunistic adultery, its true, but in the end, I think such a law wouldn't really make a dent in the incidence of adultery, because it wouldn't really affect the root causes of it.

The DOC

on Aug 10, 2004

Although I believe in healthy and committed relationships (as I am in one myself), I see a few problems with "adultery charges":

(1) Bringing criminal charges against adulterers would be both costly, and time consuming. As a future lawyer, I always get complaints from people about how lawsuits are overburdening our judiciary. This would only bring a heavier burden, and thus a heavier cost.

(2) Where does one draw the line? What is considered cheating? What is not considered cheating? When can a spouse bring a charge against another? When can they not?

(3) Lawsuits against those who commit adultery would not solve the underlying problem, which is that a marriage is about to dissolve. Often people get caught up in emotion when it comes to adultery, and who can blame them. However, imagine if every spouse who had been wronged by adultery had the ability to seek out justice through the law, rather than discussing the problem with their mate. I am afraid that lawsuits would only be detrimental to marriages, rather than a safeguard against divorce.

At a divorce rate eating at around half of marriages, perhaps we should be talking more about manditory marriage/couple conselling prior to when a couple gets married, thus avoiding problems like this. I am a much larger proponent of stopping the problem before it has happened, rather than after.

Good article. I agree with your underlying argument. People are getting married with too little thought as to the responsibilities a marriage comes with.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 10, 2004

At a divorce rate eating at around half of marriages, perhaps we should be talking more about manditory marriage/couple conselling prior to when a couple gets married, thus avoiding problems like this. I am a much larger proponent of stopping the problem before it has happened, rather than after.

Personally, I still favor getting the government the hell out of marriage. I don't think it's an area where the government belongs, frankly.

dharmagrl

on Aug 10, 2004

Gid, I thought about that after I had already posted....duh!

I'd like to stick another 2 cent's worth in here - my husband is a military investigator. Under military law, adultery (carnal knowledge) is illegal. Here's the problem: they have to have either a confession or proof. So, if they have a scenario where they think adultery is going on, they can't really do much about it unless they catch the parties in flagrante delicto, they have photographic evidence, or if someone squeals. What constitutes 'carnal knowledge'? Penetration. 'No matter how slight' (see link for explanation)

Link

So, in my world, adultery is already illegal.

lifehappens

on Aug 10, 2004

Just a thought....could you imagine the difficulty in prosecuting? The US Army has a "No adultry" rule on the books, but the only time someone gets prosecuted is if it is in conjuntion with something else, ie: rape. The logistics in proving guilt is too difficult.
It would be nice if people took the vow (PROMISE) they made at marriage as seriously as other oaths, but I doubt that could ever happen.

PS Several states/counties/cities do have the law on the books, but just like the "no shooting someone in their underwear" rules, it's never enforced.

mignuna

on Aug 10, 2004

a good question, texas wahine. it was pondering that very thought that provoked this article. thankyou for asking

I loved this article Mumsy, but I'm afraid I don't totally agree with it.

thank's ok, sal. it's allowed hehe

For this to happen would ultamately be a good thing, to make people think about other peoples feelings, to not enter into marriage so easily, they are all good things

i agree, sal

I don't think it is right to make laws based on peoples emotions though. People can not control their feelings, or their passions

sal, sometimes i wonder. people can control their feelings and their passions where other things are concerned though, if those things are illegal. people obsess over material things like crazy, but most of them don't steal because it's the law.

cases where it is adultery maybe they should, especially when children our involved.

maybe if given a legal incentive, sal, they might

Adultery is not right, but neither is smothering someones emotions. People have to learn from their mistakes when it comes to things like these. The punishments life will eventually deal to them will be far greater than any law, in my opinion.

that is also true, sal. although it additionally punishes a entire family and innocent (often young) children in the process. thankyou for you comment, it made me think

Thought provoking article.

i'm very glad you read it. thankyou, dharma.

If marriage is a legally binding contract, why is breaching that contract (ie cheating, adultery) not illegal?

another very valid point. marriage is a legal and binding contract (and a useless one when it comes to looking after it's own vows of fidelity and honesty). so why do we have it ?

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this post completely.

it's ok, gideon hehe !. i'm pleased to have your input regardless

We cannot be so quick to try to usher in our little utopia

can i add that i was trying to be a little hypothetical here, so i don't feel that you (gideon) are actually disagreeing with me personally. i had hoped for any input at all, so please don't feel reluctant to give it. thanks

people have a right to make stupid decisions, plain and simple.

see ?. your diasagreeing with me isn't so bad. that's actually very funny tee hee !

We COULD legislate that parents have minimum income levels to have children, too...and then we theoretically wouldn't have any children in poverty (because we could take them from their parents as soon as they are discovered).

this is true. there are many things we could legislate against if we considered all angles. yet, changing a law in a western country is a much different (and easier) positive step than attempting to change global reproductive rights. an issue, certainly, but perhaps unrealted through it's scale and context.

changing adultery to crime is matter of legislation in western countries. legislating the reproductive rights of the entire world is not an issue i feel i raised or feel able to address, yet thanks for adding it gideon.

Think of it this way: Joe Blow has an illegal, adulterous affair with Jill Shmoe. Joe wants to end it and get back to his wife and family. Jill doesn't, and threatens to call the police and have Joe arrested. With criminal penalties to consider as well as the loss of family and esteem that happens in our current society, Joe Blow conveniently rids himself of the problem.

this is the type of situation i was inferring 'joe schmoe' would think twice about involving himeslf in in the first instance. you are referring to the affair as a done deal turning into a murder (which spurned lovers seem to do sometimes anyway, laws or not). yet i am speaking of prevention rather than damage control. thankyou for this thought provoking comment, gideon

An argument could also be made that making adultery illegal might make it more attractive to some people, not less

thankyou, historyishere. i actually did make that point in my article. here is the text:

were adultery to be illegal, chances are it would become paradoxically at once more attractive but less widespread.

Some people like to live dangerously, and adding a criminal aspect to it... well, the thought of not only getting away with it without their spouse knowing, but without the law knowing would make it an irresistable adrenaline rush.

agreed, and i also agree with your use of the word 'some', which would mean a minority

True, such a hypothetical measure would perhaps stop casual and opportunistic adultery, its true, but in the end, I think such a law wouldn't really make a dent in the incidence of adultery, because it wouldn't really affect the root causes of it.

this is also a very valid point, historyishere. it would act as a deterent in casual encounters. i do believe it would have an impact on the numbers of 'affairs' as single people would be less likely to be tempted to become involved with a married person, thus also reducing the 'opportunites".

thankyou everyone so much

vanessa/mig XX
"

mignuna

on Aug 10, 2004

Bringing criminal charges against adulterers would be both costly, and time consuming. As a future lawyer, I always get complaints from people about how lawsuits are overburdening our judiciary. This would only bring a heavier burden, and thus a heavier cost.

hi, the political machine. nice to 'meet' you. i thought i had the answer to this :

(making it illegal to devastate a family on purpose may even mean we have to jettison some of the other silly laws we have to make room for it. the way we are going, soon people will be able to sue you for clearing your throat after 10pm. but you can still go ahead a trash a bunch of lives, that’s cool).

Where does one draw the line? What is considered cheating? What is not considered cheating? When can a spouse bring a charge against another? When can they not?

as i said, hypothetical. and i'd welcome comment on these points

Lawsuits against those who commit adultery would not solve the underlying problem, which is that a marriage is about to dissolve

in some cases, most definately true. yet in the case of the 'tempted' spouse, perhaps not always so

However, imagine if every spouse who had been wronged by adultery had the ability to seek out justice through the law, rather than discussing the problem with their mate.

obviously no adultery charge would be brought about if the parties had solved the problem privately. the problem which may not exist if it was illegal ?

i have to agree. which was one of my major points. the majority of people do not participate in illegal activites, regardless of how tempting they are. materialism rules this world, yet most of us do not steal expensive items we crave because it is illgeal. it stops us. we know we will get into legal trouble.

if the same detereent were available to potential adulteters, maybe we could prevent some of them taking it further.

Good article. I agree with your underlying argument. People are getting married with too little thought as to the responsibilities a marriage comes with.

thankyou so much, the political machine, for your thought-provoking input

vanessa/mig XX

mignuna

on Aug 10, 2004

Personally, I still favor getting the government the hell out of marriage. I don't think it's an area where the government belongs, frankly

hehe gideon, i know we have agreed to disagree here, and i thank you for that

.

but can i still say that that comment was hilarious !!!

vanessa/mig XX

The DOC

on Aug 10, 2004

Personally, I still favor getting the government the hell out of marriage. I don't think it's an area where the government belongs, frankly.

Just a thought, should the government be able to give people tax breaks for being married, then? Lets face it, the government has been, and always will be, involved in marriage. Although, I do disagree with the gov't disallowing same sex marriages...

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 10, 2004

Oh, I didn't take the argument personally, mig. I thought it was a very good piece, just not one I agree with (hehe). But don't feel too bad, there's a lot I don't agree with.

The reason I threw up the reproductive rights issue is that this is a law that does have to do with the lifestyle of certain individuals. There are individuals in "swinging" relationships, polyamorous relationships, etc, that are entirely consensual that would be affected by blanket legislation such as this. While these sort of relationships "aren't my bag, baby" (in best Austin Powers voice), I think the potential harm of such legislation would outweigh the good. There is also the matter of the government legislating what goes on in the privacy of one's home. Numerous violations of individual rights, such as the one I cited, could follow if this legislative precedent was set.

Also of note: In many New England states (New Hampshire being one), adultery actually IS illegal. It doesn't seem to have made a significant change in the morality of the communities.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 10, 2004

Just a thought, should the government be able to give people tax breaks for being married, then?

nope. But then I think the entire tax structure needs major overhaul anyway. Such is the cross I must bear for my libertarian views...lol

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!