+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Useless Law, Selective Enforcement, and Sexism

  1. #1
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Useless Law, Selective Enforcement, and Sexism

    Well, in this week's frontrunner for stupid sex story of the week, we've got a 41 year old married woman and her 32 year old lover who were caught *ahem* having conjugal relations on a park picnic table in full view of other park goers, including children.

    For some silly reason, when the police responded to the various calls about the sitution, and found the couple still coupling, the cop on the scene wrote them both up for public lewdness. Which whatever my feelings about the criminality of sexual relations where others can see is clearly understood in the US to be frowned upon by the authorities - so I can't see how anyone can have a kick coming about that.

    What bothers me on several levels is that the woman of the pair is also being charged with adultery. Another misdemeanor charge.

    Which is bad enough. While NY has a law making adultery a crime, it's a law that has been used sporadically since the current statute went on the books.

    It is the first adultery charge in New York State since 2006 and only the 12th since 1972, state records show.
    12 uses of the law in 38 years.

    There's a good use of resources.

    Does anyone here care to assume, and then argue that there have been only 12 cases where there was a possibility of securing a conviction in court for adultery in the past 38 year? Anyone?


    *crickets*


    I thought not.

    If the law is going to be used that infrequently, for such a common occurrence, it's time to take it off the books to avoid the whole mess involved with selective enforcement. It makes NY's use of it's death penalty laws look universal, for pity's sake.

    Of course, we're talking NY's state Legislature. The odds of the useless fucking kleptocrats getting anything done about removing this law from the books are about on par with the odds of me being hit by a meteor fifteen seconds after I submit this post: It's possible, but no one in their right mind is going to be wagering so much as a plug nickel on the chance that it will happen.

    At any rate - now we get to the next most fucked up part of this fucking charge. (My apologies, I couldn't resist the chance to use that language in a totally accurate manner, for once.)

    The reason that the woman involved is being charged with adultery? The cop who responded recognized her from having been called to her home address for domestic violence calls. So he knew she was still married.

    Yup. You read that right: Because the woman has called for help from the cops in the past she's now up for more punishment.

    For some reason I find this absolutely chilling. And the selective enforcement of the charge makes it worse. The cop declines to press charges on the other person involved because he claimed that he didn't know she was married.

    Whatever the merits of that claim, and I'll admit it may have been a credible claim, (Though I'm tempted to remind you of the odds I gave for that meteor strike once I post this.) the appearance is that this cop has decided to punish a woman for being an adulteress while letting the man go off scott free.

    And that pisses me off even more than the stupid, fucking, useless law did in the first place. If both parties were being charged equally, that would be one thing. Butt his selective enforcement suggests male privilege at its worst. If the DA doesn't address that, and soon, it's going to confirm some of my beliefs about Buffalo area residents.

  2. #2
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    I always liked the idea where laws expire. It would get things like the adultry law off the books. I am also a big proponent of a movement to simplify the law but that is another discussion.

    But you need to post now, we need to make sure the meteor did not strike.

  3. #3
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    But you need to post now, we need to make sure the meteor did not strike.
    Oh, I'm fine. Disgruntled, but fine.

  4. #4
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Maybe she was the one beating up the husband during the service calls to her house by said police forces. Or maybe the cop was sympathetic because the guys wife is screwing anybody she can meet behind his back.

    Either way they're valid charges.

  5. #5
    Free Exy Cluricaun's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elgin IL
    Posts
    3,641

    Default

    Ok, I agree that even having a law against adultery is kind of stupid, but for establishing a confirmed legal basis to be used in the perhaps ensuing divorce proceedings, but I don't know that I really blame the cops on this one. It's kind of like when you get pulled over and if you do the "Yes sir, no sir, thank you sir" routine you just get the one ticket, but if you go the "Blow me you facist asshole" route suddenly the cop starts looking closer and you end up with like 10 tickets for every vehicle violation he can find.

    I'd be more upset if they were screwing at home and the cops came by on an unrelated call, happened to interruptus their coitus and then charged someone, but banging in public in full view of everyone for an extended period of time is just asking to get in a shitload of trouble. It's not so much selective enforcement at that point as it's "charge these assholes with everything that applies because they're assholes."
    Last edited by Cluricaun; 08 Jun 2010 at 10:31 AM.
    Hell, if I didn't do things just because they made me feel a bit ridiculous, I wouldn't have much of a social life. - Santo Rugger.

  6. #6
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Cluricaun View post
    I'd be more upset if they were screwing at home and the cops came by on an unrelated call, happened to interruptus their coitus and then charged someone, but banging in public in full view of everyone for an extended period of time is just asking to get in a shitload of trouble. It's not so much selective enforcement at that point as it's "charge these assholes with everything that applys because they're assholes."
    I understand what you're saying. However, your theory about 'charge these assholes with everything that applies,' should have the male in the pairing charged with adultery, as well.

    The other part of my claim for selective enforcement would include a nod towards former Governor Elliot Spitzer. To say he was caught rather publicly with his pants down is true in every way you can imagine, but there was no talk of charging him. Do you really think that there haven't been more than 12 cases in the past 38 years where there was public evidence for adultery? Note, too, this is not a case of 12 convictions, just 12 times the law was used to charge someone.

  7. #7
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by hatesfreedom View post
    Maybe she was the one beating up the husband during the service calls to her house by said police forces. Or maybe the cop was sympathetic because the guys wife is screwing anybody she can meet behind his back.

    Either way they're valid charges.
    Yeah, I've got to go with the ferret here. I'm not seeing anything in that article implying she was a battered wife. The only reference appears to be:

    The officer knew Corona was married because police had previously responded to calls at the Batavia home where she was living with her husband, Hill said.
    Those calls could have been for a number of reasons.

    She was drunkenly having sex with some guy in public. No evidence that the guy even knows her last name, let alone her marital status. It seems like just the sort of situation for those obscure little laws, to throw as much as you can on a dumbass as possible.

  8. #8
    Free Exy Cluricaun's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elgin IL
    Posts
    3,641

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by OtakuLoki View post
    I understand what you're saying. However, your theory about 'charge these assholes with everything that applies,' should have the male in the pairing charged with adultery, as well.

    The other part of my claim for selective enforcement would include a nod towards former Governor Elliot Spitzer. To say he was caught rather publicly with his pants down is true in every way you can imagine, but there was no talk of charging him. Do you really think that there haven't been more than 12 cases in the past 38 years where there was public evidence for adultery? Note, too, this is not a case of 12 convictions, just 12 times the law was used to charge someone.
    I'd be interested to hear the circumstances surrounding the other 12 cases. If they're also aggravated charges stemming from flagrant situations (i.e. your wife is balling somone on the ABC Supersign in Times Square under a banner that says "You never satisfied me Bob") then I understand the selectivity.
    Hell, if I didn't do things just because they made me feel a bit ridiculous, I wouldn't have much of a social life. - Santo Rugger.

  9. #9
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by OtakuLoki View post
    I understand what you're saying. However, your theory about 'charge these assholes with everything that applies,' should have the male in the pairing charged with adultery, as well.

    The other part of my claim for selective enforcement would include a nod towards former Governor Elliot Spitzer. To say he was caught rather publicly with his pants down is true in every way you can imagine, but there was no talk of charging him. Do you really think that there haven't been more than 12 cases in the past 38 years where there was public evidence for adultery? Note, too, this is not a case of 12 convictions, just 12 times the law was used to charge someone.
    Well it is a pretty silly law. Granted, not one I'm fully against. A part of me is pretty thrilled to know that married people can get in trouble for sleeping around with people other their partner. I mean it is kind of the only thing you're not supposed to do in a marriage. Right? What's the point of marriage at all if it's always ok to get divorced at the drop of a hat, sleep around, etc, etc.

    I dunno, maybe we should drop the entire marriage thing and just move to 5 year commitment contracts. Couple agrees not to (list of agreements) and to (list of agreements) for the stated period of 5 years to be renewed automatically without voluntary severance. We could even throw in some child care crap for those of you who still believe children are worth something.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Cluricaun View post
    (i.e. your wife is balling somone on the ABC Supersign in Times Square under a banner that says "You never satisfied me Bob")
    See, now, I think that would be worth a high-five, not criminal charges.

  11. #11
    Free Exy Cluricaun's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elgin IL
    Posts
    3,641

    Default

    Well you and me both.
    Hell, if I didn't do things just because they made me feel a bit ridiculous, I wouldn't have much of a social life. - Santo Rugger.

  12. #12
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, North Side
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    She was drunkenly having sex with some guy in public. No evidence that the guy even knows her last name, let alone her marital status. It seems like just the sort of situation for those obscure little laws, to throw as much as you can on a dumbass as possible.
    Is ignorance of her marital status a legal excuse? It wouldn't be if she was underage...

  13. #13
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by WhyNot View post
    Is ignorance of her marital status a legal excuse? It wouldn't be if she was underage...
    Yah and I wish I was taller and made of muscle. The point is she isn't underage. We give huge 'get out of jail' free cards to underage offenders, but once you pass 18ish you are an adult. Welcome to the suck.

  14. #14
    my god, he's full of stars... OneCentStamp's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    6,993

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by hatesfreedom View post
    Yah and I wish I was taller and made of muscle. The point is she isn't underage. We give huge 'get out of jail' free cards to underage offenders, but once you pass 18ish you are an adult. Welcome to the suck.
    I don't think that's what WhyNot means. I think she means that if the woman was underage, it would have been statutory rape whether the guy knew it or not. So why does he have to know she's married in order for it to be adultery?
    "You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because I'm on nitrous."

    find me at Goodreads

  15. #15
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by WhyNot View post
    Is ignorance of her marital status a legal excuse? It wouldn't be if she was underage...
    Quote Originally posted by OneCentStamp View post
    I don't think that's what WhyNot means. I think she means that if the woman was underage, it would have been statutory rape whether the guy knew it or not. So why does he have to know she's married in order for it to be adultery?
    Well how is the law written is what it comes down to. Maybe adultery is only a crime for a married person in NY.

    No matter what though I agree with Loki it is a stupid law that should be struck down.

  16. #16
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, North Side
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by OneCentStamp View post
    I don't think that's what WhyNot means. I think she means that if the woman was underage, it would have been statutory rape whether the guy knew it or not. So why does he have to know she's married in order for it to be adultery?
    Yes, exactly. Ignorance of a crime isn't generally an excuse, is it?

    (That's an actual question, by the way, not stirring the pot. My knowledge of the law in general and this law in particular are minuscule.)

  17. #17
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by WhyNot View post
    Yes, exactly. Ignorance of a crime isn't generally an excuse, is it?

    (That's an actual question, by the way, not stirring the pot. My knowledge of the law in general and this law in particular are minuscule.)
    I'm pretty much in the same boat with you on the whole "knowledge of the law" thing but my understanding is that strict liability laws like the law against statutory rape are fairly uncommon. Being ignorant that something's against the law is not a defense, but for most crimes, I'm pretty sure that being legitimately ignorant of the effects of something you are doing is a defense. To be convicted of murder, you have to have mens rea -- a "guilty mind" -- that is, you have to be intentionally trying to kill them. Not knowing murder is a crime is not a defense, but not knowing you're killing someone is.

  18. #18
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Exy View post
    I'm pretty much in the same boat with you on the whole "knowledge of the law" thing but my understanding is that strict liability laws like the law against statutory rape are fairly uncommon. Being ignorant that something's against the law is not a defense, but for most crimes, I'm pretty sure that being legitimately ignorant of the effects of something you are doing is a defense. To be convicted of murder, you have to have mens rea -- a "guilty mind" -- that is, you have to be intentionally trying to kill them. Not knowing murder is a crime is not a defense, but not knowing you're killing someone is.
    exy's pretty much got it in general terms. On what the exact legal requirements are for a conviction for adultery in NY State, you'd need a NY lawyer, and good luck on getting him/her to express an opinion on a messageboard.
    Last edited by Rube E. Tewesday; 10 Jun 2010 at 10:53 AM.

  19. #19
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, North Side
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Heh. Seeing as I'm currently living with a man married to a woman in New York State (we're both in the middle of amicable divorces), I don't think I want to know too many details on New York State's adultery laws.

  20. #20

  21. #21
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Interesting. I wonder if they realized there'd be a can of worms if they took the adultery charges to trial or if it was used as leverage in some way.
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

  22. #22
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default

    My guess it that it's some of column A and some of column B.

  23. #23
    A Dude Peeta Mellark's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Oh, I remember this story. Yeah, usually when they nab some old law like that the purpose is more about leverage and less actually caring about said old law.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts