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.
Quote:
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.
