Adultery could mean life(in prison), court finds (Michigan)

[RamboLiberal]

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/COL04/701150333

In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

"We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."

"Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code.

No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses. The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court's decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship.

Murphy's opinion received little notice when it was handed down. But it has since elicited reactions ranging from disbelief to mischievous giggling in Michigan's gossipy legal community.

[NotGivingUp]

1. hmmm....we can probably hang charges on 90% of the repukes

[Big_Mike]

55. But to be fair

It would be the same on our side. People are people. Some just can't keep their pants on, regardless of gender or politics.

[NotGivingUp]

58. yep, you're right!

[Delphinus]

2. In regard to this statement:

No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses.

I wouldn't be so sure.

[w4rma]

3. Obviously the legislature needs to resend that law.

Laws shouldn't be on the books that people aren't willing to enforce.

[SharonAnn]

46. "Rescind" the law.

[qwlauren35]

64. Wish I could agree.

If the non-cheating spouse gets AIDS, I'd consider that a felony.

[varun]

65. there are laws against that already...

...it is a felony to have sex with another person without telling them one's positive status (in most states).

[nebenaube]

4. more biblical law...

National Sunday Law.... freaky paranoia but what if that particular vision was misunderstood and it's not sunday vs the sabbath xtians but rather the dominionist wet dream of the 'born again' against us all...

[MidwestTransplant]

5. Let's see how the Fundies like that one being enforced.

[BR_Parkway]

6. Well this will be an interesting twist to the Hate Gay for Pay crowd

to be certain.

After passing an amendment banning equal marriage, this may be one they have to live with. And the same arguments made about how it is the states business to protect the children, providing the little kiddies with one man and one woman and all that - very hard for them to change their story now.

And the gay groups should very vocally be pushing for these people to be charged. They went to the polls and voted on our "morality", let them stand up to the light of day on their own. They claim to be the paragons of virtue - fine, everyone of them who cheats needs to be charged, convicted listed for the rest of their life on one of the sex registries.

[Tyo]

11. It's about time

Biblical law has to apply across the board if it is going to apply at all. Doesn't the Bible call for stoning adulterers? Or is it only adulteresses? Either way they should be grateful that they are getting off with life.

And if marriage is to be only between one man and one woman then it needs to be one man, one woman, one time since I believe that divorce is frowned upon in the holy book. And do we know what the punishment for masturbation is? I'm not sure that the Bible specifies. We need to get that one sorted out because I understand that the practice is rather widespread.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. No, no, divorce is perfectly all right --

if the woman is unable to bear sons, the husband can sell her back to her father.

[Tyo]

21. Oh. Well. I didn't know about that part.

That makes it okay then. I mean if a woman can't bear sons what good is she? Thanks for the info. Just when I think I have the Bible down I learn something new.

[Matariki]

30. yeah, and bankers and credit card companies won't fare well under biblical law either.

[Tyo]

39. Rich people need to watch it too. Here is a summary of the rules....

If you are rich, there's that eye-of-the-needle thing with the camel to worry about. I guess that technically you can be rich now as long as you are prepared to go to Hell for it later. I don't think the state gets involved.

So just to kind of sum it all up... If you must have sex at all it had better be hetero, you had better be married, said sex had better result in another mouth to feed and you'd better not enjoy it. I'd say 18 months for anyone party to a mutual orgasm. And guys, no sneaking off to the bathroom with the Victoria's Secret catalogue or any other filthy visual aid. There shouldn't even be a Victoria's Secret catalogue or other F.V.A. in the house anyway.

As addressed above, it's not a good idea to make too much money if you are concerned about the fate of your immortal soul. If you do become rich don't let God find out about it. It's okay to beat your kids and probably your wife too if she gets out of line or stops putting out. Going to Red Lobster will become a thing of the past, and you can kiss Honey Baked Ham good-bye. It's okay to acquire a slave or two or even more if you have the bucks, but remember that needle and camel thing. Do not suffer a witch to live and keep a good supply of rocks handy because you never know when you might be called up for stoning duty.

Read the New Testament but take it with a grain of salt. We all know that Jesus tended to go a little overboard with the touchy feely love-thy-neighbor stuff. Don't forget that He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it, or words to that effect. It's all very well to help the poor and the homeless to a degree, but keep in mind that if God didn't want them to be living on the street they would have a house like you do. And never forget that your responsibility is to protect fetuses. Kids can fend for themselves. Your obligation to care ends when the kid gets slapped on the butt in the delivery room. Don't let yourselves be guilted into anything.

And finally, remember to remind all homosexuals that they are going to Hell and because of this they deserve no rights and make sure you don't get too near them because you might catch something.

[kath]

52. Wow, Tyo. Post of the Week!!

[AnneD]

57. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

boy that will turn the tables on them (pun intended). Do we get to stone the bank and credit card company CEOs or do we get a jubilee and wipe our slates clean :spray:

Conservatives want to bring back biblical law, but which laws. Idiots! That was one of the reasons to send Jesus-to create a new covenant and with that new laws based on love and forgiveness-something these numb nuts obviously did understand. The 10 Commandment fall in the Old Testament-The beatitudes in the New Testament. When these folks demand to have the Sermon on the Mount in all the Courtrooms-then and only then, will we be able to call ourselves a Christian Nation. Just my take on it ;)

[CRH]

63. Yes we know what the penalty for masturbation is ...

... Didn't your parents tell you? You will go blind. (:-)

[rosesaylavee]

7. What will all those congressman do!

Best they change this law before their numbers are reduced too rapidly.

:rofl:

[DBoon]

45. This will destroy freerepublic!

How can they post when their right hand is in prison, convicted of a felony?

[rosesaylavee]

54. Ahhhhh! The humanity! :) n/t

[Supersedeas]

56. Funny

[donco6]

8. Throw Cox in jail.

Let the straights see how it feels for a change to have your mutually consented sexual behavior be criminalized, ala Hardwick or Matthew Limon.

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/crimjustice/11894prs20030626.html

[rinsd]

9. Womanizers, beware!

:popcorn:

[villager]

10. wow -- my ex-wife should be glad she doesn't live in Michigan!

;-)

[iverglas]

12. It's actually just a little more complicated than that

and I don't really see how the law in question supports the court's statement that "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of (criminal sexual conduct)".

The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan's criminal law. The provision decrees that a person is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct whenever "sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony."

Charlevoix prosecuting attorney John Jarema said he decided to appeal after police discovered evidence that Waltonen may have struck drugs-for-sex deals with several other women.

Oh, I see --

The judges said they recognized their ruling could have sweeping consequences, "considering the voluminous number of felonious acts that can be found in the penal code." Among the many crimes Michigan still recognizes as felonies, they noted pointedly, is adultery -- although the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan notes that no one has been convicted of that offense since 1971.

Well, connect me to the department of redundancy department, please. It is a criminal offence to have sex while committing adultery? Hmm ...

The Court of Appeals opinion could also be interpreted as a tweak to the state Supreme Court, which has decreed that judges must enforce statutory language adopted by the Legislature literally, whatever the consequences.

In many other states, judges may reject a literal interpretation of the law if they believe it would lead to an absurd result.

Indeed.

[badgerpup]

23. Is it adultery if both participants are single?

Or does one of them have to be married to somebody else?

Old Joke Warning

Did you hear about the guy who refused to have sex with his wife?

He said it was wrong because she was a married woman.
***************

At least, I hope that's just a joke. What with some of the reactions, interpretations and postings I've seen RaptureReady and Freeperland come up with, I can't be sure anymore.
:wtf:

[struggle4progress]

26. Michigan Compiled Laws Section 750.30

Punishment—Any person who shall commit adultery shall be guilty of a felony; and when the crime is committed between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, the man shall be guilty of adultery, and liable to the same punishment.

Apparently, Michigan's legislature has never thought it necessary to discourage unmarried women from seeking some "recreation" with married men ...

[regnaD kciN]

27. I think the legal situation is as follows...

Well, connect me to the department of redundancy department, please. It is a criminal offence to have sex while committing adultery?

While adultery has long been criminalized in Michigan, the penalty was far less than a life sentence. However, the way the new Criminal Sexual Conduct law (which does call for life imprisonment) is written, it also applies to anyone having sex as part of another, lesser crime, of which adultery is one. So it's not a matter of redundancy in the criminal status, but of an additional charge (much like "possession of an unregistered handgun" can be tacked onto a robbery indictment) that, in this case, can bring a much stiffer sentence than the original charge.

What I'm most curious about is what the circumstances were of the last adultery prosecution (in 1971)? I would think that most people would have thought such a charge almost medieval back then as well.

[iverglas]

62. I know ;)

I do just think the judges did a good job of pointing out the absurdity of the result.

You can commit robbery without possessing an unregistered handgun, but it's damned hard to commit adultery without having sex. ;)

[struggle4progress]

28. Moving back in with the ex-spouse after divorce is apparently a felony, too

750.32 Adultery; cohabitation of divorced parties.
Sec. 32.
Cohabitation by divorced parties -— If any persons after being divorced from the bonds of matrimony for any cause whatever, shall cohabit together, they shall be liable to all the penalties provided by law against adultery.

[HockeyMom]

14. Good thing they nixed the Adultery Law in NY

St. Rudy of 9/11, America's Mayor, would be serving 3 Life Sentences. :rofl:

[kskiska]

32. I remember the old divorce laws in NY

The only grounds for divorce was adultery. Couples wanting to divorce needed to stage a hotel raid whereby the door would be busted open exposing the husband or wife in flagrante delicto. This was standard procedure back then.

[Clevenger]

15. Will there now be more spousal murders in Michigan? n/t

[superconnected]

16. These people are insane.

Everyone supporting this should have a mental health check.

[LiberalFighter]

17. engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship

Will they apply the law equally to both men and women? Or will they only prosecute the man but not the woman? (if both are married)

Will they prosecute the woman in those limited situations where they penetrate the man with foreign objects?

[Warpy]

19. I would think that idiocy would apply equally

to the penetrator and the penetratee. However, where such laws have ever been in existence, it's generally women who suffer the most Draconian punishments.

I hate nanny laws, every damned one of them.

[LiberalEsto]

18. Jail Newt Gingrich!

And all those other mealy-mouthed hypocritical adulterous rethugs.
:evilgrin:

[varun]

31. Freeps protesting this law...

To: ConservativeMind
Well, you may want to read 1 Cor. 7 and Lev. 20:10 and Det. 22:13 to the end.
No, thanks... and you wonder why people call conservatives "religious freaks"?

Why don't you and Pat Robertson and all the other idiots finally break away and create your own religious political party. We'll take back the Reagan Democrats and laugh when you and the liberal whacko Democrats lose every election for the next 100 years.


34 posted on 01/15/2007 7:05:00 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe (Say "NO" to the Trans-Texas Corridor)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: ConservativeMind; All
Well we have this separation of Church and State thing...

35 posted on 01/15/2007 7:05:42 PM PST by KevinDavis (Nancy you ignorant Slut!!!!!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies >

[kskiska]

33. That was an amazing thread.

I couldn't believe my eyes. "Separation of church and state"? Imagine that!

[varun]

38. they remember the separation of church and state

when it comes to their rights...but forget about it when it affects other groups (eg. gays and lesbians)

[closeupready]

47. You're absolutely right.

Double standards. It's a way of life for today's "conservatives".

[varun]

40. Unbelievable...

a freeper saying this:

To: ConservativeMind
Well, you may want to read 1 Cor. 7 and Lev. 20:10 and Det. 22:13 to the end.
That's religion. Jail is government. Two different things in America.

Get the hell out of this country if you want to combine them. Saudi Arabia would be a nice place for people like you.

-ccm


53 posted on 01/15/2007 8:44:44 PM PST by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)

[roamer65]

59. Don't you just love freeps eating their own?

I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I see it.:popcorn:

[GoddessOfGuinness]

36. Wonderful! It's conservative pandering to relgious wackos that's divided this country.

And it led to the near extinction of the Moderate Republican, for whom I have respect, if I don't always agree with them.

Evangelicals should start their own little fundy party.

[Quantess]

20. Splendid! We don't have enough people in jail!

Great solution to prison underpopulation! We have all these big, empty prisons, with only a few lonely inmates rattling around, and underworked prison staff. This is a superb way to get a few new faces incarcerated!

[Hosnon]

22. I absolutely love seeing courts do this. If the legislature f$%s up, the courts should

not fix the problem and screw with the law.

Unleash the perverse law onto the public and make the legislature fix its problem and, more importantly, write responsible laws in the future.

[Kber]

51. Exactly

Let the conservatives wonder where the "activist judges" are when you really need them.

[Dover]

24. Well that ought to put most of the politicians out of business..one way or the other.

They are probably the most guilty of extramarital as well as extrapolitical affairs.

[struggle4progress]

25. Not exactly LBN: the court ruling was in November

[no_hypocrisy]

29. So you can go to jail for engaging in heterosexual adulterous behavior,

but you can remain immune from prosecution if you're gay. I think we have an equal protection issue here.

[mmonk]

34. I don't run around but I bet alot of sexual affairs may be

an action in the heat of an unplanned unguarded moment, hardly worth such a ridiculous response. So I think I'll cross Michigan off my list of potential places to live.

[ckramer]

35. Would legalize prostitution help in reducing adultery?

Maybe I am daydreaming...

[G Hawes]

37. I don't see how.

Using the services of a prostitute would still be considered adultery, whether prostitution was legal or not, wouldn't it? Do you see a distinction in some way?

Edit to add: Just to be clear, though, I think that any criminal sanction, let alone life imprisonment, for adultery is sheer lunacy. At best, it might - might - be a civil matter between the affected parties, but criminal? That's nuts. Morality police, anyone?

[mrcheerful]

41. Actually I'm having an all out war with the morality nit wits who say divorce should

be made harder to get and what about the kids who has a parent with a gf/bf while separated but still married. It's immoral for a woman to leave a wife beating, child abusing drunk and have a SO before the divorce comes through. She should wait until the divorce is granted before she starts dating again. Now with me and my SO, it took her 3 years just to get an address to serve the divorce papers to and the SOB signed them then decided to fight her on the divorce. Yeah morals are so great when its not your life they effect.

[G Hawes]

42. I'm with you

No morality police for me, thank you very much. And you're right - it's so easy for others to condemn as long as it's not them who actually has to deal with the consequences.

[noonwitch]

43. Considering Cox is a self-confessed adulterer....

Remember last year or two years ago, when he accused Fieger of blackmailing him over his adultry? Nobody brought it up during the election, but it was a big story for a couple of weeks.

[Toots]

44. Boy talk about "Protecting Marriage"

No one will ever get married again. :shrug: Or is just having sex illegal there also?

[customerserviceguy]

48. This isn't going to get very far

As soon as this case is appealed to the US Supreme Court, they will apply Lawrence vs. Texas, and fundie-inspired social engineering as to which consenting adults can sleep with other ones, will have the final nail put in its coffin.

[youthere]

49. Then Michigan residents can file a class-action suit against Bush..

He's been fucking them all for six years now.

[ermoore]

50. Seems like . . .

The way I understand is that this judge basically just said that this was just a bad law, but wasn't unconstitutional. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think this is kinda similar to Scalia's opinion in Lawrence vs Texas (the sodomy law case) where he said that the legislature was dumb to pass such a law, but that it was able to do so under the constitution (and given that the majority in that case had to resort to international law to make their case that's one example where I agreed with Scalia, but I'm probably in the minority there).
I suspect that this will be overturned in the courts, but I hope the legislature just realizes how dumb this is and changes the law itself.

Edit: One more question. When was this law passed? I'm guessing it was quite a long time ago. People passed the craziest laws back in the day.

[mrcheerful]

61. Law 750.30 was passed in 1931. You'd be somewhat surprised at how some people are acting here

in michigan, its ok to date and cheat but after you say vows then everything changes and even separated people are supposed to wait for a divorce to go through before starting a new relationship. This was said by someone who was very liberal on other bedroom police ideas. When I pointed out that not all who are separated got into a new relationship just for sex, it was ignored.

[depakid]

53. A little problem with Supreme Court precedent?

e.g. Lawrence v. Texas?

Maybe, maybe not.

Could be that protecting marriage by punishing adultery "furthers a legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of individuals."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102

Who know what the Roberts Court would say.

[varun]

60. I thought I was on DU

This sounds like a post from DU asking a fundie to move to Saudi Arabia. These lines were taken from freepville on a discussion about making adultery a criminal offence:


"Get the hell out of this country if you want to combine them (Church and State). Saudi Arabia would be a nice place for people like you..."

[happyslug]

66. Here is the Opinion of the Court

http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/DOCUMENTS/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20061107_C270229_28_270229.OPN.PDF

The Legislature of Michigan has defined various sex crimes and called them "Criminal Sexual Conduct" or CSC. CSC-1 occurs whenever a person "Penetrates" another person while committing another Felony. In this case the Felony was selling Oxycontin for sex. The "Penetration" was the consensual Sex act in exchange of the Oxycontin. Under Michigan law anyone convicted of a CSC-1 can be sentenced to life imprisonment.

There was NO Adultery occurred in this particular case. The Adultery angle occurred in that Adultery is still a felony in Michigan (Through no one has been convicted since 1971). Given that Adultery is still a felony, under the Wording of CSC 1, penetration while committing adultery meets the requirements of CSC-1 enhanced penalties (i.e. Life Imprisonment).

The Michigan papers found out about this decision and ran with it for the Attorney General of Michigan in 2005 admitted to having had an Adultery Relationship. As this statute is Written the Attorney General could have been convicted of CSC-1 and sentenced to Life imprisonment. Given that the Attorney General was the one who filed this appeal and won on appeal, that fact was just to good to be left alone.