Adultery charge could get NY woman 90 days in jail

posted at 2:20 pm on June 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

It’s been 400 years since the days of Hester Prynne and Reverend Dimmesdale, but apparently not in New York.  A clear-cut case of public lewdness has transformed a Batavia woman from a head case to a test case after police charged her under Section 255.17 of the state’s penal code, which criminalizes adultery and carries a potential 90-day sentence if successfully prosecuted.  Is Suzanne Corona a victim of anachronistic and sexist laws, or does she get what she deserves for her outrageous conduct? Warning – the video is mildly NSFW (via The Week):

A married Batavia woman on Friday became the 13th New Yorker in nearly 40 years to be charged with adultery after police said they caught her having sex with a man in full view of children and their mothers at a Batavia playground.

Batavia police said they were called to Farrall Park about 5 p.m. by the mother of a small child who was visiting the park along with numerous other women and their children.

The woman reported two people were having sex on a picnic table under a pavilion.

Officer Matthew Baldwin arrived and charged Justin M. Amend, 29, of Oakfield, and Suzanne M. Corona, 41, with public lewdness, a misdemeanor.

Baldwin also charged Corona with adultery because he was aware that she was married, police said.

An act “involving kissing,” with Amend’s genitals exposed? Er, anyone want to guess what people saw in the park? Sounds like a full Billy Jeff without a cigar aperitif.

Why didn’t the police charge Amend with adultery?  He professed ignorance of Corona’s marital status.  That seems to me to be a case of prosecutorial discretion that didn’t get extended to Corona, who may well have been unaware that criminal sanctions still existed for sex outside of one’s marriage.  The question of violating the law would apply to both people involved in adultery, and intent should have been left to the courts — if, of course, the point was the enforcement of the adultery law instead of taking a punitive position in regard to the woman involved.

Without a doubt, both Corona and Amend should get prosecuted for public lewdness, and let a jury weigh the evidence.  Why two grown people found it necessary to put their oral copulation on display for an unwilling audience is beyond me.  If neither of them had the means to conduct their adultery in their homes, then they should have rented a hotel room — or,  better yet, reconsidered the entire affair.  A woman who acts in such a crass and disgusting manner hardly makes a sympathetic figure for a legal protest.

However, I have to agree with Jeanne Sager at The Stir that people have the “right” to select their own sex partners, within the bounds of age, consanguinity, and military discipline.  The violation in this act is really between the wife and her husband, who could choose to pursue a civil claim against both his wife and her lover if he so chooses (which so far in this case he doesn’t.)  I believe that laws do have a moral basis, but the morality is generally based on harm done to the community instead of disputes about bed partners.  I don’t condone adultery at all, but neither do I believe that the state should criminalize the act. We have government interfering in too many private transactions as it is.

What do you think?  Take the poll:

Update: In the comments, Jimbo3 gives the applicable statute for Amend’s defense:

255.20 Unlawfully procuring a marriage license, bigamy, adultery: defense.

In any prosecution for unlawfully procuring a marriage license, bigamy, or adultery, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant acted under a reasonable belief that both he and the other person to the marriage or prospective marriage or to the sexual intercourse, as the case may be, were unmarried.

If Corona told the police that she never informed Amend of her marital status, that would explain how Amend got off the hook.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

This was on Drudge over a week ago…yawn

PatriotRider on June 11, 2010 at 2:21 PM

This was on Drudge over a week ago…yawn

People still read Drudge?

YYZ on June 11, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Charge her with lewd conduct. The state should not be used to keep you faithful. You and your spouse are responsible for that.

MadisonConservative on June 11, 2010 at 2:24 PM

I went to school in that town. Bizarre things do happen there.

shick on June 11, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Seems to me that the prosecutors were stacking the pancakes so they could get this woman in jail. Perhaps the lewdness consequences wasn’t deemed enough of a punishment?

catmman on June 11, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Starring Freddie Prince Jr. as The Policeman.

aquaviva on June 11, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Now apply it towards the ex-Gov.

/s

This is weird.

Oil Can on June 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Having been married to a woman who poinked around for a few years before the divorce, yes, prosecute her. Sorry, it’s personal here.

iurockhead on June 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM

You can’t fix stupid.

surfhut on June 11, 2010 at 2:27 PM

This is an Onion skit, right?

Western_Civ on June 11, 2010 at 2:27 PM

People still read Drudge?

YYZ

VISITS TO DRUDGE 6/11/10

028,152,672 IN PAST 24 HOURS
810,763,824 IN PAST 31 DAYS
8,428,217,541 IN PAST YEAR

honsy on June 11, 2010 at 2:28 PM

This is kind of dumb. She got caught, just not by her husband.

upinak on June 11, 2010 at 2:28 PM

I don’t believe people should have sex in public parks on picnic tables with other people, including small children, present. I’m old fashioned like that.

But everyone is boo hoo-ing for these two losers because of this obsolete adultery charge that will get dumped by the courts anyway.

Choose your battles wisely otherwise you just become tools.

Blake on June 11, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Adultery is just fine these days. Clinton showed us that.

Electrongod on June 11, 2010 at 2:29 PM

I wonder if this is an occupational hazard in her line of work.

meci on June 11, 2010 at 2:29 PM

So when’s the investigation of Clinton? Anyone really expect he’s changed his ways? Heck, charge Eliot Spitzer (& David Patterson) too, or charge no one.

Ridiculous statute, if they’ve got nothing better to do, then cut their budget.

rbj on June 11, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Husband == beta male extraordinaire.

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Ed,

Is Suzanne Corona a victim of anachronistic and sexist laws

How is a law against adultery sexist?

aengus on June 11, 2010 at 2:31 PM

After watching the video, she deserves to go to jail.

There was nothing going on, they were just kissing, nothing anyone else could see – that’s it. Then later, maybe his junk was out, but no one could possibly see that. Her narrative got more graphic as she went.

The law is still the law though, right? It may indeed be ‘antiquated’, but it’s still the law. Who am I going to believe – the cop of the cheating wife? She flat out called the cop a liar.

She needs some jail time.

catmman on June 11, 2010 at 2:31 PM

can’t public indecency, lewdness, and all that be applied?

why ADULTERY?

blatantblue on June 11, 2010 at 2:31 PM

private transactions

So using that ultra nuanced term now!

“Honey, I’d love it if you gave me a private transaction!”

blatantblue on June 11, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Ed–the NY Statutes give him a defense if he reasonably believed she was not married. See below for both statutes.

255.17 Adultery.
A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.
Adultery is a class B misdemeanor.

255.20 Unlawfully procuring a marriage license, bigamy, adultery: defense.
In any prosecution for unlawfully procuring a marriage license, bigamy, or adultery, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant acted under a reasonable belief that both he and the other person to the marriage or prospective marriage or to the sexual intercourse, as the case may be, were unmarried.

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:32 PM

adultery is a charge brought by her husband. If he doesn’t hold her to that standard, then neither should the state. He is the one wronged in that instance. Lewdness, on the other hand, that is brought by others in the park and should be pursued—sounds like hanky panky was going on.

ted c on June 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM

I’m fine with the spouse suing for civil damages, but I don’t think the state should be throwing people in jail for boinking.

pedestrian on June 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Seems this is the kind of woman Alvin Greene could make some progress with…

catmman on June 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM

So was she doing a Lewinsky or something? She claims they were both clothed other than his.. uhm.. “junk”..

Zippy_Slug on June 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM

People still read Drudge?

YYZ
VISITS TO DRUDGE 6/11/10

028,152,672 IN PAST 24 HOURS
810,763,824 IN PAST 31 DAYS
8,428,217,541 IN PAST YEAR

honsy on June 11, 2010 at 2:28 PM

How goes the tourist trade in Toronto? Anybody visiting there?

Regarding the story: get… a… room…

Khun Joe on June 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Husband == beta male extraordinaire.

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 2:29 PM

We don’t know what’s going on in their marriage. He could be getting tons of tail. They could be swingers.

Mark1971 on June 11, 2010 at 2:34 PM

It doesn’t make much sense to keep a law like this on the books. Maybe the various legislatures could take time away from coming up with new stupid laws to review/repeal the old stupid laws.

myrenovations on June 11, 2010 at 2:34 PM

I believe I read somewhere that she said one of her reasons for stepping out on her hubbie was that he was a transsexual and they didn’t have sex.

warden on June 11, 2010 at 2:36 PM

myrenovations on June 11, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Old laws are never repealed. If they did, they’d lose a way to control you, if they ever decided to enforce everything.

Mark1971 on June 11, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Mayhaps. Never considered the swinging bit. Even so, if my wife was ever caught giving a hand job (I assume that’s what this is all about) to another dude; I’m not standing there with her. Unless she gives me one during the press conference.

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Should adultery be a criminal offense?
Only insomuch as the violation of any contract is a criminal offense, and marriage serves as a contract of exclusive sexual relations.

Count to 10 on June 11, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Cops have better things to do with their time than enforcing morality. But with no-fault divorce, there’s not much down-side to adultery anymore. Used to be a woman would loose her kids and her meal ticket if she acted like this woman did. Now it’s her cuckolded husband that risks losing his kids, half his worldly possessions, and years of child support and maintenance payments if he dares make an issue of it. That’s not right, either.

Socratease on June 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Baldwin also charged Corona with adultery because he was aware that she was married, police said…..

Why didn’t the police charge Amend with adultery? He professed ignorance of Corona’s marital status.

–Something is not right here. They charged her with adultery because he knew she was married? Shouldn’t they be charging him with adultery because of that? And then why did he profess ignorance of her status if he earlier knew she was married?

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Thanks; I’ve added it to the post.

Ed Morrissey on June 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Unless she gives me one during the press conference.

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 2:37 PM

WOOORD!!!

dude!!!!

:D

blatantblue on June 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM

A cold day in hell when I stand beside my wife after she’s caught humming some guy in front of the neighborhood kids. I’d have her served the moment she got bail, and she’d be out on her behind…

badcrow on June 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM

VISITS TO DRUDGE 6/11/10

Oh, for crying out loud. It’s called sarcasm. I know people still go to Drudge, but it’s not the constantly updated, influential site it used to be.

YYZ on June 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM

This story is being blown way out of proportion.

docjeff on June 11, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Where’s the shame? Where’s the remorse? “It was a bad choice,” not “I did something really stupid.” “Look at my husband, he’s a victim now,” not “I’ve made my poor husband look like a real schmuck.” She’s not accepting responsibility, she’s looking for sympathy.

I doubt the adultery charge will go anywhere. But I sure hope they make the public lewdness charge stick, and throw her fully clothed butt into jail for a good long stretch.

Dee2008 on June 11, 2010 at 2:39 PM

It doesn’t make much sense to keep a law like this on the books. Maybe the various legislatures could take time away from coming up with new stupid laws to review/repeal the old stupid laws.

myrenovations on June 11, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Politicians don’t get reelected by eliminating laws…they get votes by passing new laws….sadly.

Asher on June 11, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Going to court and charged with Making Amends in Public. How ironic.

All Amends wanted was a Corona.

seven on June 11, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Is this Shari’a law? What’s going on in NY? Two male witnesses or something? Can’t burn women at the stake any more?

“I fear South Carolina’s NY a lost cause. My mental picture of the state these days is of a giant sleaze blob mass of sexual neurosis laying waste to the land, consuming everyone and everything it touches. Note to Hot Air readers in SC: NY Get out while you still can.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/04/andre-bauer-maybe-nikki-haley-should-take-a-lie-detector-test/

Run for the hill, y’all, but don’t come here!

Cody1991 on June 11, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Authorities attempted to minimize the size of the leak. Whoops–wrong thread.

Rovin on June 11, 2010 at 2:40 PM

How funny. It’s okay to expose your junk as long it’s through your zipper opening and your pants aren’t actually off.

I have a feeling she’s in one of those “swinging”, “open” marriages. Her husband seemed to be cool with it all.

ButterflyDragon on June 11, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Ed–the original story was screwed up. Here’s what it said:

Baldwin also charged Corona with adultery because he was aware that she was married, police said.

Section 255.17 of the state penal law states, “A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.” A class B misdemeanor, a conviction on an adultery charge is punishable by up to 90 days in jail or a $500 fine.

Amend was not charged with adultery because he was not aware Corona was married, police said.

–They must have meant the following for the first paragraph:
Baldwin also charged Corona with adultery because [s]he was aware that she was married, police said.

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Was she wearing her wedding ring? If she was, then charge him. Otherwise, he has an (apparently legal) defense unless she told him that she was married.

Theophile on June 11, 2010 at 2:44 PM

I believe I read somewhere that she said one of her reasons for stepping out on her hubbie was that he was a transsexual and they didn’t have sex.

warden on June 11, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Unless she had her kids with another guy, they must be getting real good at those operations.

pedestrian on June 11, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Something is not right here…
Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Try to follow basic English grammar, Jimbo. Baldwin is the cop. “He” refers to Baldwin. The cop was aware of her marital status, probably because he asked her if she’s married and she said yes.

SD on June 11, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Why not just charge her with public whoring?

For those who would minimize this as “just another a blow job on a playground picnic-table” you should do some surfing on the web. There are people actually screwing in public, on public buses, in tourist sites. It’s called exhibitionism, and its borderline sociopathic behavior.

Or else its all just totally free fu*king, right? Guys, am I right?!!

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 2:46 PM

I believe I read somewhere that she said one of her reasons for stepping out on her hubbie was that he was a transsexual and they didn’t have sex.

warden on June 11, 2010 at 2:36 PM

I don’t think her hubby is a chick. He has that douchebag hipster dufus beard; that only a real male douchebag hipster dufus would wear.

Giving a hand job to another dude really doesn’t fix the problem, though?

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Something is not right here…
Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM
Try to follow basic English grammar, Jimbo. Baldwin is the cop. “He” refers to Baldwin. The cop was aware of her marital status, probably because he asked her if she’s married and she said yes.

SD on June 11, 2010 at 2:46 PM

–Aah. Got it. Wrong ‘he’.

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Wow, here is a word that I don’t use very often:

She made a cuckold of her husband in public. Wow.

Theophile on June 11, 2010 at 2:49 PM

–Something is not right here. They charged her with adultery because he knew she was married? Shouldn’t they be charging him with adultery because of that? And then why did he profess ignorance of her status if he earlier knew she was married?

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM

You got your pronouns messed up. The first “he” is the cop.

As to whether or not it should be criminal, I don’t see that police have any business locking people up for cheating. That said, I’m not opposed to making it easier for wronged spouses to find some sort of civil justice.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 2:50 PM

It doesn’t make much sense to keep a law like this on the books. Maybe the various legislatures could take time away from coming up with new stupid laws to review/repeal the old stupid laws.

myrenovations on June 11, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Politicians don’t get reelected by eliminating laws…they get votes by passing new laws….sadly.

Asher on June 11, 2010 at 2:39 PM

–And don’t you think that a bunch of social conservative groups would treaten to withhold funds from anyone who voted for repeal?

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM

That said, I’m not opposed to making it easier for wronged spouses to find some sort of civil justice.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 2:50 PM

It should be up to the spouse though. If his wang was out and she was working it, it’s lewd or whatever. But for adultery? Nah. That’s not really a job for cops.

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Or else its all just totally free fu*king, right? Guys, am I right?!!

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 2:46 PM

This isn’t acceptable behavior. Full stop.

The real question is the double standard. I don’t get it.

It’s all rather odd unless the guy showed his Dem. voter registration card.

Cody1991 on June 11, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Jimbo begins to construct the strawman for this thread. It’s starting off poorly though. Let’s hope it improves over time.

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 2:52 PM

If hubby takes that he deserves to get it, everyday as hard as she can.

DFCtomm on June 11, 2010 at 2:52 PM

I believe that laws do have a moral basis, but the morality is generally based on harm done to the community instead of disputes about bed partners.

So if I pick your pocket & get your wallet, the dispute is just between us, right? No harm done to the community.

itsnotaboutme on June 11, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Also I think the problem is not that she is some unjustly treated woman like Hester Prynn. She’s just out there fuc*ing in public. Like an animal. At a playground.
Now, what in the world could be wrong with that?

Or maybe we should talk about civil justice. Either way, your choice.

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 2:54 PM

She made a cuckold of her husband in public. Wow.

Theophile on June 11, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Doesn’t “cuckold” mean specifically tricking a man into raising another man’s child as his own?

DFCtomm on June 11, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Going to court and charged with Making Amends in Public. How ironic.

All Amends wanted was a Corona.

seven on June 11, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Winner.

SnowSun on June 11, 2010 at 2:55 PM

The law is still the law though, right? It may indeed be ‘antiquated’, but it’s still the law. Who am I going to believe – the cop of the cheating wife? She flat out called the cop a liar.

She needs some jail time.

catmman on June 11, 2010 at 2:31 PM

The law only has credibility if it is applied equally, which it is not.

And cops never lie. Right. (rolleyes)

TinMan13 on June 11, 2010 at 2:56 PM

She’s in luck, if she’d been caught in Tehran she’d have been stoned to death already.

dczombie on June 11, 2010 at 2:56 PM

apertif = aperitif

Still funny though.

pain train on June 11, 2010 at 2:57 PM

She made a cuckold of her husband in public. Wow.

Theophile on June 11, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Doesn’t “cuckold” mean specifically tricking a man into raising another man’s child as his own?

DFCtomm on June 11, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Webster says you’re right.

DFCtomm on June 11, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Classy broad. The husband is a dolt, apparently.

The “other man” was charged with indecent exposure. However, it was dismissed for “lack of evidence”. (rimshot)

sgtstogie on June 11, 2010 at 2:57 PM

This reminds me, I have to go “to the playground” after work today.

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Face it y’all, that was a charge of convenience. If they weren’t in public, around kids, there would have been no charges.

If you are going to do it whenever, where ever and with who ever you want, be prepared to face the consequences. Or at least be smart enough to run away when people start to notice.

There are still rules about civility.

These people are arrogant better-than-you narcissists with no regard for others. It could be worse…they could be in the White House, then lots of youngsters would be using them as an example.

And I’m not a prude.

cozmo on June 11, 2010 at 2:58 PM

The law is still the law though, right? It may indeed be ‘antiquated’, but it’s still the law. Who am I going to believe – the cop of the cheating wife? She flat out called the cop a liar.

She needs some jail time.

catmman on June 11, 2010 at 2:31 PM

The cops a liar, but the guys genitals were exposed, maybe, by the zipper.

DFCtomm on June 11, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Hey, Ed. let’s have a poll on how many Hot Air readers eat on public picnic tables.

a capella on June 11, 2010 at 3:01 PM

–And don’t you think that a bunch of social conservative groups would treaten to withhold funds from anyone who voted for repeal?

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Of course not, not when there is going to be a truce in our time leading to a period detente with the social cons.

myrenovations on June 11, 2010 at 3:01 PM

police said they caught her having sex with a man in full view of children and their mothers at a Batavia playground

.

No one should be jailed for adultery, but isn’t exposing children to sex acts in this way a serious crime? If it’s not in NY, then it should be.

bitsy on June 11, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Maybe that’s why Spitzer left the state do his business.

pedestrian on June 11, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Isn’t this a common tactic by prosecutors? Throw everything in the world at the accused in an attempt to force a plea?

DFCtomm on June 11, 2010 at 3:04 PM

It should be up to the spouse though.

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Definitely. For all we know, he actually wants her to lend a hand to strangers. Some marriages work like that.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM

So… it’s ok to get a BJ in a public park in New York, as long as it’s with my wife?

CoffeeMan on June 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM

I don’t condone adultery at all, but neither do I believe that the state should criminalize the act.

Under our legal system if it is not prosecutable (illegal) it is condoned.

LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Nah. Let karma punish her. Always does.

John the Libertarian on June 11, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Doesn’t “cuckold” mean specifically tricking a man into raising another man’s child as his own?

DFCtomm on June 11, 2010 at 2:55 PM

I don’t think so. Othello was worried about being a cuckhold, and his wife wasn’t even pretending to be pregnant.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Charge her with lewd conduct. The state should not be used to keep you faithful. You and your spouse are responsible for that.

MadisonConservative on June 11, 2010 at 2:24 PM

.
Considering the destructive impact adultery has upon innocent family members how about recognizing this as a tort and providing for damages and reparations paid to the innocent spouse and children?

Mike OMalley on June 11, 2010 at 3:10 PM

I’m wracking my brain to remember where I heard it before, something like…”It’s only about sex.”

Mr. Grump on June 11, 2010 at 3:12 PM

I’m guessing she’s a registered Republican since we all know that Dems commit adultery and get a free pass.

Hening on June 11, 2010 at 3:12 PM

Considering the destructive impact adultery has upon innocent family members how about recognizing this as a tort and providing for damages and reparations paid to the innocent spouse and children?

Mike OMalley on June 11, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Great idea. That would include all therapy, medications (if called for) and books/journals prescribed.

Hening on June 11, 2010 at 3:14 PM

So… it’s ok to get a BJ in a public park in New York, as long as it’s with my wife?

CoffeeMan on June 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM

I think I might get in trouble for that.

DFCtomm on June 11, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Doesn’t “cuckold” mean specifically tricking a man into raising another man’s child as his own?

DFCtomm on June 11, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Here is the definition from Dictionary.com:

cuck·old
   /ˈkʌkəld/ Show Spelled[kuhk-uhld] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the husband of an unfaithful wife.
–verb (used with object)
2.
to make a cuckold of (a husband).

Theophile on June 11, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Tough sh-t. If she didn’t want to face the possibility of this kind of thing, she should’ve kept her pants on, and refrained from being a cheating whore.

I have no compassion for cheaters. Their behavior was inappropriate, and one’s getting charged with what can be used against that party, she’s getting what she can get. I’m sure if the guy was married, he’d be getting the same charge. I push family values, so I’m not going to be a hypocrite like a lot of other people and claim it’s no big deal. I think a lot of the people whining about the charge in this thread are just being a bunch of whiny bitches, just because of the name of the charge. If it was simply a lewd and lascivious behavior charge, carrying the same penalty, I’d probably be hearing crickets chirp. Quite frankly, I think, apparently unlike some, that marriage is a serious institution, and hence I don’t approve of it being opened to gays. If I’m not going to give the nod to that, then I’m certainly not going to give the A-OK to people doing things like this to disgrace something God put together, that people seemingly love to tear apart.

Virus-X on June 11, 2010 at 3:17 PM

This is nothing, they just bought two grave (mortal) sins each!

/C school flashback

mankai on June 11, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Tough sh-t. If she didn’t want to face the possibility of this kind of thing, she should’ve kept her pants on, and refrained from being a cheating whore.

I have no compassion for cheaters. Their behavior was inappropriate, and one’s getting charged with what can be used against that party, she’s getting what she can get. I’m sure if the guy was married, he’d be getting the same charge. I push family values, so I’m not going to be a hypocrite like a lot of other people and claim it’s no big deal. I think a lot of the people whining about the charge in this thread are just being whiny, just because of the name of the charge. If it was simply a lewd and lascivious behavior charge, carrying the same penalty, I’d probably be hearing crickets chirp. Quite frankly, I think, apparently unlike some, that marriage is a serious institution, and hence I don’t approve of it being opened to gays. If I’m not going to give the nod to that, then I’m certainly not going to give the A-OK to people doing things like this to disgrace something God put together, that people seemingly love to tear apart.

Virus-X on June 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM

She says her husband is transgender.

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 3:15 PM

This is the story that just keeps giving.

DFCtomm on June 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM

So… it’s ok to get a BJ in a public park in New York, as long as it’s with my wife?

CoffeeMan on June 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Pretty sure the woman was ALSO arrested for public lewdness, so no, BJs from your wife still need to be kept from the public.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM
Jimbo begins to construct the strawman for this thread. It’s starting off poorly though. Let’s hope it improves over time.

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 2:52 PM

–But it is true. Falwell (when he was alive) said he didn’t want people going to jail over adultery or sodomy, but he did want people to understand this county’s heritage (which I take to mean he was for keeping the laws on the books and having fines as penalties).

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Why didn’t the police charge Amend with adultery? He professed ignorance of Corona’s marital status. That seems to me to be a case of prosecutorial discretion that didn’t get extended to Corona, who may well have been unaware that criminal sanctions still existed for sex outside of one’s marriage.

Or maybe the prosecutor talked to the experts, and now he knows who’s ass to kick.

Virus-X on June 11, 2010 at 3:22 PM

So… it’s ok to get a BJ in a public park in New York, as long as it’s with my wife?

CoffeeMan on June 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Fact. BJ’s stop when she becomes the wife. :P

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Husband == beta male extraordinaire.

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 2:29 PM

No kidding! But what is funny is the head turn and look on his face when she says there might have been something showing…LOL!

Brian on June 11, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Well, all the Libertines are barking about this, but does anyone ever consider the costs to society of adultery? And of bearing children outside of wedlock?
`
Once morals are a matter of personal preference, society degrades and regresses until we descend into a primitive, animalistic state. Next thing you know, we’ve elected Obama.
`
But far be it from me to interrupt your dissolute lives with an inconvenient truth. Do carry on, and enjoy your walk in the park!

Adjoran on June 11, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Let me state my position, once and for all. The subway journey home is very long and fatiguing for me. It is for this reason that I routinely enlist the help of my neighboring female passengers to perform fellatio on me. I do understand that this may disturb some of the more prudish and “uptight” passengers; however, I perceive no constitutional objection to this practice.

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3