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

she should’ve kept her pants on, and refrained from being a cheating whore.

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

Reportedly, she did. Hers weren’t the genitals exposed.

But really, for someone professing love of God, your name-calling is inappropriate. When Jesus had a chance to throw the full weight of the law against a woman caught in this same situation (albeit, without the public lewdness charge – which is something that affects the community and thus does get support here), he refrained from doing so and refrained from even judging her as harshly as you’re judging this woman.

Calling a sin a sin is one thing. What you’re doing, is another.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Unless she gives me one during the press conference.

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 2:37 PM

ROFL!

Hey, Lorien, we gots ta know: Would you hit it?

Adultery is a moral wrong. It’s #3 in the list of “Thou shalt nots”, after murder and theft, and it’s important to remember that the Ten Commandments functioned as secular law as well as religious law for the ancient Israelites, and they remain foundational to most systems of law now extant. In ancient times, adultery was as harmful to the body politic as murder or theft because there was no support system outside the family, and because of inheritance law.

Nowadays, our secular law system exists separately from and parallel to religious law. It is not a crime to work on the Sabbath, for example; even in places that still have blue laws, the penalty for keeping store on a Sunday is a fine, not jail time. I think a case can be made for making adultery a civil tort rather than a crime.

IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer).

Mary in LA on June 11, 2010 at 3:26 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

OK, but he wasn’t exactly mainstream, and from that paraphrase, the assumption would be that he even he wouldn’t have threatened any politician who decided to remove the laws from the books.

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

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 3:22 PM

I don’t know. Some guys actually expect them more often.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:27 PM

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.

OK, any lawyer out there feel free to correct me but wasn’t there once the concept of mens rea or criminal intent? If I give my child a stolen ice cream bar, should we charge them with receiving stolen goods? If I wander out of a park into a neighbor’s unmarked yard, charge me with trespassing? Why bring charges that you know cannot be proved?

Unless you want to claim that a horny guy has a legal responsibility to ascertain the marital status of a cooperative female, you can’t blame him for not knowing she was married. She, on the other hand, should have been aware of here own status. IF the police do investigate further and find that they can show the guy knew she was married, the can always add more charges.

By the same token, if He HAD been married, I think you could have charged him also but you couldn’t bring two counts against either unless you could show knowledge of the others marriage. IF they were neighbors and knew the other was married, then you might be able to argue that should be two counts, One for their own promiscuity and another for adding their partner’s.

None of this is meant to comment on the law itself. Just that you seem to have an odd view of its reasonable application.

Did I really waste that many words on this trivial issue? That is a crime!

OBQuiet on June 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM

When Jesus had a chance to throw the full weight of the law against a woman caught in this same situation he refrained from doing so and refrained from even judging her as harshly as you’re judging this woman.
Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:25 PM

.
Jesus was keeping the woman from being stoned to death, not a max of 90 days.

LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Adjoran on June 11, 2010 at 3:23 PM

And yet, do you actually believe you can force people to be moral by making it against the law to be otherwise? And if you’re unable to actually make them moral, what significant gains do you actually have in forcing certain outward behaviors that are otherwise mocked?

I agree that there are costs to these things, but I disagree that the law has any power over them. The Bible seems to agree with me.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Jesus was keeping the woman from being stoned to death, not a max of 90 days.

LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Does it matter? His question wasn’t whether or not she deserved to die but whether or not any of them had sinned. The punishment of all sin is death.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:31 PM

“Hers weren’t the genitals exposed.”

… is the the new name of my favorite band.

Seven Percent Solution on June 11, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Fact. BJ’s stop when she becomes the wife. :P
lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 3:22 PM

I don’t know. Some guys actually expect them more often.
Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Not in this case, it was just not the hubby getting the BJs

LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Calling a sin a sin is one thing. What you’re doing, is another.

I don’t think Virus was calling her a sinner, just describing her (accurately, I believe) as a whore. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 3:33 PM

I know why the DA charged the adultery but don’t ask me to explain.

Blake on June 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

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.

Ignorance is no excuse.

John Deaux on June 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

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

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 3:22 PM
I don’t know. Some guys actually expect them more often.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:27 PM

–Uummm, maybe a bit too much information…

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

I don’t think Virus was calling her a sinner, just describing her (accurately, I believe) as a whore. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 3:33 PM

I can accept it as a random comment. I can’t accept it as a comment from someone professing God’s love. It’s completely at odds with the latter. Why is that difficult for you to accept?

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:36 PM

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Technically, only if he paid her! :-)

Mary in LA on June 11, 2010 at 3:36 PM

OBQuiet on June 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM

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 3:37 PM

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

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 3:22 PM

BJ’s start?

MadisonConservative on June 11, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Forgot to mention that I don’t understand what in this law you find sexist. I saw no mention of it being applied to women most of the other 12 times it was brought.

OBQuiet on June 11, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Does it matter? His question wasn’t whether or not she deserved to die but whether or not any of them had sinned. The punishment of all sin is death.
Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:31 PM

When the US becomes a heavy handed Theocracy like Judea used to be then you will have a point.
Should we investigate her for forswearing her vows?
Of course not.
Should she be punished for breaking the law?
Yes
Should she be mocked and humiliated for having another man’s junk in her mouth on a public playground in front of children?
Yes
She earned the title Dirty Whore and probably worse, but she earned it.

LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

–Uummm, maybe a bit too much information…

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Not my personal. Just something I’ve heard. I’m completely asexual.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Adultery is the wrong charge here. Make it something that would make the two of them register as sex offenders.

thekingtut on June 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Ashley Dupree and Monica Lewinsky were unavailable for comment.

To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel from “Mrs. Robinson”, “most of all you’ve got to hide it from the kids.”

Steve Z on June 11, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Is eatin cheatin?

Dingbat63 on June 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Is “Rutting in Public” an available charge?

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Forgot to mention that I don’t understand what in this law you find sexist. I saw no mention of it being applied to women most of the other 12 times it was brought.

OBQuiet on June 11, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Probably because only the woman in this cased was charged.

When the US becomes a heavy handed Theocracy like Judea used to be then you will have a point.

So it’s OK for the US to be a Theocracy, just not a heavy-handed one. Got it.

She earned the title Dirty Whore and probably worse, but she earned it.

LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

And as good Christians, it’s our jobs to make her feel worthless, because her sin is out in the open while yours are a bit deeper. Whatever.

Disagree with me if you want, but you’d make a better case if you actually showed me where the Bible supports you as I did.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM

I hate cases like these because the Supreme Court always takes it upon itself to decide that laws like these are now somehow unconstitutional despite centuries of of being constitutional. Adultary laws are rarely enforced nowadays and so brilliant justices like Sotomayer will probably tell us all how the living constitution demands such laws be made unconstitutional. For what? How exactly do such laws infringe upon our clearly outlined constitutional rights (not the rights invented in the last 100 years)?

Adultary laws and sodomy laws, ruled unconstitutional in Lawernce v. Texas, and any other so called moral laws should be left up to the democratic process. Clearly we as a people have chosen to ignore or repeal sodomy or adultary laws. But such a democratic position does not somehow make such laws unconstitutional.

And thats why I hate cases like these because some moron somewhere will claim this case as some sort of great constitutional imperative.

NotCoach on June 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Victims of adultery who love their spouse, often feel and are helpless. While there is no direct physical damage, the indirect effects of cheating are often very great, that cost the victim a lot of time, energy, and money no matter which course is taken.

If government wants to be in the marriage business by licensing it, then it should follow through and protect the the victims of the violated marriage contract.

Full disclosure: I’m a libertarian who was cheated on. I felt I had no recourse except a bad divorce in which she walked away better than I did. I’d rather have the government get out of marriage completely, but if not, then meaningfully protect it.

Free Constitution on June 11, 2010 at 3:45 PM

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

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 3:22 PM

No, they don’t. Unless your wife is frigid.

CoffeeMan on June 11, 2010 at 3:45 PM

When Jesus had a chance to throw the full weight of the law against a woman caught in this same situation he refrained from doing so and refrained from even judging her as harshly as you’re judging this woman.
Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:25 PM

.
Full weight of the law?
.
Do you mean like this?
.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act

This Act, originally passed in 1918, provides protection for migratory birds. Under the Act, it is unlawful to take, import, export, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird. Feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, and products made from migratory birds are also covered by the Act. Take is defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, or collecting…

Penalties:
Individuals or organizations may be fined up to $5,000 and $10,000 respectively, and may face up to six months imprisonment for misdemeanor violations of the Act. Felony violations may result in fines of up to $250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for organizations, and up to two years imprisonment.

The Endangered Species Act
.
Passed in 1973 and reauthorized in 1988, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulates a wide range of activities affecting plants and animals designated as endangered or threatened. By definition, “endangered species” is an animal or plant listed by regulation as being in danger of extinction. A “threatened species” is any animal or plant that is likely to become endangered within the forseeable future.
.
The Act prohibits the following activities involving endangered species:
.
* Importing into or exporting from the United States.
* Taking (includes harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, trapping, killing, capturing, or collecting) within the United States and its territorial seas.
* Possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, transporting, or shipping any such species unlawfully taken within the United States or on the high seas.
* Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity.
* Selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
.
Prohibitions apply to endangered species, their parts, and products. Most of these restrictions also apply to species listed as threatened unless the species qualifies for an exception. The Act also requires that wildlife be imported or exported through designated ports and that special declarations be filed. If the value of wildlife imported and/or exported is $25,000 per year or more, importers and exporters must be licensed.
.
Penalties:
Violators of the Endangered Species Act are subject to fines of up to $100,000 and one year imprisonment. Organizations found in violation may be fined up to $200,000. Fish, wildlife, plants, and vehicles and equipment used in violations may be subject to forfeiture.

Mike OMalley on June 11, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Adultery is the wrong charge here. Make it something that would make the two of them register as sex offenders.

thekingtut on June 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

I would assume the law’s already there. They did at least expose his member to children, which is often enough by itself.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:47 PM

IMO adultery should only apply to the person who actually is married – the person violating their legal contract.

However it’s probably time for laws like this to be taken off the books. However there should be some sort of consequences for indecent public behavior. Don’t guys get prosecuted for showing their genitals in public – especially in a park around children? Wonder how he’d like being on a sex offenders list?

I’m not inclined to believe her version of the situation. Given most people’s reluctance to “get involved” I doubt that someone would have called the police unless it was obvious what they were doing.

katiejane on June 11, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Mike OMalley on June 11, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Not sure I see the relevance.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Everyone makes mistakes; the adultery aspect of this should be a private matter between the husband and wife. And if there was actually public nudity etc.. Then that should be handled accordingly, but to charge her for adultery is just stupid.

If you were to go by what the bible says, the “other” man also committed adultery, as well as anyone who has pre-marital sex (the thinking being that they have already been unfaithful to their future wife or husband).

I think the name calling of this woman is just awful. She did a bad thing but nobody knows her or anything about her life.

spypeach on June 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM

This happened not far from where I live and when it was initially reported the news quoted her as saying that her husband is a transvestite and she had been neglected for a long time.

NYconservative on June 11, 2010 at 3:54 PM

When the US becomes a heavy handed Theocracy like Judea used to be then you will have a point.
So it’s OK for the US to be a Theocracy, just not a heavy-handed one. Got it.

Not my point and you know it by the edits, Jesus stopped a woman from being killed not shamed.

She earned the title Dirty Whore and probably worse, but she earned it.
LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

And as good Christians, it’s our jobs to make her feel worthless, because her sin is out in the open while yours are a bit deeper. Whatever.

I think she was feeling worthless long before this occurred, again she was caught with another man’s junk, in her mouth, on a playground, in full view of children.
You’re also assuming I consider myself a good Christian and that what you and I consider as being a “good Christian” is the same thing.

Disagree with me if you want, but you’d make a better case if you actually showed me where the Bible supports you as I did.
Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM

I am not condemning her based off Scripture, but New York Law, you are the one trying to excuse a woman who committed adultery and want us to forgive her before she even tries to seek redemption.
Let her atone and then she can seek forgiveness not the other way around.

LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 3:56 PM

I think the name calling of this woman is just awful. She did a bad thing but nobody knows her or anything about her life.

spypeach on June 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Hmm, hmmmmmm…….let me think! We do know that she has little compunction or restraint, modesty, a small deficit of grace, no real scruples against performing fellatio in public….yes, yes I think we do know something about this creature.

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 3:56 PM

spypeach, she’s a hooker.

SarahW on June 11, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Full disclosure: I’m a libertarian who was cheated on. I felt I had no recourse except a bad divorce in which she walked away better than I did. I’d rather have the government get out of marriage completely, but if not, then meaningfully protect it.

Free Constitution on June 11, 2010 at 3:45 PM

.
Amen
.
The innocent spouse is often financially ruined, and then loses his children at times into the “care” of the 3rd who broke up the marriage. On no few occasions an innocent male ex-spouse is jailed for non-payment of support. Too often an innocent male ex-spouse is forced by law to in effect impoverish himself subsidizing his ex-wife’s affair. Many of American children living in poverty are the victims of parental adultery and divorce. If you want to cut back on the growth of the welfare state you can reduce divorce and it you want to reduce divorce reduce adultery.
.
Hmmmm maybe jail time for adulterers is not such a bad thing after all?

Mike OMalley on June 11, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Her husband stands by her for gettin’ busy with another guy in public? He’s the biggest dope in the whole story.

infidel4life on June 11, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Her husband stands by her for gettin’ busy with another guy in public? He’s the biggest dope in the whole story.
infidel4life on June 11, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Yeah, but will he kiss her on the lips, knowing where they have been?

LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Her husband stands by her for gettin’ busy with another guy in public? He’s the biggest dope in the whole story.

infidel4life on June 11, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Maybe she was getting paid, after all?

Mary in LA on June 11, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Oops, dropped my /sarc tag.

Mary in LA on June 11, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Jesus voided a death penalty, a savage execution.
.
See here: The Stoning of Soyara M.
.

This New York women faces a maximum of three months in jail. By contrast “pursing” a protected “bird” can get you two years in a Federal prison and a $250,000 fine in the USA.

Mike OMalley on June 11, 2010 at 4:07 PM

This New York women faces a maximum of three months in jail.

If it is 3 months for public fellatio, shouldn’t it be 6 months for full-on intercourse in public? Does anyone agree with me? Esthier, how about you?

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Not my point and you know it by the edits

Actually, I don’t know your point.

Jesus stopped a woman from being killed not shamed.

He also refused to shame her, and he associated with actual whores.

You’re also assuming I consider myself a good Christian and that what you and I consider as being a “good Christian” is the same thing.

I’m assuming nothing. It’s the actual topic you were responding to. If it’s not what you meant, then I don’t know why you’re responding to me.

I am not condemning her based off Scripture, but New York Law, you are the one trying to excuse a woman who committed adultery and want us to forgive her before she even tries to seek redemption.

Never said anything about forgiving her. I just think it’s a stupid law. I’m not alone in this.

Let her atone and then she can seek forgiveness not the other way around.

LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Only her husband and God need to know anything about that.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 4:09 PM

This New York women faces a maximum of three months in jail. By contrast “pursing” a protected “bird” can get you two years in a Federal prison and a $250,000 fine in the USA.

Mike OMalley on June 11, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Never said I was in favor of a penalty that stiff on bird pursing either.

Don’t see your point.

If it is 3 months for public fellatio, shouldn’t it be 6 months for full-on intercourse in public? Does anyone agree with me? Esthier, how about you?

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Actually, it’s 90 days for adultery, public or private. The article doesn’t discuss the laws for public lewdness.

I have no problem with punishing someone for even being naked in public.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 4:13 PM

What would Jesus say about public fellatio? Just askin :)

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 4:13 PM

I for one favor a “stiff” penalty for public fellatio.

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 4:14 PM

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

lorien1973 on June 11, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Has someone been fornicating?

pedestrian on June 11, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Half the country would end up in jail if adultery were actually prosecuted..we are broke already. What is next? Public stoning…for women?

Terrye on June 11, 2010 at 4:15 PM

You might say in this case that the wife really blew it.

TXUS on June 11, 2010 at 4:15 PM

You might say in this case that the wife really blew it.

Heh.

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Half the country would end up in jail if public fellatio were actually prosecuted..we are broke already. What is next? Public stoning?

Font of Justice!

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 4:19 PM

He also refused to shame her

He refused to call for or engage in her execution. The text is silent about shame. He did however tell her to sin no more.

, and he associated with actual whores.

and he called them to repent.

.

BTW: see the video I linked to. It is not wise to trivializing execution by stoning.

The Stoning of Soyara M.

Mike OMalley on June 11, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Is NY one of those states that makes hubby raise somebody elses kid?

Speakup on June 11, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Some of y’all are twisting the law for your own agenda.

The facts are the facts, the law is the law.

If a person robs a bank with a gun, they are charged with the robbery and a weapons crime.

The circumstances in this case warranted the charges. If the couple had not done this where they did, in front of whom they performed for, here would have been no crime and no arrest.

Only a moron would perform a sex act where children could watch. Both of these people fit that description. Its hard enough explaining about what Clinton did. Now, if they get away with this, others will follow their lead. Just for the “in your face” factor.

I say, find more things to charge them with.

cozmo on June 11, 2010 at 4:29 PM

The text is silent about shame.

Silent about it, meaning, in the story, Jesus did not shame her.

He did however tell her to sin no more.

Sure, not at all the same though.

and he called them to repent.

Yes, that’s something he could do, but it’s not something our government can.

BTW: see the video I linked to. It is not wise to trivializing execution by stoning.

The Stoning of Soyara M.

Mike OMalley on June 11, 2010 at 4:19 PM

I know all about the story, and I’m not at all trivializing stoning. I’m sure you realize this but enjoy using it as a cheap shot against me.

I’m merely taking what Jesus actually did and using it as an example to follow. I’m not sure why this bothers you.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 4:30 PM

If the couple had not done this where they did, in front of whom they performed for, here would have been no crime and no arrest.

cozmo on June 11, 2010 at 4:29 PM

I’m confused. On the one hand, you’re saying that the law is the law, and that it should be applied. On the other, you seem to be saying that the only law they broke was a public decency one. Adultery is adultery, no matter where you do it.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 4:32 PM

SEX: Something that’s nobody’s business except for the three people involved. (Based on a statement from http://book-smith.tripod.com/taglines-j-s.html.)

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on June 11, 2010 at 4:33 PM

I’m assuming nothing. It’s the actual topic you were responding to. If it’s not what you meant, then I don’t know why you’re responding to me.

I was responding ‘cause you were sniveling about some one calling the whore a dirty whore.

I am not condemning her based off Scripture, but New York Law, you are the one trying to excuse a woman who committed adultery and want us to forgive her before she even tries to seek redemption.

Never said anything about forgiving her. I just think it’s a stupid law. I’m not alone in this.

Let her atone and then she can seek forgiveness not the other way around.

Only her husband and God need to know anything about that.
Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Oh no, there is atonement for secular law breaking.
Felate, fornicate, or even pinch a deuce in public and you can expect people to be offended and even point and mock.
She should be ridiculed not only for being a whore but for having so little respect for everyone else on the playground. Shame is good for preventing follow on stupidity.

LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 4:33 PM

This is getting so involved, seems like a couple of right hooks from the husband would solve this whole dilemma.

Joey1974 on June 11, 2010 at 4:34 PM

She should be ridiculed not only for being a whore but for having so little respect for everyone else on the playground. Shame is good for preventing follow on stupidity.

I think its pretty clear she has no shame. Which is why they should put her in jail for a while. So that no one will have to see her givin bjs at the playground :)

GTR640 on June 11, 2010 at 4:35 PM

I was responding ‘cause you were sniveling about some one calling the whore a dirty whore.

Sniveling? I was only calling that one person out because that one person was using God’s name to do it. If you’re going to pull God into the discussion, don’t half @ss it.

Shame is good for preventing follow on stupidity.

LincolntheHun on June 11, 2010 at 4:33 PM

For preventing what?

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 4:37 PM

I’m confused. On the one hand, you’re saying that the law is the law, and that it should be applied. On the other, you seem to be saying that the only law they broke was a public decency one. Adultery is adultery, no matter where you do it.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Exactly, except for the law part, they broke many laws and should be charged in each. In private no one would have known. Heck, in a crowded sex club no one would have cared. They were exhibitionists who wanted kids for an audience.

These trees fall in the forest all the time, nothing you, or I, or society, can do about that. We can however keep it from being done in public.

cozmo on June 11, 2010 at 4:41 PM

I don’t believe she should have been charged for adultry. Granted she behaved whorishly, but I don’t believe law enforcement needs to enforce fidelity. The other charge seemed fine to me.

Her husband looks like a real goof standing there though.

Harry S on June 11, 2010 at 4:43 PM

In the not too distant future this woman would be taken to the proposed NY super mosque after Friday prayer where the following verse would be applied to her and her partner.

Qur’an 24:2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

Annar on June 11, 2010 at 4:45 PM

But really, for someone professing love of God, your name-calling is inappropriate. When Jesus had a chance to throw the full weight of the law against a woman caught in this same situation (albeit, without the public lewdness charge – which is something that affects the community and thus does get support here), he refrained from doing so and refrained from even judging her as harshly as you’re judging this woman.

Calling a sin a sin is one thing. What you’re doing, is another.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Cheating slut would be more appropriate.

Really, the problem with today’s world is that the words “slut” and “whore” don’t of the bite that they used to.

You act like a slut, I’ll call you a slut. Nothing “unchristian” about it. She did slutty things, so callign her a slut isn’t just namecalling, it’s stating what she is.

DethMetalCookieMonst on June 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Her husband stands by her for gettin’ busy with another guy in public? He’s the biggest dope in the whole story.

infidel4life on June 11, 2010 at 3:58 PM

–If her husband is a real transexual, can’t he have sex with himself and ditch his wife?

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 5:18 PM

I own a company that has the rights to a national franchise brand. Included in the contract is a non-compete clause, so that I cannot operate or own a similar business without the express, written consent of the original franchisor. In a marriage contract, it is reasonable to expect both parties to grant a non-compete, don’t you think?

windbag on June 11, 2010 at 5:22 PM

I own a company that has the rights to a national franchise brand. Included in the contract is a non-compete clause, so that I cannot operate or own a similar business without the express, written consent of the original franchisor. In a marriage contract, it is reasonable to expect both parties to grant a non-compete, don’t you think?

windbag on June 11, 2010 at 5:22 PM

–And maybe even a non-solicitation clause, too.

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Reportedly, she did. Hers weren’t the genitals exposed.

But really, for someone professing love of God, your name-calling is inappropriate. When Jesus had a chance to throw the full weight of the law against a woman caught in this same situation (albeit, without the public lewdness charge – which is something that affects the community and thus does get support here), he refrained from doing so and refrained from even judging her as harshly as you’re judging this woman.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:25 PM

This is why i have 0 respect for you. Jesus did not “have a chance to throw the full weight of the law” against her because the “law” was a religious law passed down to moses while israel at the time was under Roman control and the jews had no political power to execute someone for adultery. In fact, if he had told them to kill her he would’ve been charged with sedition. The pharisees were trying to put Jesus into a catch 22: break jewish law or break roman law. Ignorant people like you should not opine on things they know nothing about. If I was you I would be embarrassed to keep posting asinine crap like this.

Darth Executor on June 11, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Adultery criminal? No.
But these two should get a lot more than public lewdness having sex in a park in front of children.

Rocks on June 11, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Says the hubby was transgender. Socket and no pocket rocket?

Things are just too strange.

Adultery is a sin. Looks like the Amends dude is getting a pass.

seven on June 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM

When I do stare, see how the subject quakes.
I pardon that man’s life. — What was thy cause? —
Adultery? —
Thou shalt not die: die for adultery! No:
The wren goes to’t, and the small gilded fly
Does lecher in my sight.
Let copulation thrive; for Gloster’s bastard son
Was kinder to his father than my daughters
Got ‘tween the lawful sheets.
To’t, luxury, pell-mell! for I lack soldiers. —
Behold yond simpering dame,
Whose face between her forks presages snow;
That minces virtue, and does shake the head
To hear of pleasure’s name; —
The fitchew nor the soiled horse goes to’t
With a more riotous appetite
Down from the waist they are centaurs,
Though women all above.
But to the girdle do the gods inherit,
Beneath is all the fiend’s; there’s hell, there’s darkness,
There is the sulphurous pit; burning, scalding, stench, consumption! — fie, fie, fie! pah, pah!

Criminal adultery? That’s not the beautiful Batavia I know…

Tzetzes on June 11, 2010 at 6:12 PM

She looks fairly hot.
I’d let her off.

justltl on June 11, 2010 at 6:16 PM

I don’t know. Some guys actually expect them more often.

Esthier on June 11, 2010 at 3:27 PM

I know I did. Thought it was part of the deal. Stupid me.

Gang-of-One on June 11, 2010 at 6:26 PM

I would rather see some police enforcement during that lewdfest that happens out SF way every year. Out there the cops just stand around while stuff is flying right and left.
Pants down and mouths wide open. Now that is lewd, bru! Yeah, I know some of the “cops” are participants and not cops but that behavior in San Francisco is disgusting. In public and in your face whether you like it or not. And nothing done. Take care of that crap first and then maybe focus on this lady. No, adultery should not be a crime, but public lewdness sure is. Like I said, you cops in San Francisco are a disgrace when it comes to said event. And all of those nasties at that gay/lesbian event should be arrested.

Sherman1864 on June 11, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Kink faces clink.

News at ten.

viking01 on June 11, 2010 at 6:42 PM

I’m a retired cop from Upstate NY, and spent several years working as a detective. When I would do an investigation and make an arrest, I would file charges for whatever laws were broken. By charging the person with everything, it gives the prosecutor the most leeway in disposing of the case. I would have charged the adultery as well. It’s a valid law. Whether it’s rarely enforced or not doesn’t change the law’s validity.
In this particular case, given the circumstances, an adultery charge is certainly justifiable. I would think that one of the things the DA’s office would be looking at is some sort of psychological evaluation, especially given some of the statements she made during the interview. Apparently she seems to feel that this type of behavior, in public, literally in broad daylight, in front of other people, including children, is acceptable.
A defense attorney may very well attempt to get some or all of the charges dismissed, that’s to be expected. By charging her with everything she committed, it gives the DA’s office the greatest amount of flexibility in what they agree to dismiss and what type of plea bargain and conditions they can get the defense attorney to agree to.

Dan859 on June 11, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Adultery a criminal offense? If we take the premise to be true that one-half of all marriages end in divorce, and suppose that 90 percent of those involved adultery, we’d have to lock up a very large portion of the public over 18.

Morally offensive, yes. Criminally offensive? No.

Tennman on June 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Skank Risks Tank.

News at ten.

viking01 on June 11, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Maybe they should just provide screened off picnic tables so people won’t have to watch.

/sarc

crosspatch on June 11, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Morally offensive, yes. Criminally offensive? No.

Tennman on June 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Geeze, according to the law in the state of New York…it is.

Though, with things the way they are now, this might make it to the “supremes” and they can find it unconstitutional. You however, do not decide what is a criminal act, and what is not.

cozmo on June 11, 2010 at 7:49 PM

If we take the premise to be true that one-half of all marriages end in divorce, and suppose that 90 percent of those involved adultery, we’d have to lock up a very large portion of the public over 18.

Tennman on June 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Once again, somebody not reading the circumstances in this case and using to trumpet their idea of morality v. legality.

cozmo on June 11, 2010 at 7:52 PM

The real issue here isn’t the law, and it should be apparent that “morality,” like “shame” is a construct beyond her ken.

The real issue is that the last 40 years have produced, and are producing, droves of people with no more sense of self-respect than this slut. Keep noting how justified she feels.

Monsters, among us.

warbaby on June 11, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Looks like about 32% of people are the cheatee.

thgrant on June 11, 2010 at 8:09 PM

And still pissed about it.

thgrant on June 11, 2010 at 8:09 PM

She’s married and she has children!
.
No Allahpundit has this wrong. It’s not a scarlet A but a scarlet V for victim. She even claims her husband is a “victim”! Of the adultery charge. Surely she doesn’t suggest that her husband has been harmed by her own behavior. For him no apology and remorse is expressed.

Mike OMalley on June 11, 2010 at 8:13 PM

If the state legislature wanted to change the law they could have. Car theft was changed from a felony to a misdemeanor, public intoxication was taken off the books, and possession of marijuana was decriminalized. For whatever reason, they’ve chosen to keep adultery on the books. Until they change the law, it’s valid. To me, what makes the difference here is the circumstances of the case. A person who was at the park saw what was going on, and called the police. Very possibly, either or both of these people drove to the park. They could have gone parking somewhere, and none of this would have happened. As far as the law being declared unconstitutional, I would imagine one of the issues would be the couple’s expectation of privacy. In this case – none. I doubt there’d be too many attorneys willing to invest the time and effort to appeal the case, should she be convicted.

Dan859 on June 11, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Maybe they should just provide screened off picnic tables so people won’t have to watch.

/sarc

crosspatch on June 11, 2010 at 7:36 PM

.
Say Crosspatch, do you think that “doing it” in public in view of a playground full of children was for the two perps part of the “transgressive” thrill?

Mike OMalley on June 11, 2010 at 8:18 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

I think you’re right. In fact, this seems a fairly typical use of an obsolete law: that it’s used not as a primary charge, but something they tack on if you’re guilty of something else and they just want to stiffen the penalty.

Which means the poll doesn’t directly apply to this situation. Even in this case, the adultery rap is not a primary charge. I seriously doubt she’ll be charged with it at trial.

At least the guy is only cleared of adultery because he claims not to have known she was married. It would be clearly wrong otherwise to charge only her and not him as well with adultery.

Of course, by the Clinton standard, oral sex isn’t really sex, so it could hardly be adultery.

But then, the last thing we need to do in this world is start living by the Clinton standard.

tom on June 11, 2010 at 8:48 PM

Jesus did not “have a chance to throw the full weight of the law” against her because the “law” was a religious law passed down to moses while israel at the time was under Roman control and the jews had no political power to execute someone for adultery. In fact, if he had told them to kill her he would’ve been charged with sedition. The pharisees were trying to put Jesus into a catch 22: break jewish law or break roman law. Ignorant people like you should not opine on things they know nothing about. If I was you I would be embarrassed to keep posting asinine crap like this.

Darth Executor on June 11, 2010 at 5:38 PM

That was harsh, though of course completely accurate. The incident was an elaborate trap, both for the reasons you cited, and to destroy the appeal of Jesus to the common people by making him appear to either condone immorality or condemn. Of course, they were completely unprepared for the “let him that is without sin cast the first stone” reply.

Besides, Jesus had already rejected attempts to turn him into a a judge of other people’s affairs before his time.

But as I recall, the last words Jesus said to the woman were, “Go, and sin no more.” While this incident showed the love and mercy of God, it did not condone sin. Adultery was still wrong, and there is nothing unChristian about saying so.

I just see that incident as a specific mercy to a guilty woman who had the capacity to repent rather than a statement of public policy.

tom on June 11, 2010 at 9:40 PM

…If I was you I would be embarrassed to keep posting asinine crap like this.

Darth Executor on June 11, 2010 at 5:38 PM

That was harsh, though of course completely accurate. The incident was an elaborate trap, both for the reasons you cited, and to destroy the appeal of Jesus to the common people by making him appear to either condone immorality or condemn…

tom on June 11, 2010 at 9:40 PM

.
It was also inaccurate. Lapidation (stoning to death) was a common communal practice in the Levant in the First Century as it had been for centuries prior. The Romans did not intervene in such matters.
.
BTW: Jesus was on occasion quite “judgmental” be it with the Pharisees, scribes, moneylenders and even Peter and other off his followers.

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

If government wants to be in the marriage business by licensing it, then it should follow through and protect the the victims of the violated marriage contract.

Full disclosure: I’m a libertarian who was cheated on. I felt I had no recourse except a bad divorce in which she walked away better than I did. I’d rather have the government get out of marriage completely, but if not, then meaningfully protect it.

Free Constitution on June 11, 2010 at 3:45 PM

The gov’t does protect one side in the marriage contract. It protects women. Men are separated from their kids and given onerous child support burdens. This is marriage 2.0 and it is the reason our society is falling apart. It is too bad that so many “conservative” women feel compelled to defend this injustice.

Bill C on June 11, 2010 at 11:42 PM

I think the name calling of this woman is just awful. She did a bad thing but nobody knows her or anything about her life.

spypeach on June 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM

She admitted to performing oral sex on a stranger in a park with children present. Do you want to us to call her saint?

Bill C on June 11, 2010 at 11:43 PM

Sharia sez bind her hands and feet, bury her up to her waist and stone her to death. Ya gotta’ admit, islamofacists sure know how to deal with them brazen hussies.

bannedbyhuffpo on June 11, 2010 at 11:52 PM

Darth Executor on June 11, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Thanks for pointing this out.

Bill C on June 11, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Don’t they have public decency laws? What a wierdo story.

AnninCA on June 12, 2010 at 6:43 AM

I voted “Yes”, but with the understanding that BOTH PARTIES to adultery are punished. Enough with the “she’s to blame”, stuff. Adultery requires TWO participants.

oldleprechaun on June 12, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Ok, fine, don’t prosecute the adultery part. Throw her ugly exhibitionist pervert (a playground during daytime? really?) a** in jail for 6 months for being the kind of lowlife that puts on a smut show for kids.

austinnelly on June 12, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3