Tie her up, toss her in the river; if she floats, she’s a witch and should be burned. Yeah!

Oh, wait. This happened in New York. Nevermind.

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 an act potentially destructive of the community’s foundation -the family- is exempt?

Who are you trying to impress, Ed?

Akzed on June 12, 2010 at 12:57 PM

.
Thank you Akzed.
.
This assertion of Ed’s seems so thoughtless, shallow, wrongheaded, disconnected from normal adult experience it seems almost surreal! Is our host having a really bad day? Is this typical of the kind of thinking Social-Libs and Libertarians have to offer their fellow Americans on matters involving sex?
.
This women is married, she has children and some are unable to detect harm done to the community!
This is truly stunning! … and sad.

Try NC’s; they criminalize fornication, too.

Actually, that’s true in a number of states.

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.

But also irrelevant to the adultery charge.

I doubt there’d be too many attorneys willing to invest the time and effort to appeal the case, should she be convicted.

I disagree. There is no shortage of attorneys who’d kill for the notoriety they’d get by defending this piece of work at any stage of trial. And there are decent appellate lawyers who care not a whit for her or for publicity, but DO care about the craptastic precedent they’d be saddled with in future cases if she appealed on her own and lost.

If this were in the UAE though, chances are this case would turn out much worse, and the woman would be victimized full force.

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 an act potentially destructive of the community’s foundation -the family- is exempt?

Who are you trying to impress, Ed?

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

So does she get any consideration for being a way-hot cougar?

Her husband standing there by her side reminds me of McGreevy’s wife.

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.

She knew she was married, and the law’s on the books.

Let’s not enforce the laws against illegal immigrants niether, based on the “I don’t like the law” defense.

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

Thanks for pointing this out.

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?

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.

…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.

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.

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.

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?