Quantcast

Tuesday, July 22, 2014         

NEW YORK TIMES


 Print   Email   Comment | View 3 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Adultery, an ancient crime still on many books

By Ethan Bronner

New York Times

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 08:12 a.m. HST, Nov 15, 2012



When David H. Petraeus resigned as CIA director because of adultery, he was widely understood to be acknowledging a misdeed but not a crime. Yet in his state of residence, Virginia, as in 22 others, adultery remains a criminal act, a vestige of the way U.S. law has anchored legitimate sexual activity within marriage.

In most of those states, including New York, adultery is a misdemeanor. But in others — Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma and Wisconsin — it is a felony, though rarely prosecuted. In the armed forces, it can be punished severely although usually in combination with a greater wrongdoing.

This is yet another example of American exceptionalism: In nearly the entire rest of the industrialized world, adultery is not covered by the criminal code.

Like other state laws related to sex — sodomy, fornication, rape — adultery laws date to the Old Testament, onetime capital offenses stemming at least partly from a concern about male property. Peter Nicolas of the University of Washington Law School says the term stemmed from the notion of "adulterating" or polluting the bloodline of a family when a married woman had sex with someone other than her husband and ran the risk of having another man's child.

Linda C. McClain, who teaches family law at Boston University, likes to give her students two decisions from New Jersey courts, the first from 1838 and the second from 1992, to demonstrate how things have changed.

In the 1838 decision, the court said that the harm of adultery lay not in "the alienation of the wife's affections, and loss of comfort in her company," but in "its tendency to adulterate the issue of an innocent husband, and to turn the inheritance away from his own blood, to that of a stranger."

In the 1992 ruling, in a civil case, the court said that "adultery exists when one spouse rejects the other by entering into a personal intimate sexual relationship with any other person." It said it was "the rejection of the spouse coupled with out-of-marriage intimacy that constitutes adultery."

Most states have purged their codes of laws regulating cohabitation, homosexual sodomy and fornication — sex between unmarried adults — especially after the 2003 Supreme Court decision of Lawrence v. Texas that made sexual activity by consenting adults in private legal across the country. But the question of how that ruling affects adultery remains unanswered because others may be harmed by adultery — a spouse and children. Several courts have alluded to the constitutionality of adultery laws since the Lawrence decision.

But Melissa Murray, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, said she thought "most courts in light of Lawrence are going to give adultery a wide berth."

Murray added: "It is an open question whether adultery continues to be viable as criminal law even though it remains on the books in 24 states and territories. Nobody is going to be going to jail for it. But it is used in divorce and custody cases and even in some employment cases."

A number of law professors, including Joanna L. Grossman of Hofstra University, said one reason that adultery laws remain on the books is that getting rid of them would require politicians to declare their opposition to them, something few would do. In addition, many like the idea of the criminal code serving as a kind of moral guide even if certain laws are almost never applied.

Petraeus is a retired four-star general who collects a military pension and remains subject to military codes of conduct that prohibit adultery. But Diane H. Mazur, a professor of law at the University of Florida and a former Air Force officer, said that the chances of the Army calling Petraeus back to active service in order to court-martial him over adultery are zero, as are any chances of state criminal charges being brought.

"That would be reserved for the most unimaginably serious circumstances," Mazur said. Even within the military code, she added, adultery is charged as a criminal offense only when "the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces," she read from the manual for courts-martial. That meant something larger than seemed at stake here.

Murray said her research had led her to conclude that laws regulating sex emanated from a notion that sex should occur only within marriage. Criminal law, she said, was there to reinforce marriage as the legal locus for sex. So any other circumstances — sex in public or with a member of the same sex, or adultery — were all violations of marriage.

"Now we live in an age when sex is not limited to marriage and laws are slowly responding to that," she said. "But we still love marriage. Nobody is going to say adultery is OK."






 Print   Email   Comment | View 3 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(3)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
mokebla wrote:
Adultery remains a criminal act, so why was Clinton exempt? Oh yeh it wasn't sexual relation, just a BJ on our dime ;-O!
on November 15,2012 | 04:56AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Adultery doesn't trouble me -- it's teenagery I'm worried about!
on November 15,2012 | 05:39AM
konag43 wrote:
ADULTRY IS A MORAL ISSUE AND IF YOU HAVE BAD MORALS THERE IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY YOU HAVE OTHER BAD ISSUES. I DON'T AGREE WITH BURNING THE WITCHES AT THE STAKE BUT I DO BELEIVE THAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE GOOD MORALS. THIS PREVENTS CHILDREN WITHOUT 2 PARENTS AND HELPS KIDS TO HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN PARENTS AND IN FUTURE OF THE US.
on November 15,2012 | 03:27PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Blogs