Adultery could mean life, court finds

[Kefka]

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

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

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


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

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm thinking what with a less possible press mention of his sentence being reduced x infinity, that maybe this (and similar cases) will actually spare the tax-payers from obstruction charges, IMHO.

DID YOU KNOW...

That hiney-paper NYTimes dared to print a front page article that alleged that for the first time evar, more than 50% of American mothers are not married? Nothing more than left-wing, liberal conspiracy undertones. All this so-called court ruling will do is increase teen pregnancies by those liberal pinko conspiricists to have the excuse they need to fornicate. FORNICATE. Left-wing media bias/conspiracy. Terrorism. Praise the Lord. And Fox News.

...

Sorry about that. Got a bit carried away there in my l33t text-based impersonation of Rush Limbaugh.

[Tsa`ah]

Even if it floats though the Michigan courts, I don't see other states upholding it.

A criminal sexual act would, and should always, indicate one or more non-concerning parties ... or underage parties. I'm willing to bet that every other state would use such a ruling to nullify prenups to the benefit of whomever was cheated on or similar rulings in a divorce case.

People are going to cheat, no need to keep crowding the prisons over bullshit.

If this makes it to the Michigan supreme court, I doubt they'll uphold the ruling. This should send a message to Michigan voters .... your judges (who likely get Clintons once in a while) are shoving their moral standards and possibly religious conviction down your throats.

[Latrinsorm]

A criminal sexual act would, and should always, indicate one or more non-concerning parties Assuming "concern" is a typo for "consent", would it not be fair to say that the second member of the marriage doesn't consent? Hence the term philander?

[Tsa`ah]

Yes, I meant concent ... I'm posting as I'm switching BC discs.

Next time I'll check to see if you're on while I'm doing other things and proof read several times before posting. /sarcasm

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah, how dare I try to understand what you're saying, I guess?

[Keller]

Even if it floats though the Michigan courts, I don't see other states upholding it.

A criminal sexual act would, and should always, indicate one or more non-concerning parties ... or underage parties. I'm willing to bet that every other state would use such a ruling to nullify prenups to the benefit of whomever was cheated on or similar rulings in a divorce case.

People are going to cheat, no need to keep crowding the prisons over bullshit.

If this makes it to the Michigan supreme court, I doubt they'll uphold the ruling. This should send a message to Michigan voters .... your judges (who likely get Clintons once in a while) are shoving their moral standards and possibly religious conviction down your throats.

First, as an interpretation of state statute, this opinion has zero relevance to other states. That's the nature of the federal system.

Second, I'd take your bet in a heartbeat.

Third, the Michigan S.Ct. would uphold this ruling as it comports with the statutory intent. The panel of judges admitted that the ruling was obscene but within the intent of the legislature which passed the statute into law. This is not a message which indicts the Michigan appellate judges but instead the Michigan legislature. With this opinion, the court was essentially saying, "Hey Lansing, please remove this law from the books."

The legislature makes statutory law. The court makes common law and also interprets statutory law. By constitutional mandate a court may not amend a statutory law or circumvent it's intent without finding the objection w/in the Constitution.

[Gan]

For once I'm just glad its not a crazy Texas law thats in the headlines.

:whistle:

[Artha]

Adulterers get what they deserve.

[Keller]

Adulterers get what they deserve.

They get to slug hot poon?

[Clipt]

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




Does that include bj's?

[Artha]

Yes, and you'd get the extra charge of sodomy if Michigan still does that.

[Celephais]

Yes, and you'd get the extra charge of sodomy if Michigan still does that.

... what kind of BJs are you getting?

[Tisket]

I find Clipt's avatar disturbing.

lmao

[DeV]

Oh snap. I know a couple hot MILF's that'd be serving some time right about now if this law were effective in all 50 states. lol.