Adultery could mean life, court finds; twist ending for prosecutor

[latent aaaack]

By far my new favorite appeals court judges in effect apply a kind of reductio ad absurdum to cause the over-zealous prosecuting Attorney General to get hoisted by his own petard.

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

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.

No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses. The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court's decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship.

Murphy's opinion received little notice when it was handed down. But it has since elicited reactions ranging from disbelief to mischievous giggling in Michigan's gossipy legal community.

Breach of Rule 4.

Justices will decide later this year whether to review the Court of Appeals' decision to reinstate the CSC charge.

The appeals court decision is available at http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/resources/opinions.htm. Search for Docket No. 270229.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

The Court of Appeals opinion could also be interpreted as a tweak to the state Supreme Court, which has decreed that judges must enforce statutory language adopted by the Legislature literally, whatever the consequences.

In many other states, judges may reject a literal interpretation of the law if they believe it would lead to an absurd result. But Michigan's Supreme Court majority has held that it is for the Legislature, not the courts, to decide when the absurdity threshold has been breached.

Whitbeck noted that Murphy's opinion questions whether state lawmakers really meant to authorize the prosecution of adulterers for consensual relationships.

"We encourage the Legislature to take a second look at the statutory language if they are troubled by our ruling," he wrote.


In Ohio some judges have felt that they were forced to throw out domestic abuse charges when the couple are not married because of the phrasing of the anti-gay-marriage law. Other Ohio judges have held such an interpretation to be absurd. In Michigan, there would not be the leeway.

If nothing else, it may force Michigan's legislators to think about the consequences of the laws they pass. (Like that's realy going to happen!)

[SteveGrenard]

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...OL04/701150333

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."

Sounds like Michigan might be getting their shariaization one way or the other. At least its not the death penalty, wait, no, it's worse.

Quelle surprise.

Stay tuned:


http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=26017&catcode=13

As of 2005, Michigan held the largest and still-growing Muslim population in the United States and the second largest Arab population outside of the Middle East. Outside of Muslim-run countries, Paris--which still experiences nightly vehicle torchings and mayhem in its Islamic neighborhoods--has the largest. It is estimated that eight million Muslims now live in the United States and their numbers are continuing to grow. Islam is now the second-largest religious body in the United States and is said to be its fastest growing religious movement.

[Cleon]

Sounds like Michigan might be getting their shariaization one way or the other. At least its not the death penalty, wait, no, it's worse.

Quelle surprise.

Stay tuned:

Ok, when I read this my first thought was "Huh?!?!?" Then I realized something.

Steve, you didn't actually bother to read the article all the way through, did you? 'Cause I'm guessing you stopped at the word "Michigan."

That you're trying to blame this on Muslims is absolutely hilarious and so far removed from the actual situation that you might as well be trying to pin it on Liberace.

[brodski]

Sounds like Michigan might be getting their shariaization one way or the other. At least its not the death penalty, wait, no, it's worse.

Quelle surprise.

Stay tuned:

Um, no. This has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims, the anti adultery legislation ahs been on the books for a long, long time (the last prosecution was in 1971). This ruling has not made adultery illegal (it was already a felony), but has upped the potential punishment for this "crime", because of the prosecutors office wishing to convict a drug dealer of rape when he sold drugs fro sex rather than money.

There is no political will to push for convictions for adultery, and anyway given the Supreme court rulings on sodomy laws, I suspect that the anti-adultery statute will be unconstitutional as soon as someone tries to enforce it.

[ponderingturtle]

Um, no. This has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims, the anti adultery legislation ahs been on the books for a long, long time (the last prosecution was in 1971). This ruling has not made adultery illegal (it was already a felony), but has upped the potential punishment for this "crime", because of the prosecutors office wishing to convict a drug dealer of rape when he sold drugs fro sex rather than money.

There is no political will to push for convictions for adultery, and anyway given the Supreme court rulings on sodomy laws, I suspect that the anti-adultery statute will be unconstitutional as soon as someone tries to enforce it.

I just hope that the prosecutor is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the rulings he created. He is a vicious criminal by his own standards and should be treated accordingly.

[brodski]

I just hope that the prosecutor is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the rulings he created. He is a vicious criminal by his own standards and should be treated accordingly.

But who is to prosecute the prosecutor?

[latent aaaack]

But who is to prosecute the prosecutor?

Easy, he who is without sin, in this case being homosexuals since it's not adultery when they cheat because they can't get married. A fine hole they've dug themselves into up there. It's about as easy to follow as their coastline.

[brodski]

Easy, he who is without sin, in this case being homosexuals since it's not adultery when they cheat because they can't get married. A fine hole they've dug themselves into up there. It's about as easy to follow as their coastline.

Actually, despite my flippant tone, I am interested in the real answer. Who has the power to prosecute the prosecutor?

[Darat]

But who is to prosecute the prosecutor?

Well presumably it is just an office so the person holding that office can be prosecuted as a private individual and the court would have the power to appoint a prosecutor?

[SteveGrenard]

Ok, when I read this my first thought was "Huh?!?!?" Then I realized something.

Steve, you didn't actually bother to read the article all the way through, did you? 'Cause I'm guessing you stopped at the word "Michigan."

That you're trying to blame this on Muslims is absolutely hilarious and so far removed from the actual situation that you might as well be trying to pin it on Liberace.

So typical a defensive response. Show me where I said I blame muslims for this? You, apparently, did not even read the single line I wrote with any comprehension whatsoever. Quelle surprise.

I will reiterate: I said Michigan will be getting its shariazation one way or the other. Not only did I NOT blame muslims in Michigan for this, I expressly pointed out that adultery, which as you well know is a capital crime under shari'a, might be the case in Michigan without shari'a. You also well know that muslim elements in Michigan have been pushing for a shari'a court as well.

No I didn't even say that. I said "might be" getting their shariazation. How utterly pathetic of people who accuse others for not reading something when they themselves haven't read and/or understood the definitions of the words used in the response to which they are objecting. SOP around here.

[ponderingturtle]

Well presumably it is just an office so the person holding that office can be prosecuted as a private individual and the court would have the power to appoint a prosecutor?

Well there are plenty of other prosecutors in the state, or mabey appoint a special prosecutor. But he is admitting to a felony, why is he still in office?

[latent aaaack]

So typical a defensive response. Show me where I said I blame muslims for this? You, apparently, did not even read the single line I wrote with any comprehension whatsoever. Quelle surprise.

I will reiterate: I said Michigan will be getting its shariazation one way or the other. Not only did I NOT blame muslims in Michigan for this, I expressly pointed out that adultery, which as you well know is a capital crime under shari'a, might be the case in Michigan without shari'a. You also well know that muslim elements in Michigan have been pushing for a shari'a court as well.

No I didn't even say that. I said "might be" getting their shariazation. How utterly pathetic of people who accuse others for not reading something when they themselves haven't read and/or understood the definitions of the words used in the response to which they are objecting. SOP around here.


I think your stance would've been clear if you hadn't included the article quote that conveyed an alarming view of Muslims in the west and in MI, which didn't seem directly related to the topic.

[SteveGrenard]

I think your stance would've been clear if you hadn't included the article quote that conveyed an alarming view of Muslims in the west and in MI, which didn't seem directly related to the topic.

Michigan is very much a jursidiction that is related to the topic. Michigan has a lot of muslims, many of whom are devout, who have expressed favoring shari'a law, at least for themselves. Is there an outcry from this community against this turn of events?

Making adultery a capital crime in the state is tantamount to the undeniable fact it is a capital crime punishable by death under shari'a. A life sentence isn't much different and might be considered worse.

The fact that there is distaste for pursuing such prosecutions (outside of Islam) is based on the spectre of hundreds of thousands of people being charged and jailed for adultery assuming such a law was applied even handedly. It is absurd that taxpayors should be paying for life time custodial care of adulterers and it is absurd, under shari'a, that adulterers be stoned to death ....

The fact that adultery was a crime before as justification loses sight of the fact that like shari'a, adultery as a criminal offense is an anachronism that many have fought very hard to eliminate.

P.S.:

Here is an interesting opinion on the law blog concerning prosecution of prosecutors:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2007/01/prosecuting_pro.html

[Cleon]

So typical a defensive response. Show me where I said I blame muslims for this? You, apparently, did not even read the single line I wrote with any comprehension whatsoever. Quelle surprise.

I will reiterate: I said Michigan will be getting its shariazation one way or the other. Not only did I NOT blame muslims in Michigan for this, I expressly pointed out that adultery, which as you well know is a capital crime under shari'a, might be the case in Michigan without shari'a. You also well know that muslim elements in Michigan have been pushing for a shari'a court as well.

No I didn't even say that. I said "might be" getting their shariazation. How utterly pathetic of people who accuse others for not reading something when they themselves haven't read and/or understood the definitions of the words used in the response to which they are objecting. SOP around here.

Incredible. Now you're actually trying to weasel out of your own words.

Go for it, Steve!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17345acf15bb4c01.jpg

[SteveGrenard]

Incredible. Now you're actually trying to weasel out of your own words.

Go for it, Steve!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17345acf15bb4c01.jpg

No, I am asking you to read and comprehend not read "into" .....

[Cleon]

No, I am asking you to read and comprehend not read "into" .....

I read. And comprehended.

What you don't seem to get is that there is no "shariazation" here. It's completely in your imagination. The judge consciously issued a ridiculous ruling for the sole purpose of pissing in the Wheaties of an overzealous DA who was trying to make an end run around a ruling he didn't like.

You're trying to blame this on Muslims for some reason. You brought up Michigan's Muslim population, not I. Islam has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS THREAD. There is NO "SHARIAZATION" GOING ON HERE AT ALL.

Entiendes? Bueno.

There are two, and only two, possibilities here:

1. You read the first paragraph of the article and decided that was enough to go spouting off about some imagined "shariazation." Once it was made clear to you that you didn't know what the hell you were talking about, you decided to climb onto a high horse rather than admit error.

2. You're purposely trying to derail the thread into your standard rant about Muslims and sharia.

Either way...Just stop before you dig yourself any deeper.

[Beerina]

because of the prosecutors office wishing to convict a drug dealer of rape when he sold drugs fro sex rather than money.


That doesn't make sense. The transaction (drugs, or money, for sex) may be illegal, but that doesn't make it rape. Unless the government is claiming that, since the "profits" (drugs or money) are seized, that therefore the "rapee" wasn't paid (or was un-paid, retroactively) that this is now a sex under false pretenses "rape". But it's the government doing this, not the "rapist".

[ponderingturtle]

That doesn't make sense. The transaction (drugs, or money, for sex) may be illegal, but that doesn't make it rape. Unless the government is claiming that, since the "profits" (drugs or money) are seized, that therefore the "rapee" wasn't paid (or was un-paid, retroactively) that this is now a sex under false pretenses "rape". But it's the government doing this, not the "rapist".

No they are making extramarital sex rape.

[brodski]

That doesn't make sense. The transaction (drugs, or money, for sex) may be illegal, but that doesn't make it rape. Unless the government is claiming that, since the "profits" (drugs or money) are seized, that therefore the "rapee" wasn't paid (or was un-paid, retroactively) that this is now a sex under false pretenses "rape". But it's the government doing this, not the "rapist".

1) I never said it made sense ;)
2) The statute is badly worded, but use of the word "rape" was my own interpretation of the situation.
The statute says that whenever "sexual penetration" occurs in the course of another felony, then it is classified as the most serious "sexual assault". The guy "selling" prescription drugs for sex was convicted of drug dealing. The original judge threw out the sexual assault charges on the grounds that the woman swore under oath that they where consensual. The prosecutor appealed, saying that the statute makes no differentiation between consensual and non consensual sex which occurs during the commission of a felony. The judge was bound by state supreme court decisions which hold that judges must take every word of statue literally, and to their logical conclusions, even if absurd (a decision intended to stop "activist" judges). The Judge in this last appeal upheld the ruling that the sexual assault charges must stand, but pointed out that as adultery is a felony in this state, any sexual penetration which occurs in connection with the commission of felonious adultery (heh, "felonious Adultery" sounds like an old blues singer) is committing a sexual assault, regardless of whether the acts where consensual or not.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

But who is to prosecute the prosecutor?



I don't know. Coast Guard?

[Aerik]

So cheating spouses there are now guilty of sexual assault. Basically they've decided that a spouse has some sort of special right over the other's body.

I just can't wait to see how this gets used more against women than men, with the bias of men having special sexual privileges do their wives' bodies.

[brodski]

So cheating spouses there are now guilty of sexual assault. that is the result of this courts ruling. Interestingly (and bizarrely), their partners could also be charged with the same sexual assault, or at least being an accessory to the assault.


Basically they've decided that a spouse has some sort of special right over the other's body. they did that back in the year dot when they made adultery an felony. remember no one in this case actually sat down and though "i know, I'll reclassify adultery as sexual assault", the judge has just pointed out how the various statutes passed by the State, and the appeal decision which the prosecutor pushed fro have have the unintentional effect of making adultery one of the most serious sexual "assault" crimes in this state.


I just can't wait to see how this gets used more against women than men, with the bias of men having special sexual privileges do their wives' bodies.

This isn't going to be used against anyone. the judge made the ruling he was forced to make to show how ridiculous the current laws are. If any prosecutor is dumb enough to try and take a case of adultery, it would be struck down as unconstitutional in a second.

A more likely consequence is, if this sate regards "public indecency" as a felony, a couple caught having sex in public could face life imprisonment.

To answer your question in annotehr way, I suspect that the wording of the sexual assault laws relating to sex in the commission of another felony apply exclusively to men, as they specifically cite "penetration".