Penalties for adultery
Historically adultery has been subject
to severe
sanctions
including the
death penalty
and has been grounds for
divorce
under fault-based divorce
laws. In
some places the method for punishing adultery was traditionally
stoning
to death.
In the original
Napoleonic Code,
a man could ask to be divorced from his wife if she committed
adultery, but the adultery of the husband was not a sufficient
motive unless he had kept his
concubine
in the family home.
In many
jurisdictions
(e.g,
Austria,
Korea,
Switzerland,
Taiwan),
adultery is still
illegal,
but enforcement of the laws is often uneven. In places where
adultery laws are actually enforced, wives are often punished
more harshly than husbands, in some cases being considered
guilty of adultery even when they have been
raped.
This has been alleged to happen in
Nigeria
[2] and
Pakistan
[3] (see
"Honor killings" in "Best Practices").
In the
United States,
laws vary from state to state. For example, in
Pennsylvania,
adultery is technically punishable by 2 years of imprisonment or
18 months of treatment for insanity (for history, see Hamowy).
That being said, such statutes are typically considered
blue laws,
and are rarely, if ever, enforced. In the
U.S. Military,
adultery is a court-martialable offense only if it was "to the
prejudice of good order and discipline" or "of a nature to bring
discredit upon the armed forces"
[4]. This
has been applied to cases where both partners were members of
the military (and particularly where one is in command of the
other), or one partner and the other's spouse. The
enforceability of criminal sanctions for adultery is very
questionable in light of
Supreme Court
decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy,
and particularly in light of
Lawrence v. Texas,
which apparently recognized a broad constitutional right of
sexual intimacy for consenting adults.
In
Canadian
law, adultery is defined under the
Divorce Act.
Though the written definition sets it as extramarital relations
with someone of the opposite sex, the
recent change in the definition of
marriage gave grounds for a
British Columbia
judge to strike that definition down. In a 2005 case of a woman
filing for divorce, her husband had cheated on her with another
man, which the judge felt was equal reasoning to dissolve the
union.