Curious...............................

i really don't know the answer julie! let me do some checking! i have never heard that! WoW! if that is true, we need more jails!!!

and EH in 3.....2..........1.........bye thread been fun knowing ya!

Code of Alabama
Section 13A-13-2
Adultery.

(a) A person commits adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is not his spouse and lives in cohabitation with that other person when he or that other person is married.

(b) A person does not commit a crime under this section if he reasonably believes that he and the other person are unmarried persons. The burden of injecting this issue is on the defendant, but this does not change the burden of proof.

(c) Adultery is a Class B misdemeanor.

So, is it only illegal if they move in together?

You don't have to move your clothes in to have intercourse - just take some of them off. Now - that was the last time I participated in it.....

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Code of Alabama
Section 13A-13-2
Adultery.

(a) A person commits adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is not his spouse and lives in cohabitation with that other person when he or that other person is married.

(b) A person does not commit a crime under this section if he reasonably believes that he and the other person are unmarried persons. The burden of injecting this issue is on the defendant, but this does not change the burden of proof.

(c) Adultery is a Class B misdemeanor.

So, does that law pertain to the Swingers Club?

Yes, notice it says intercourse AND lives in cohabitation. State must prove both. And considering the max penalty is 6 months, I doubt it's enforced very much.

What kind of proof do you need? Video or pictures. Who would file charges, the D.A.?

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:
What kind of proof do you need? Video or pictures. Who would file charges, the D.A.?

How long has that law been on the books? I would think it's more a matter of character.

quote:

Originally posted by shimara12:

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:
What kind of proof do you need? Video or pictures. Who would file charges, the D.A.?

How long has that law been on the books? I would think it's more a matter of character.

From the commentary to the code:

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, § 7005.)

§ 13A-13-2 COMMENTARY

Alabama law proscribed adultery and fornication in former § 13-8-1. Section 13A-13-2 retains the offense of adultery, but omits any provisions for fornication.


Adultery:


While there is strong sentiment that adultery should not be regulated by criminal sanction, the committee was of the opinion that the political success of a proposal formally to abolish this crime would, at the present time, be doubtful.


The number of liaisons which are illegal under Alabama law is, undoubtedly, very high. On the other hand, arrests and prosecutions are rare. This belief is consistent with studies conducted elsewhere.


The conclusion is clear that existing criminal law has been notoriously unsuccessful in stamping out adultery, and it is unlikely that anyone will ever launch a program of enforcement on a scale sufficient to make criminal penalties a significant risk in philandery. It also follows that the reluctance of public officials to enforce the law is resulting in an informal abolition of any criminal stigma. While sympathizing with the argument that continuation of a “dead letter” statute may tend to bring the criminal law into disrespect, the committee felt that formal repudiation of the adultery offense was premature. Moreover, it may prove useful on occasions, as for example in plea bargaining.


Section 13A-13-2 is a substantial codification of Alabama law. The existing statute does not cover a transitory adulterous act, but requires the offender to be “living in adultery,” which has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the conduct must be open and notorious, Quartemas v. State, 48 Ala. 269 (1872), and the meetings must be continuous or there must be an agreement to have regular meetings. Burgett v. State, 37 Ala.App. 469, 70 So.2d 429 (1954); Wilson v. State, 34 Ala.App. 219, 39 So.2d 250 (1948); Lawson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 343, 33 So.2d 388 (1948); Brown v. State, 31 Ala.App. 233, 14 So.2d 596 (1943). The section's use of the term “lives in cohabitation with” indicates an intention that existing case law interpretation be carried forward.


Moreover, most adulterous conduct, if on a continuous basis, is encompassed by bigamy, § 13A-13-1.


Where one of the partners to the adulterous relationship is unmarried, there is some tradition elsewhere of excluding the unmarried partner from the definition of the crime. Alabama law includes an unmarried partner and the Criminal Code continues this rule. Subsection (b), however, provides a defense for a defendant that reasonably believed that both he and his partner were both unmarried.


Fornication:


Fornication is not included in the Criminal Code. Criminal sanctions are practically inadequate and, therefore, inappropriate to regulate nondeviant sexual behavior between consenting unmarried adults. Where the conduct is deviant, or unconsented to by the female, or consented to by a minor female, or one or both of the partners are married to other persons, or the relationship is incestuous, the conduct is covered by other sections of the Criminal Code. Flagrant open conduct which exceeds decent propriety does justify regulation, and may be prosecuted as public lewdness, disorderly conduct, obscenity, contributing to the delinquency of a minor or under other sections of the Criminal Code.


Fornication is not a crime in England nor, generally, in the rest of the world. Many states have never made it a crime, and in those which have, courts have narrowed its coverage considerably. The trend of recent criminal code codifications elsewhere to omit this offense reinforces this judgment.

Isn't it true that a lot of times in a crimminal trial, a person's character plays a part in the jury's perception of the defendant and influences their decision about their guilt or innocence? It's not right, but it does happen. True?

Absolutely. That's why we try to avoid the introduction of any character evidence. It's normally irrelevant to determine guilt, but the prosecution will frequently try (within the evidence rules) to introduce it for some "other" purpose like showing motive, intent, etc. But even without formal character evidence, the jury will make characterizations about the defendant that probably influence their decision. It's just human nature. That's also the reason we don't have our clients show up at trial in the jail jumpsuits and shackles. Even though the jury is aware they have been arrested, we don't want to highlight that fact if they're still in jail. It somewhat destroys the presumption of innocence if your client is in jail attire.

You would think that it would play a big part in a divorce settlement. Especially, when the spouse makes a habit of adultry in numerous relationships and marriages. Twosome, Threesome, and Foursome.

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:
You would think that it would play a big part in a divorce settlement. Especially, when the spouse makes a habit of adultry in numerous relationships and marriages. Twosome, Threesome, and Foursome.

Definitely a good bargaining tool.

Now, this may be far out but there is a reason for the question. What if a married person has a onesome but thinks they are having a twosome with someone who is not there.

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:
Now, this may be far out but there is a reason for the question. What if a married person has a onesome but thinks they are having a twosome with someone who is not there.

I read this 3 times, say what??

Okay, more technical. What if a married person has sex with a make believe person. Is that considered adultry or just being a nut case?

quote:

Originally posted by shimara12:

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:
Now, this may be far out but there is a reason for the question. What if a married person has a onesome but thinks they are having a twosome with someone who is not there.

I read this 3 times, say what??

Its actually quite simple, he or she has lost their mind and needs to be committed. Its one thing to have a onesome thinking about having a twosome, but to have a onesome believing you are having a twosome is simply insane.

Gotta give them Kudos on their imagination though. But, if they were going to believe they were having a twosome, why not simply hullucinate a threesome?

Kirk

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:
Okay, more technical. What if a married person has sex with a make believe person. Is that considered adultry or just being a nut case?

Have you seen that show on BBCA, "Love me, love my dolls"? These very strange men have a "relationship" with a life size doll. I couldn't believe I was watching it. Sort of like that?

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:
Okay, more technical. What if a married person has sex with a make believe person. Is that considered adultry or just being a nut case?

In all seriousness, though, adultry (aka cheating), is all in the mind anyway. You can cheat and never have sex. It would bother me more that my wife was in love with someone else and never had sex with them than if she ran out and had a wild night of druken sex with someone that she ran into but didn't care a thing about.

Don't get me wrong, both would bother me, its just the emotional relationship would bother me more.

So, yes, the poor soul hallucinating the twosome (or threesome) is cheating. That is unless the threesome involved their spouse....

Kirk

quote:

Originally posted by jjuliesmiles:
I was just really curious to know if adultery was still "technically" illegal in Alabama.

Cause if it is, and evidently it is, there are some grown ups out on a road that might be committing adultery.

But, I don't think they moved in together. There is a cougar involved, I'm told.

Lord, I hope you mean a Mercury Cougar. If not, that could be interesting.....

Kirk

quote:

Originally posted by mekirk2:

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:
Okay, more technical. What if a married person has sex with a make believe person. Is that considered adultry or just being a nut case?

In all seriousness, though, adultry (aka cheating), is all in the mind anyway. You can cheat and never have sex. It would bother me more that my wife was in love with someone else and never had sex with them than if she ran out and had a wild night of druken sex with someone that she ran into but didn't care a thing about.

Don't get me wrong, both would bother me, its just the emotional relationship would bother me more.

So, yes, the poor soul hallucinating the twosome (or threesome) is cheating. That is unless the threesome involved their spouse....

Kirk

That is so true. An emotional affair would be so much harder to forgive, than a really stupid encounter with some nameless someone.

I understand that the school thing is only a rumor.

I dunno RE, dunno..................

I get the feeling that I don't know the whole entire story behind this thread and I'm playing third wheel. With the discussions about EH killing the thread and posts disappearing (JJ). Someone want to PM me and share the scuttlebutt? I understand if you don't, I'm having fun making up my own backstory anyway (twosomes, threesomes, foursomes, YEA BABY.)

Kirk

quote:

Originally posted by mekirk2:

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:
Okay, more technical. What if a married person has sex with a make believe person. Is that considered adultry or just being a nut case?

In all seriousness, though, adultry (aka cheating), is all in the mind anyway. You can cheat and never have sex. It would bother me more that my wife was in love with someone else and never had sex with them than if she ran out and had a wild night of druken sex with someone that she ran into but didn't care a thing about.

Don't get me wrong, both would bother me, its just the emotional relationship would bother me more.

So, yes, the poor soul hallucinating the twosome (or threesome) is cheating. That is unless the threesome involved their spouse....

Kirk

No did not involve the spouse. At least, not the second spouse, but maybe the threesome involved the first spouse. Could also involved the third spouse, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:

quote:

Originally posted by mekirk2:

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:
Okay, more technical. What if a married person has sex with a make believe person. Is that considered adultry or just being a nut case?

In all seriousness, though, adultry (aka cheating), is all in the mind anyway. You can cheat and never have sex. It would bother me more that my wife was in love with someone else and never had sex with them than if she ran out and had a wild night of druken sex with someone that she ran into but didn't care a thing about.

Don't get me wrong, both would bother me, its just the emotional relationship would bother me more.

So, yes, the poor soul hallucinating the twosome (or threesome) is cheating. That is unless the threesome involved their spouse....

Kirk

No did not involve the spouse. At least, not the second spouse, but maybe the threesome involved the first spouse. Could also involved the third spouse, though.

I second the pm.

Some how I don't think RE is talking about either of the individuals that have been discussed in this topic...

I am curious as to why my posts were pulled since I mentioned no names but simply referred to an elected official.

I do know now for a fact that if the couple comes back home and talks about it or even considers trying to work on the marriage, it's considered working things out and divorce cannot be filed on grounds of adultery. Been there, done that from the lawyers mouth the first of this month.

quote:

Originally posted by mekirk2:
...Gotta give them Kudos on their imagination though. But, if they were going to believe they were having a twosome, why not simply hullucinate a threesome?
Kirk

their hand would get too tired.

quote:

Originally posted by Romantica Erotica:

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Code of Alabama
Section 13A-13-2
Adultery.

(a) A person commits adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is not his spouse and lives in cohabitation with that other person when he or that other person is married.

(b) A person does not commit a crime under this section if he reasonably believes that he and the other person are unmarried persons. The burden of injecting this issue is on the defendant, but this does not change the burden of proof.

(c) Adultery is a Class B misdemeanor.

So, does that law pertain to the Swingers Club?

Are the swingers moving in together?

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Code of Alabama
Section 13A-13-2
Adultery.

(a) A person commits adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is not his spouse and lives in cohabitation with that other person when he or that other person is married.

(b) A person does not commit a crime under this section if he reasonably believes that he and the other person are unmarried persons. The burden of injecting this issue is on the defendant, but this does not change the burden of proof.

(c) Adultery is a Class B misdemeanor.

So Sass -- the mistress that is not living with the dude but gets visits on occasion -- TECHNICALLY isn't adultery?

Well, it was adultery when I divorced my first wife.

There's quite a difference in what qualifies as adultery in the domestic arena and what is necessary for the criminal charge. Those photos the PI took might get your ex alimony but they may not prove criminal........

quote:

Those photos the PI took might get your ex alimony but they may not prove criminal........

Skip the criminal...go for a civil lawsuit for the alienation of affection! I believe it's still on the books?

hmmm...makes it almost worth it to catch him in the act -- in the criminal extreme of the act just to get him locked up for some...that would be more punishment than alimony for some men...

quote:

Originally posted by Dreamweaver:

quote:

Those photos the PI took might get your ex alimony but they may not prove criminal........

Skip the criminal...go for a civil lawsuit for the alienation of affection! I believe it's still on the books?

Alienation of affections
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Alienation of affections

At common law, alienation of affections is a tort action brought by a deserted spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for the failure of the marriage. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.

Alienation of affections was first codified as a tort by the New York state legislature in 1864, and similar legislation existed in many U.S. states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Since 1935, this tort has been abolished in 42 states. Alienation is, however, still recognized in Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah.[1][2]

An action for alienation of affection does not require proof of extramarital sex. An alienation claim is difficult to establish because it comprises several elements and there are several defenses. To succeed on an alienation claim, the plaintiff has to show that (1) the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree; (2) the spousal love was alienated and destroyed; and (3) defendant’s malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection. It is not necessary to show that the defendant set out to destroy the marital relationship, but only that he or she intentionally engaged in acts which would foreseeably impact on the marriage. Thus, defendant has a defense against an alienation claim where it can be shown that defendant did not know that the object of his or her affections was in fact married. It is not a defense that the non-innocent spouse consented to defendant’s conduct. But it might be a defense that the defendant was not the active and aggressive seducer. If defendant’s conduct was somehow inadvertent, the plaintiff would be unable to show intentional or malicious action. But prior marital problems do not establish a defense unless such unhappiness had reached a level of negating love between the spouses.


[edit] References

quote:

Originally posted by TheBaldGuy:
i really don't know the answer julie! let me do some checking! i have never heard that! WoW! if that is true, we need more jails!!!

BG, are you an attorney now?

quote:

Originally posted by AlmostMaddie:

quote:

Originally posted by TheBaldGuy:
i really don't know the answer julie! let me do some checking! i have never heard that! WoW! if that is true, we need more jails!!!

BG, are you an attorney now?

No, but he did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night , lol
He's jack of all trades.