Research Paper About Adultery

Bonnie Steinbock in her essay “What’s Wrong with Adultery?” starts by quoting the data from studies to show that the number of women who have committed adultery has significantly increased. Despite this increase in female adultery, it is in some degree due to the attitudes changing toward sex and sexuality, but Steinbock thinks that people should use rational justification to evaluate the disapproval of adultery. Then in the rest of the parts of Steinbock’s essay, she is generally arguing against adultery based on the plausible claim that our views toward adultery are varied, and these views are bound to be connected to important conventions about marriage, fidelity, romantic love ( Romeo and Juliet’s case ), the

Now a day’s evidence can change a person’s life in the blink of an eye. “People were often punished for crimes based on the word of one or two individuals, with little concern given to sorting out the truth of the affair” (Hunter 12). But today a person must be tried and some physical evidence is needed in order for a person to be convicted of a crime.

This is the basic rule that spouses should not be compellable to testify against their husbands, that the preservation of the matrimonial harmony of husband and wife is very important as two souls in one flesh. Marriage is a fundamental institution of the society and it’s the utmost respect, the institution of marriage has a greater importance to public interest rather than the outcome of judicial result . The New Zealand Commission noted that distress will be caused if a wife is compel to give evidence against her husband and this was supported by Lord Salmon were he comments that “it seems to me altogether inconsistent with the common law’s attitude towards marriage that it should compel a wife to give evidence against her husband and thereby destroy the marriage.” Allowing a wife to give evidence may incriminate her husband and furthermore it might put her in a state of risk in there matrimonial home, and it will also create a greater function of perjury in criminal proceedings. A wife is only compellable if the ‘offence is specified.’ PAEC s. 80 lays down further rules under the criminal charges related to specified offences as fellows.

Circumstantial evidence is probably one of the biggest ethical concerns when people are being convicted of crimes. Circumstantial evidence is: “Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute”. (Dictionay.com, 2010). Many

The law relating spousal compellability. In 1940 Wigmore observed spousal compellability has a long history wrapped ‘in tantalizing obscurity’. Whereas Lord Wilberforce also states that to allowed a spouse to give evidence would rise to discord and perjury of the law which would be to ordinary people repugnant . These are two distinct opinions highlighting the fact that spousal compellability is a highly debatable area of law. Under section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 spouses are non-compellable unless the offence is one which is specified. However this spousal compellability has sparked intense criticisms and renders the justification questionable. By utilising relevant source, academic opinions and case authority, I will critically evaluate and consider all arguments concerning spousal compellability and include whether or not I think it is justifiable.

Forensic evidence has been shown to be reliable due to many factors of evidence such as DNA, blood, fingerprints, etc.; however, many cases have shown that

Slam went the prison door because the poor man missed Sunday mass. Back when Puritan laws were enforceable by the town people had to go to Sunday mass every week, today millions of people who are Christian do not go to mass on Sunday. Today’s society is not an extent of its Puritan roots. It promotes extravagant behavior. Society rewards being lazy and not hardworking. It ignores adultery. America is not an extent of its Puritan past because it promotes interracial marriages, helps the lazy and provokes adultery.

After June and Donald have been married for some time, and their children are both teenagers, Donald tries to enforce his view of proper sexual conduct on June. June has already “talked with both children about” condoms in an effort to provide them with a decent sexual education (D’Amato). Donald, yelling, responds: “My mother didn’t even know the word ‘condom’ and if she had, she would never have uttered it in my presence” (D’Amato). June replies noncommittally, staving off further argument. June’s foresight and dedication to preparing her children for future relationships stands in stark contrast to Donald’s cherished conservative values. These ideals prevent Donald from discussing sex or contraception with his children, which, if not for June’s intervention, would lead to them being as woefully ignorant as he was. This scene also paints June in a tolerant light which has far-reaching implications for the page break scene, making adultery more of a possibility.

According to section 5 of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) marriage can be defined as “…the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” (AustiLII, n.d.). However, there are also forms of illegal marriage such as forced marriage. Filed under section 270.7A of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), forced marriage can be defined as an illegal marriage whereby the victim entered into the marriage without freely and fully consenting usually due to the use of coercion, threat or deception or because the victim was mentally incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the marriage ceremony (Office of Parliamentary Counsel, 2015).

R(On the application of the Crown Prosecution Service) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2002] EWCA Civ 1661; [2003] Q.B 1222

The biggest flaw in the definition is likely to be considered as the “for life”, as when the definition was made divorce was available through the matrimonial causes act 1857 (MCA 57). This however had a very strict approach which only really gave men the right to petition for divorce, but only on the grounds of adultery, whereas woman could petition but would have to prove adultery then one of the

The reason for wrongdoing scene examination is to set up what happened (wrongdoing scene recreation) and to recognize the capable individual. Through intentionally reporting the conditions at a wrongdoing scene and seeing all pertinent physical confirmation. The ability to see and accumulate the affirmation is basic in disentangling and summoning fierce cases. In the greater part of the cases, the law requirement officer who ensures and seeks the wrongdoing scene has influence in figuring out if the physical proof will utilize as a part of unraveling or indicating the fierce wrongdoing. Wrongdoing scene examination is

Despite the fact that wives’ adultery undermines the entire family structure by calling a man’s heir’s legitimacy into doubt,

"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed undefined, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous - Hebrews 23:4" is the most important principle humans must follow when entering marriage. "Infidelity is commonly understood as a violation of the marital disagreement, a betrayal of one's heart, and a threat to the marital bond." (Mao & Raguram, 2009). Infidelity is an act of disobedience to remain faithful to your partner. Although infidelity can be a source of personal satisfaction, it may also lead to marital disruption and divorce which will eventually destroy marriages and families.

People utilize many different words to describe, define and even attempt to dismiss adultery; unfaithfulness, infidelity, playing the field, extramarital relations, having an affair are just a few. The net result of this choice however is the destruction of a personal reputation, trust and respect, while at the same time laying waste to spouse and children alike. Even in the earliest days of civilization adultery was understood to be destructive, thus earning its own “Thou Shalt Not”, in addition to, at least 40 other less than positive references and assorted stories in the Bible. Many societies, including our own, have gone so far as to outlaw this practice; in some cultures penalties range up to death. So why do we allow