U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should spouses be compelled to testify?
Yes, uphold the tradition, there is a deeper wisdom. 0 0%
No, this is a blue law not compatible with equal rights and equal responsibility to one another 0 0%
I don't know but 3's a crowd happens too much in marriage 1 50.00%
other reasons 1 50.00%
Voters: 2. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-03-2011, 08:43 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,486,674 times
Reputation: 2772

Advertisements

Yes, it is a point of law and a long held tradition sparing a spouse from testifying against their partner. I'm sure all can see how loyalties can cloud a persons judgment. I'm questioning whether or not that particular tradition is very healthy for the individuals involved, or for outside due process to judge anything adequately when such social contracts are imposed on individuals.

Loyalty can go too far. There comes a point when a partner departing from ethics becomes a joint liability. One partner playing games with the books/ taxes leaves both culpable. Hypothetical: I married clyde but I didn't know he meant we'd both be bank robbers. Loyalty wives feel for their husbands are exploited in domestic abuse cases, and there is no doubt that husbands loyal to their wives have at times felt themselves manipulated for malevolent purpose. The thing unique to women in these scenario's is their lack of training how to defend themselves. There are very few women who embrace their second amendment right, not just to bear arms, but to defend themselves in any way. They're taught to passively wait around for prince charming to arrive on a white horse.

I have no solid opinion to back this law on the books with resolve. I'd like to hear from anyone with deeper wisdom on this subject why they feel it ought to remain as it is on the books, or if we need to view it as a blue law that misdirections personal accountability away from individuals in a marriage. Either way you support, know that women who fail to report abuse of their children get punished severely sometimes even when they are also victims of battery. Women who fight back have a legal history of having far stiffer sentencing than male equivalents. Should women have less right to defend themselves?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2011, 04:56 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,486,674 times
Reputation: 2772
Folks are too scared to comment on this topic? Strange.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2011, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,998,331 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
Yes, it is a point of law and a long held tradition sparing a spouse from testifying against their partner. I'm sure all can see how loyalties can cloud a persons judgment. I'm questioning whether or not that particular tradition is very healthy for the individuals involved, or for outside due process to judge anything adequately when such social contracts are imposed on individuals.

Loyalty can go too far. There comes a point when a partner departing from ethics becomes a joint liability. One partner playing games with the books/ taxes leaves both culpable. Hypothetical: I married clyde but I didn't know he meant we'd both be bank robbers. Loyalty wives feel for their husbands are exploited in domestic abuse cases, and there is no doubt that husbands loyal to their wives have at times felt themselves manipulated for malevolent purpose. The thing unique to women in these scenario's is their lack of training how to defend themselves. There are very few women who embrace their second amendment right, not just to bear arms, but to defend themselves in any way. They're taught to passively wait around for prince charming to arrive on a white horse.

I have no solid opinion to back this law on the books with resolve. I'd like to hear from anyone with deeper wisdom on this subject why they feel it ought to remain as it is on the books, or if we need to view it as a blue law that misdirections personal accountability away from individuals in a marriage. Either way you support, know that women who fail to report abuse of their children get punished severely sometimes even when they are also victims of battery. Women who fight back have a legal history of having far stiffer sentencing than male equivalents. Should women have less right to defend themselves?
I don't really understand all the blathering, nor do I understand the poll choices. Therefore, I have no comment (aside from this) and no vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2011, 05:49 PM
 
10,543 posts, read 11,725,650 times
Reputation: 2797
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
Yes, it is a point of law and a long held tradition sparing a spouse from testifying against their partner. I'm sure all can see how loyalties can cloud a persons judgment. I'm questioning whether or not that particular tradition is very healthy for the individuals involved, or for outside due process to judge anything adequately when such social contracts are imposed on individuals.
I don't think so. In some professional relationships, medical, psychology etc. the information shared is privileged. The reason for that is that the parties need to be able to share information so that the relationships function well. In those cases, the professional is forbidden from sharing the information without a court order. The spouse is free to share the information if they choose, they just aren't compelled. The social contract that you speak of is not imposed on the individuals, it's imposed on the legal system. The individuals can do as they choose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
Loyalty can go too far. There comes a point when a partner departing from ethics becomes a joint liability. One partner playing games with the books/ taxes leaves both culpable. Hypothetical: I married clyde but I didn't know he meant we'd both be bank robbers. Loyalty wives feel for their husbands are exploited in domestic abuse cases, and there is no doubt that husbands loyal to their wives have at times felt themselves manipulated for malevolent purpose. The thing unique to women in these scenario's is their lack of training how to defend themselves. There are very few women who embrace their second amendment right, not just to bear arms, but to defend themselves in any way. They're taught to passively wait around for prince charming to arrive on a white horse.
In those cases, spouses are not forbidden from testifying. They would be encouraged to do so; they just can't be forced.

Loyalty can go too far and it does at the point where the "innocent spouse" engages in the crime. They do that by signing the tax filing or being in the getaway car, that's different from being innocent and deciding whether or not to testify. In those cases, they are frequently given the choice of testimony of jail for their involvement, which to me sounds like being compelled. The law in question only applies to someone that's truly innocent.

The loyalty in domestic abuse cases tends to be because the victim has been groomed and weakened over the years. The fact that they aren't compelled to testify has no bearing on that; they are still allowed to testify. What would be the means for compelling the victim of this assault? Should she be sent to jail?

Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
I have no solid opinion to back this law on the books with resolve. I'd like to hear from anyone with deeper wisdom on this subject why they feel it ought to remain as it is on the books, or if we need to view it as a blue law that misdirections personal accountability away from individuals in a marriage. Either way you support, know that women who fail to report abuse of their children get punished severely sometimes even when they are also victims of battery. Women who fight back have a legal history of having far stiffer sentencing than male equivalents. Should women have less right to defend themselves?
Defending themselves is a different issue from compelling testimony.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top