Should you go to jail for BIGAMY?

[poohandwendy]

OK, here is my last comment. I put the OP out there just to guage what people thought. I think he should be penalized, and, that if in the real world there was space in the jails for him, and that there was enough money to incarcerate him, then fine, put him in jail.

But since in the real world, it does not work that way, then NO, he shouldn't serve time becasue there are far worse offenders than a bigamist, getting off or not serving jail time becasue of those same lack of funds, or jail space.

I thought that I was being clear. If this doesn't clear up my position, then I guess nothing will.

You make no mention of the severity of his crime of bigamy. In criminal trials, we go with severity to determine jail time. Just wondering if that aspect is relevant to you, or not.

I don't think it should be as black and white as you suggest (only jail time if all other worse people are doing time). I think every case should be decided on it's merit. If it is severe, then jail time is appropriate. If it is not, then other pnishments (lik fines) are more appropriate.

 

[poohandwendy]

And why the "I'm taking my toys and going home" attitude? You offered a topic for discussion, I have participated without attacking or getting sarcastic with you. I just don't understand the problem?

 

[Papa Deuce]

And why the "I'm taking my toys and going home" attitude? You offered a topic for discussion, I have participated without attacking or getting sarcastic with you. I just don't understand the problem?

Only that I can't say anymore to explain my thinking. You have been fair and reasonable.

 

[va32h]

If you break the law, you should go to jail

Not necessarily. Not all laws are punishable by jail time. Jaywalking, for example, probably does not carry a mandatory sentence.

As so many other posters have already pointed out - this is what trials and lawyers and judges are for. To assess the severity of the crime, and what punishment, among those that are legally available, is most appropriate.

Bigamy is a crime with a lot of conditions. Did the multiple wives know about each other? Did they willingly enter into this arrangment? Are they all of age? Are their ancillary crimes (i.e. falsifying legal documents, welfare fraud, etc)?

So I guess my answer to the OP is "not necessarily". I would need to know the specific details of a case to answer honestly.

I got my jury duty summons yesterday - so I am practicing my diplomatic answers. Wouldn't it be a hoot if the case was about bigamy!

 

[TurboKitty]

OK, here is my last comment. I put the OP out there just to guage what people thought. I think he should be penalized, and, that if in the real world there was space in the jails for him, and that there was enough money to incarcerate him, then fine, put him in jail.

But since in the real world, it does not work that way, then NO, he shouldn't serve time becasue there are far worse offenders than a bigamist, getting off or not serving jail time becasue of those same lack of funds, or jail space.

I thought that I was being clear. If this doesn't clear up my position, then I guess nothing will.

Regardless of what you think, there were victims. Because what happened to to them and their lives isn't one of those "far worse offenses" especially due to lack of funding or prison space, they don't deserve justice. Or should just get over it?

In the real world we have laws. If you break those laws, you shouldn't get the "but I didn't REALLY hurt anyone, considering" card. You broke the law.
Breaking the law has consequences. That's why we HAVE laws.....

Coming here to "play devil's advocate", and "just to guage what people thought". That sounds almost like trying to instigate a debate.

Can we do THAT here?

 

[poohandwendy]

Good post va32h (btw, how did you decide on that screenname?)

I think we have to look at the shades of grey on both sides. It's not so simple as "you did a crime, off to jail for you"...and it's not so simple as " others are free because of overcrowding and/or they did something worse, so I should not have to go to jail"... the problem I see with the first is that not all criminals need to be in jail...the problem with the second is that we should not give people a free pass to commit crime because other people are 'worse'. There has to be a fair middle ground.

The only fair system, IMHO, is one that takes each case on it's merit and the decision is based on that only.

 

[poohandwendy]

Coming here to "play devil's advocate", and "just to guage what people thought". That sounds almost like trying to instigate a debate.

Can we do THAT here?

We are allowed to debate issues here, last I checked.

 

[poohandwendy]

LOL, sorry for all of the typos tonight...I don't know what my problem is (I have had to edit almost every post because I have noticed stupid errors).

Maybe I should have one of my husbands look at the keyboard and see if there is something wrong with it... (just adding a bit of dumb humor)

Ever notice that it is ALWAYS men with multiple wives and not the other way around?

 

[TurboKitty]

Ever notice that it is ALWAYS men with multiple wives and not the other way around?

Actually, there is one case I know of. The woman didn't finalize her divorce. Then she "married" a member of the military.

A year or so later, with a lot happening (like housing allowance, a long deployment and drug use), he went to get a divorce. Don't need one, but hey, here's a court martial, time in the brig and a fine for conduct not becoming.

 

[JennaTX]

As a woman, I would say "heck yes, he needs to go to jail, and then some!"

But I also understand where you are coming from about jail space, taxpayers money, there are other crimes that are worse, etc.

The question to me would be how do you decide which crimes should be punishable by jail? Non violent crimes? First offender? Teenager?

IMO all crimes should be punishable by jail if the law allows that, however, in real life, we do not have the time, space or money to do this.

So who goes to jail, the bigamist, the pot smoker, or the person who is speeding more than 40 miles over the speed limit? (Just a few examples I thought of)

 

[poohandwendy]

The question to me would be how do you decide which crimes should be punishable by jail? Non violent crimes? First offender? Teenager?

Those decisions have already been decided when we set laws regarding acts we determine to be a crimes. Some crimes are misdemeanors, some are felonies, some are punishable by jail and/or some carry only fines and/or community service. The criteria is dependent on the severity of the impact your crime has on others and/or society in general.

But the second part of your questions is why we have the guilt phase and the sentencing phase as separate parts of a trial. After deciding guilt, we then look at the circumstances of your particular case and decide if you deserve the most harsh punishment or a more lenient punishment.

So who goes to jail, the bigamist, the pot smoker, or the person who is speeding more than 40 miles over the speed limit? (Just a few examples I thought of)

Again, it depends on the circumstances.

I saw a Judge Judy show where the defendant mentioned that he was incarcerated for "driving without a valid drivers license" (unrelated to the this trial, he was just mentioning where he was during a time period that was relevant)...she looked at him and asked, "What else did you do? We do not ordinarily send people to jail for driving without a valid license".

Turns out, he had a previous DUI, lost his license, repeatedly was convicted of driving without a license, when he was finally pulled over for speeding again (I think it was the 4th time)...they threw the book at him and put him in jail for a few months. It was obvious that fines and suspending his license was NOT making any difference with this guy, so he paid the most harsh price, jail time. I guess we could say noone should go to jail for driving without a suspended license because it is 'not as bad as other crimes', but what do you do when someone just does not care and continues to break the law, over and over again? The law was set up so that when you abuse it, they have the legal right to use the harshest punishment. It is there for severe cases.

 

[lucyanna girl]

(Tongue in cheek) He should go to jail to PREVENT the violence when his wives get their hands on him.

 

[mickeyfan2]

As a friend of mine always say, "One disappoint women in my life is enough."

 

[ducklite]

If I was one of the wives, I'd probably think jail would be a good place to start.....

Actually if I were one of the wives he'd be WISHING AND PRAYING for jail, as it would be far better than being where I could get at him...

Anne

 

[dcentity2000]

A post I made on a similar thread that's just begging to be made here:

Laws are in place to prevent the corruption of morality and as such should represent what the reasonable man would consider to be the moral line. Law reform ensures that the law is always reasonably up to date, but inevitably there will always be a few laws that fall behind in the times, either because they are insignificant or because they are impliedly repealed.

Therefore, the question is not whether the law is right or wrong; rather it is whether it is representative.



Rich::

 

[CajunDixie]

Is this the guy?

If so according to that article it looks as though he not only was married to 2 women but was dating another and thinking of marriage with her (at least according to that womans sister). Which may show the judge he's not remorseful and continues to break the law.

But this article is a bit more confusing article in the Washington Post
Whereas this article makes things a bit more involved and could mean legally one marriage never existed. Then he could claim he didn't realize he had broken a law and would probably receive a more lenient sentence.