Some states have hate crime statutes on the books and the sentence IS tempered because of motive.
You should look up the doctrine of fighting words. This is not a red herring. There ARE times when the law of the land says it’s ok to lay the smack down on someone when they’ve done nothing but hurl words. The definition is essentially “words that, by their very utterance, cause harm.”
Now, the people who support the use of violence if confronted with a case of flagrant infidelity seem to be positing that infidelity, by the commision of the very act, is harmful. Because of the harm they claim is INHERENT in the act, they say violence in response to infidelity should be punished less severely by the legal system.
FTR I happen to agree with you. I disapprove of any violence outside of self-defense(which obviously translates to disagreeing with violence motivated by jealousy). I’m also saying that our mutual opinion is NOT law. Law in this society DOES consider the provocation of the violence as a mitigating factor in the case of things like “hate speech” or “fighting words.” The proponents of the proposition “infidelity is enough of an offense to justify violence against one of the adulturous parties” seem to believe adultery falls into the non-verbal equivelant of “fighting words”. An act which, by it’s very existance, does harm to the aggrieved party.
I’d say the burden of proof is on them to show this harm exists.
Enjoy,
Steven
Here is the crucial part of the so-called “fightin words doctrine”:
the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content…
I don’t believe that adultery rises to this level. Most states specifically exclude “mere words” as a justification for violence.
It’s not quite that simple. From the cite I gave earlier, emphasis mine.
I’m not getting into this personally. I’ve said I believe jealousy is not a good motive for the use of physical force. I’m playing devil’s advocate here because I also don’t believe dismissing the emotional damage done to a spouse by the act of adultery on the part of their partner should be dismissed out of hand. This is indeed a grevious injury to many or most people. This is all assuming the jointly-agreed-upon boundries of the relationship did not permit sexual contact with other people.
If it can be shown that the “average person” would retaliate, then it would probalby pass the latest form of the test for “fighting words”. There is also precedent for non-verbal communication to be considered “fighting words” as in the case of burning the American flag. Eventually this was considered protected speech, but it’s still an action as opposed to “mere words”. Actions are another form of speech in many cases and have been treated as such by the legal system in the past.
I’m outta here.
Enjoy,
Steven
Can we agree that psychological abuse can be just as valid a claim as physical abuse? Not in all instances, but that it can be.
Can we then agree that verbal abuse is one form of psychological abuse?
Can we also agree that name calling is a type of verbal abuse?
If you do not agree with any of the above statements, please explain why.
But if you do agree with the above logical steps, I’d like to know why an adult should be able to endure “a little name-calling w/out psychological collapse” when you’re also stating that an adult should never have to endure ANY physical abuse whatsoever no matter how minor.
If we agree that one abuse has the potential to harm just as much as another, then why is a minor transgression in one ok but not in the other?