Nippon

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 7110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Nippon

Post by Andrew »

Mo wrote:Also, people don't go to jail for entrapment, they get out of potential jail time for it.
Well, in theory. In reality, it's a worthless defense.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29853
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Nippon

Post by Warren »

Andrew wrote:
Mo wrote:Also, people don't go to jail for entrapment, they get out of potential jail time for it.
Well, in theory. In reality, it's a worthless defense.
Really? Is there always a better defense?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 7110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Nippon

Post by Andrew »

Warren wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Mo wrote:Also, people don't go to jail for entrapment, they get out of potential jail time for it.
Well, in theory. In reality, it's a worthless defense.
Really? Is there always a better defense?
It's so narrow that it's almost impossible to use it. Here's how Arizona defines it:
A person who asserts an entrapment defense has the burden of proving the following by clear and convincing evidence:
1. The idea of committing the offense started with law enforcement officers or their agents rather than with the person.
2. The law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the person to commit the offense.
3. The person was not predisposed to commit the type of offense charged before the law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the person to commit the offense.
Good luck with proving number 3 by clear and convincing evidence.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 8038
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: Nippon

Post by Taktix® »

What about if you ask if they're a cop and they say no? That's entrapment, right?

[/modern society]

Seriously, though. I've been told that entrapment is more of a literary device than a legal defense...
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 7110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Nippon

Post by Andrew »

Taktix® wrote:What about if you ask if they're a cop and they say no? That's entrapment, right?

[/modern society]
Don't even get me started on shit like that. I nearly threw something at the tv during 21 Jump Street where the supervisor said a case got dismissed because they didn't read the defendant his Miranda warnings.

STOP IT. STOP TELLING PEOPLE THAT. IT NEVER WORKS THAT WAY.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 8373
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Nippon

Post by Shem »

Ayn_Randian wrote:There is rape-by-fraud in a few states, but it requires impersonation of a husband*, I believe.
Seems like there is or was at least one state where sex that was conditional on someone following through on a promise (like, " I'll marry you if you have sex with me") can also be considered rape-by-deception.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25753
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Nippon

Post by Jennifer »

Mo wrote:Also, people don't go to jail for entrapment, they get out of potential jail time for it.
People don't go to jail for "entrapment," but they go to jail for things they were entrapped into doing.

Adultery isn't a crime but, in divorce cases, it can have very serious financial consequences -- if I'm getting a divorce because my husband's been screwing around, chances are I can get a much better settlement than through a simple no-fault "I just don't want to be married anymore"-type of divorce, so if I'm paying somebody to specifically entice my [faithful] husband to cheat so that I can then use that cheating to get extra money in a divorce ... not criminal but I wonder if there couldn't be a civil case here, somehow?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25448
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Nippon

Post by JasonL »

Just can't go there. Nope. You don't want to face the consequences of cheating? Don't cheat. Is nobody responsible for anything anymore? Grumblegrumble.

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 13794
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Nippon

Post by Highway »

Besides, how goddamn lame does that make the cheating spouse look? "I didn't *want* to cheat! I only did it because that person came onto me! And it turns out they were paid to. It's not my fault!" Riiiiiiight. If you're not a cheating spouse, you're not gonna cheat.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25753
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Nippon

Post by Jennifer »

Highway wrote:Besides, how goddamn lame does that make the cheating spouse look? "I didn't *want* to cheat! I only did it because that person came onto me! And it turns out they were paid to. It's not my fault!" Riiiiiiight. If you're not a cheating spouse, you're not gonna cheat.
How admirable does the paranoid "hires a whore or gigolo to seduce her or his spouse to get a bigger divorce settlement" spouse look?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25448
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Nippon

Post by JasonL »

There are no awesome people in that scenario, but everybody owns the actions they took.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 30035
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Nippon

Post by thoreau »

I will obviously never have to make a decision about somebody else's divorce. That said, if I had to make some decision about a couple where one person cheated and the other person hired somebody to seduce them, my decision would probably be to wash my hands of the mess and say to hell with both of them.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25753
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Nippon

Post by Jennifer »

JasonL wrote:There are no awesome people in that scenario, but everybody owns the actions they took.
Which is why I'm asking if the "hire a whore" spouse's actions are ownable, too.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25448
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Nippon

Post by JasonL »

They are, but they don't mean as much. Engaging in extramarital nookie on the sly is the particular act with particular consequences and justifiably so.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18750
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Nippon

Post by lunchstealer »

thoreau wrote:I will obviously never have to make a decision about somebody else's divorce. That said, if I had to make some decision about a couple where one person cheated and the other person hired somebody to seduce them, my decision would probably be to wash my hands of the mess and say to hell with both of them.
Yeah, seems a bit like offsetting penalties to me. Both actions show disregard for the marriage, and thus both should be denied the ability to penalize the other for their actions in the divorce settlement. (note, this is a should/ought, not a legal analysis)
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25753
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Nippon

Post by Jennifer »

lunchstealer wrote:
thoreau wrote:I will obviously never have to make a decision about somebody else's divorce. That said, if I had to make some decision about a couple where one person cheated and the other person hired somebody to seduce them, my decision would probably be to wash my hands of the mess and say to hell with both of them.
Yeah, seems a bit like offsetting penalties to me. Both actions show disregard for the marriage, and thus both should be denied the ability to penalize the other for their actions in the divorce settlement. (note, this is a should/ought, not a legal analysis)
That's pretty much my view, yeah. A plague on both their damned houses (though I still have a skosh more sympathy for the goaded-into-adultery spouse than for the one who hired the hooker).
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 30035
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Nippon

Post by thoreau »

I'm not sure if the penalties should exactly cancel. I just have low enough regard for.both that I don't care. That is different from a considered pronouncement that both sides are equally bad.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25448
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Nippon

Post by JasonL »

Cheating is cheating. Other things are not cheating.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25753
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Nippon

Post by Jennifer »

JasonL wrote:Cheating is cheating. Other things are not cheating.
Cheating is not the only behavior vile enough to be grounds to say "not my fault" in a divorce, though. Other not-cheating things can be just as bad.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29853
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Nippon

Post by Warren »

JasonL wrote:They are, but they don't mean as much. Engaging in extramarital nookie on the sly is the particular act with particular consequences and justifiably so.
Nope
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18750
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Nippon

Post by lunchstealer »

JasonL wrote:Cheating is cheating. Other things are not cheating.
I guess it depends. If spouse had cheated in the past but there wasn't proof, I'd say it's less offsetting. If a spouse never cheated but succumbed once to a situation manipulated by the other spouse specifically to gain favorable circumstances in the divorce that they wanted anyway, then the manipulation strikes me as the greater transgression, because the manipulator is the one who sets out with intent to destroy the marriage for selfish reasons. Marriage, to me, is about trust, and sabotaging your partner's intended fidelity strikes me as a particularly vile way to break that trust. If you don't want to be in the marriage anymore, just fucking ask for a divorce like a grownup, and take the consequences, don't go manipulating things to get yourself an out.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 13794
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Nippon

Post by Highway »

I'd agree about just asking for out of the situation, but also point out that the original happening was in Japan, where people are MUCH less likely to just ask for something they want. And will in fact go to great lengths to avoid a direct confrontation, even with their wife.

And I still think that the cheating is worse than setting up the cheating, whether for money or not. Yeah, it's a shitty test, and it doesn't exactly paint the other person in glory, but there was still a choice that has to be owned up to.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18750
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Nippon

Post by lunchstealer »

Highway wrote:I'd agree about just asking for out of the situation, but also point out that the original happening was in Japan, where people are MUCH less likely to just ask for something they want. And will in fact go to great lengths to avoid a direct confrontation, even with their wife.

And I still think that the cheating is worse than setting up the cheating, whether for money or not. Yeah, it's a shitty test, and it doesn't exactly paint the other person in glory, but there was still a choice that has to be owned up to.
I think I'd be less hurt by finding out that my wife had a moment of weakness with another man than finding out that she was scheming to get me to cheat just so she could get a monetary advantage in a divorce. People have urges, and while it's better to stick to the promise of fidelity we took when we got married, it's understandable, and maybe we could work around it, and it's something I could forgive, even if it ended our marriage. I'm not sure I could forgive the level of contempt for our marriage it would take to try to game the system like that just so she could get out of the marriage more easily. That'd be a whole different level of contempt for me and for the commitment we made to each other.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25693
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Nippon

Post by Mo »

I'm on Team lunchstealer. Offsetting penalties, replay 3rd down. Especially when you throw in the fact that the people they're hiring are actors and models, so are likely to be out of the seducee's league. The moment of weakness strikes me as more of a manslaughter/second degree sort of offense and the premeditated trickery gets into the first degree stuff.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Ayn_Randian
Posts: 10727
Joined: 08 May 2010, 14:58

Re: Nippon

Post by Ayn_Randian »

Guys, in most divorce cases infidelity is irrelevant. I don't know how many states are no fault divorce states, but it's the vast majority, I would wager. Infidelity had no bearing on spousal support aka alimony, no bearing on custody issues, no bearing on child support, and no bearing on equitably dividing marital assets and proving separate property.
It has the effect of making me want desperately to do the opposite of what Green Day is suggesting I should want to do. Billy Joe Whassname may have created a generation of war mongers. - Jason L

Post Reply