February 11, 2003
IT CUTS DOWN ON RECIDIVISM:
Cheatin' husband didn't merit death (JACQUIELYNN FLOYD, 02/11/2003, The Dallas Morning News)David Harris isn't around to defend himself, but the available evidence suggests that he may have been a bit of a jerk, that he was vain and selfish and shallow.He cheated on his wife, then candidly told her he was entitled because his girlfriend nagged him less and had a better body. He told his wife that, by comparison, she was loud and pushy and fat, that she paid too much attention to the kids.
He grudgingly agreed to end the affair to keep his marriage and family together. But instead, on the evening of the promised breakup, he took his girlfriend to a hotel room--in the same hotel where his wedding had been held 10 years earlier.
You can't blame David Harris' wife for being mad. He was a jerk.
But being a jerk isn't a capital offense. David Harris, a prosperous orthodontist, was killed on the spot in the hotel parking lot by his wife, Houston dentist Clara Harris. She ran over him either once (according to the defense) or at least three times (according to the prosecution) with her silver Mercedes-Benz. She knelt on the pavement and apologized to her crushed, bloody husband while he died.
He's the one who should have apologized. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 11, 2003 8:49 PM
OK, you're going to have to explain this one to me. I thought it was only in the Muslim world that adultery was punishable by death. Are you saying that now, in America, not only is the penalty the same but it's enforceable by self-appointed vigilantes? At least in Pakistan they have to round up the whole village...
Posted by: Harry Tolen at February 11, 2003 9:09 PMAgreed. What's next? Forget to take out the trash and get a shotgun blast in the chest?
Posted by: Dreadnought at February 11, 2003 9:21 PMI have no problem with one spouse whacking another who's philandering.
Posted by: oj at February 11, 2003 9:52 PMBe careful you don't allow an innocent business meeting to be misinterpreted then, Orrin.
Posted by: Harry at February 11, 2003 10:01 PMAn innocent meeting in a hotel room with a woman-not-my-wife? You're the Darwinist; wouldn't the gene pool be improved by shooting anyone that stupid?
Posted by: oj at February 11, 2003 10:31 PMReminds me of that great line from Phil Gramm (I think) during the Former First Felon's impeachment:
"If I ever did that to my wife, next morning I'd wake up in a pool of my own blood to the sound of her asking, 'How do you reload this thing?'"
Sorry Brother Orrin but I have to disagree with you on this one. Adultry is hardcore bad but there is no excuse for killing your spouse, male or female. It's even more sickening to kill your spouse when your child is in the car at the same time.
Thou shall not kill wasn't a suggestion.
It's Thou shalt not murder.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at February 12, 2003 6:54 AMMr. Hendershot:
Great line, but it was Dick Armey.
Steven:
In fact, it was the case, though may not still be, in Texas that killing a spouse caught in the act was a crime of passion and not even actionable.
Ali:
Yes, kind of amusing to hear conservatives, who applaud every liquor store owner who shoots a wino stealing MD/20-20, express shock when a wife administers justice.
Adultery shouldn't be justification for murder. (My wife does not share my opinion for some strange reason). But he was a complete mind boggling rat according to the testimony coming out.
So lets split the difference. Find her guilty of murder, but give a light sentence, say five years. Everyone's happy. So sayeth Solomon.
B.O.:
He actually had a contract whereby he agreed to his own killing: "to honor" ... "'til death do us part" "so help me God".
He dishonored, breaking a solemn oath, and death parted them.
Would it have been right for her to kill the woman as well? I'm wondering if aiding and abetting marital oathbreaking should also be a capital offense.
Posted by: PatrickH at February 12, 2003 10:07 AMPatrick:
She was not bound by a similar vow, though as a juror I'd have accepted her as collateral damage.
My course on contract law did not get to the chapter
on killing contract breakers. My bad, I guess.
Orrin, I've known of people who had innocent
business luncheons who were fingered for
adultery for it. Make sure it doesn't happen
to you or wear a bulletproof undershirt.
Might not help against a Benz, though
Harry:
It's a tort, of course, when it's interference with a marriage, but the tradition of not prosecuting those who kill adulterous spouses is a function of the Common Law and the States' criminal laws.
On O'Reilly last night they had a defense attorney that said in Texas there is a "Sudden Passion" argument for the penalty phase of a first degree murder conviction. A man who killed his wife in a similar fit receivd 10 years probation. I bet Ms. Harris gets similar relief.
Posted by: brad at February 12, 2003 2:45 PMHarry:
It's even the law in HI:
http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/1026/Alienation_of_affections_--_Law_suits.html
Wow, what's not to love about this thread? We've got medieval moralists (Death to adulterers! Jeh*vah Akhbar!), incitement to irresponsible gun ownership/use (that stupid Dick Armey "joke"), and snide ad hominem attacks on the opposition (paraphrasing: conservatives who cheer when a shoplifting wino is shot are hypocrites for not agreeing that this is justifiable homicide).
As someone living in the 21st Century, who supports the death penalty for murderers, who is a responsible gun owner, and who does not advocate the gunning down of shoplifting winos, all three of these things honk me off. I don't want killing people trivialized for fun and profit, I don't want my guns taken away because some slack-jawed yokels know from nothing about gun safety, and I don't like having snide insinuations made about me by either left or right.
Harry T:
Well, there's your problem: what's so great about the 21st Century?
Well, me not getting burned at the stake for apostasy, heresy, iconoclasm, and being a smart-aleck, for one.
Posted by: Harry Tolen at February 12, 2003 5:21 PMIs it just me, or do I detect some rather sly leg-pulling in this thread on Orrin's part?
Not that he doesn't believe what he's saying, of course!
PatrickH:
Luckily the two aren't mutually exclusive.
When I was a boy in North Carolina, shooting a cheating spouse was regarded as a husband's right or privilege, but only if he caught the pair in flagrante.
A bit earlier, in Tennessee, it was not necessary to catch them in the act.
However, this applied only for husbands. Aggrieved wives didn't get the same consideration.
Common Law traditions or not, in Hawaii killing your roaming spouse nowadays is always prosecuted, usually as second-degree murder. In my county, at least, these charges stick, are never bargained down to manslaughter.