Why? Are women less responsible for their actions than men?

You're missing Orrin's point (when it comes to social and sexual issues, that's so frequent as to hardly be worth commenting on :) ). What he means is that the husband, presumably the instigator of the adulterous affair, was the primary offender against Mrs. Munoz. It's not that the mistress was any less responsible, it's that the husband was most to blame. I wouldn't go so far as to echo Orrin's opinion that he's the one who should have been shot, but certainly he's the one who should have received the lion's share of the opprobium.

Jeff:

What vow did she break and who did she betray?

Jeff:

Yes.

Joe:

Why is the husband presumably the instigator? You make the same, automatic, assumption OJ did here. It is certainly well within the realm of reason (and my experience, three times--while I was still single--married women attempted to instigate affairs with me) for a woman to initiate such a thing. If she did, then the responsibility balance changes, doesn't it?

Unless you view women as passive victims, then you pretty much have to award them equal responsibility--and blame--for any act in which they are a willing participant.

Peter:
She aided and abetted the husband in betraying the wife.

You are a lawyer. How does the law treat co-conspirators?

Jeff:

You are a boon to wayward husbands. "Honey, I done you wrong, but I wasn't the instigator. Let's blame her and move on."

I dimly remember from my criminal law class a lengthy discussion about "battered wife syndrome," some sort of "temporary mental illness" that causes women to shoot adulterous husbands.

"Temporary mental illness" being feminist-lawyer-babble for "the SOB needed killin', but we're too squeamish to say so."

Modern law can't make up its mind whether women are delicate wilting flowers that are victimized by everything and can't be held responsible for their actions lashing out against the patriarchy, or whether they're just men in skirts because gender is a mere social construct.

Random:

The law can't make up its mind because we can't either and never could.

An observant Jewish friend once told me that some of the ancient Hebrew versions of Genecis can best be translated as "And G-d created woman to oppose man." I have no idea if he is right, but it would explain a lot if he were.

Peter B: The law can't make up its mind because both of those propositions (i.e., women are oppressed and therefore irresponsible, and women are interchangeable with men) are nuts.

BTW, a supportive press release on the lady in question from her previous parole hearing in July. Apparently her supporters think her case looks better if she was trying to kill her husband rather than his paramour.

http://freebatteredwomen.org/munozarticle1.htm

I wonder if Orrin supports whacking people who don't fulfilll their pledges to, say, United Way.

Orrin, opinions like yours are why the Europeans hate us so much (especially the French). Wives whacking their wayward husbands? Who would be left to take care of their elderly parents when the a/c goes out?

Harry:

United Way pledges are comparable to wedding vows in your mind?

Orrin:

You actually had to ask?

Harry-

A distinction without a difference?

There was a film entitled (I think) "As Good as it Gets" starring Jack Nicholson, in which he plays a popular, but curmodgeonly, author. At one point in the film, a starry-eyed intern working for his publisher asks: "How do you write such convincing female characters?"

His acidic reply: "I write a male character, then remove all accountability."

Women are capable of causing all sorts of relationship mayhem, which is why they view each other as their most fearsome threats.

Oh, only whack 'em if the pledge is for over, say, $1,000?

It isn't the pledger's honor that counts, only the subject pledged?

If so, why bother?

No, the pledge doesn't matter, period. Unless they swore to God that they'd fulfill it. Then it's okay to whack them.

Harry:

Maybe you are right and they are the same. I guess that's why we see so many gripping murder mysteries based upon the tragedy of people who renege on their charitable pledges.

"Modern law can't make up its mind whether women are delicate wilting flowers that are victimized by everything and can't be held responsible for their actions lashing out against the patriarchy, or whether they're just men in skirts because gender is a mere social construct."

When you realize that feminists can play either card depending on the situation, you will understand their complete intellectual vacuity.

Good thing for his economic adviser, who is living in sin with a woman not his wife, although he has a wife, that Arnie is not Orrin, nor Orrin Arnie.