Current Events > In Sweden, if you beat your partner, your sentence is reduced if they cheated

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/qs/den-otrogna-kvinnan-far-skylla-sig-sjalv/

Essentially there's a Supreme Court case here from 1990 (still used as precedent), saying that the partner cheating is extenuating circumstances.

Quite obviously this is angled as misogynist since most domestic abuse is done by men on women. Let's see what CE thinks! I would say this is a piece of evidence that there's a patriarchy "even in Sweden". I expect some to disagree, and yet others to think that a precedent like this is fair. What do you think?
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXRN_LkCa_o" data-time="
---

One thing to be considered here is that abusive behavior can very well drive a spouse into cheating. With a legal precedent such as this, you essentially trap the victim in an abusive relationship that is already very difficult to get out of. Because if the abuser suspects that the victim is unfaithful, he's somehow justified in his behavior, legally speaking. If that's not a patriarchal structure then I don't know what is.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxLp2RKXosM" data-time="
---

How much is it reduced by?

scar the 1 posted...

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/qs/den-otrogna-kvinnan-far-skylla-sig-sjalv/

Essentially there's a Supreme Court case here from 1990 (still used as precedent), saying that the partner cheating is extenuating circumstances.

Quite obviously this is angled as misogynist since most domestic abuse is done by men on women. Let's see what CE thinks! I would say this is a piece of evidence that there's a patriarchy "even in Sweden". I expect some to disagree, and yet others to think that a precedent like this is fair. What do you think?

It would only be a patriarchy if it wasn't the same if it was a woman beating on a man. It seems there is no such discrimination in that law.
---

Modifier posted...

It would only be a patriarchy if it wasn't the same if it was a woman beating on a man. It seems there is no such discrimination in that law.

While I agree with that specific point, it can still be seen as misogynistic because of the aforementioned gulf between male-on-female violence and the converse. Its more likely men will be able to take advantage of the ruling with no consideration given for the victim.

---

Solid Sonic posted...

Its more likely men will be able to take advantage of the ruling with no consideration given for the victim.

You can't possibly know that.
---

JE19426 posted...

How much is it reduced by?

Unclear, the article I linked has three anecdotes, where the rubric of the crime was changed to a lesser one because the unfaithfulness was regarded as a provocation.

Modifier posted...

It would only be a patriarchy if it wasn't the same if it was a woman beating on a man. It seems there is no such discrimination in that law.

Well, no. When the context is that women are overwhelmingly more often victims of domestic violence, the end result of a legal precedent like this is that it favors men. And that's ultimately the point - you don't judge it based on intentions, you judge it based on its effect. If the effect is that it favors men, it's a patriarchal structure.

Keep in mind, there's no known point in time when things were different, i.e., that the victims of domestic abuse weren't overwhelmingly women. It's always been that way. So this legal precedent was made in that context.
---

So wait

It's against women because... men use it more

scar the 1 posted...

JE19426 posted...

How much is it reduced by?

Unclear, the article I linked has three anecdotes, where the rubric of the crime was changed to a lesser one because the unfaithfulness was regarded as a provocation.

Modifier posted...

It would only be a patriarchy if it wasn't the same if it was a woman beating on a man. It seems there is no such discrimination in that law.

Well, no. When the context is that women are overwhelmingly more often victims of domestic violence, the end result of a legal precedent like this is that it favors men. And that's ultimately the point - you don't judge it based on intentions, you judge it based on its effect. If the effect is that it favors men, it's a patriarchal structure.

Keep in mind, there's no known point in time when things were different, i.e., that the victims of domestic abuse weren't overwhelmingly women. It's always been that way. So this legal precedent was made in that context.

So, women have to be privileged with regards to the law so that they can have "equality"?
---

SilverDragoon1 posted...

So wait

It's against women because... men use it more

uh, yeah?
---

Modifier posted...

So, women have to be privileged with regards to the law so that they can have "equality"?

I wouldn't call the removal of this precedent any sort of privilege.
---

Bump
---

The US does something similar with some crimes. Circumstances reduce charges.

OctilIery posted...

The US does something similar with some crimes. Circumstances reduce charges.

That circumstances can reduce charges isn't necessarily a bad thing per se, it's more that these particular circumstances shouldn't. Not in general, and especially because they might very well be caused by the abuse in the first place.
---

Ever been cheated on OP?

I havent in probably a decade, but definitely saw red when I found out.

Granted, I didnt attack my ex-partner, and still wouldnt today.

But I can see how it may increase the likelihood.
---

My grandfather-in-law shot and killed his wife's boytoy in their bed. Think he only got a year in jail cause they said he was so angry he wasn't in his right mind.

He's got a "girlfriend'' in South America or something now. Probably for the best.
---

I recently learned that "Rule of thumb" derives from the belief that English law allowed a man to beat his wife with a stick, as long as it is was no thicker than his thumb.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Quite obviously this is angled as misogynist since most domestic abuse is done by men on women.

Wouldn't it also defend on the rates of cheating between men and women? Since I'm guessing the burden of proof is on the accused to prove the other party cheated
---

Eh, two unjustified actions deserve to be pitted against each other.

Modifier posted...

scar the 1 posted...

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/qs/den-otrogna-kvinnan-far-skylla-sig-sjalv/

Essentially there's a Supreme Court case here from 1990 (still used as precedent), saying that the partner cheating is extenuating circumstances.

Quite obviously this is angled as misogynist since most domestic abuse is done by men on women. Let's see what CE thinks! I would say this is a piece of evidence that there's a patriarchy "even in Sweden". I expect some to disagree, and yet others to think that a precedent like this is fair. What do you think?

It would only be a patriarchy if it wasn't the same if it was a woman beating on a man. It seems there is no such discrimination in that law.

Take your reading comprehension and get the fuck out. Youre in the wrong neighborhood, there isnt supposed to be any intelligent discussion here.
---

scar the 1 posted...

OctilIery posted...

The US does something similar with some crimes. Circumstances reduce charges.

That circumstances can reduce charges isn't necessarily a bad thing per se, it's more that these particular circumstances shouldn't. Not in general, and especially because they might very well be caused by the abuse in the first place.

It depends on the circumstances. I can definitely think of situations where learning you were cheated on can justify reducing sentencing for domestic assault, and also situations where it can't.

Crimes of passion are a thing in the US as well...
---

lww99 posted...

Ever been cheated on OP?

I have, yeah. Why?

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

My grandfather-in-law shot and killed his wife's boytoy in their bed. Think he only got a year in jail cause they said he was so angry he wasn't in his right mind.

That's messed up.

teepan95 posted...

Wouldn't it also defend on the rates of cheating between men and women? Since I'm guessing the burden of proof is on the accused to prove the other party cheated

I'm not sure but I can't really imagine that it would have to meet the same standard of beyond reasonable doubt, since it's not actually being tried.

OctilIery posted...

I can definitely think of situations where learning you were cheated on can justify reducing sentencing for domestic assault

I can't.
---

MabusIncarnate posted...

I recently learned that "Rule of thumb" derives from the belief that English law allowed a man to beat his wife with a stick, as long as it is was no thicker than his thumb.

That's a folk tale. There's no evidence to support that idea.

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

My grandfather-in-law shot and killed his wife's boytoy in their bed. Think he only got a year in jail cause they said he was so angry he wasn't in his right mind

Blood to clean a sullied bed eh? Not bad.

scar the 1 posted...

I can't

You aren't trying then.

OctilIery posted...

scar the 1 posted...

OctilIery posted...

The US does something similar with some crimes. Circumstances reduce charges.

That circumstances can reduce charges isn't necessarily a bad thing per se, it's more that these particular circumstances shouldn't. Not in general, and especially because they might very well be caused by the abuse in the first place.

It depends on the circumstances. I can definitely think of situations where learning you were cheated on can justify reducing sentencing for domestic assault, and also situations where it can't.

Wut
---

OctilIery posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I can't

You aren't trying then.

Or you're just trying too hard to justify something that shouldn't be.
---

MabusIncarnate posted...

I recently learned that "Rule of thumb" derives from the belief that English law allowed a man to beat his wife with a stick, as long as it is was no thicker than his thumb.

No.

The only "evidence" to this was a judge supposedly making the statement and then being soundly mocked for such idiocy as it has never been a thing.
---

If she cheats she deserves to get her ass beaten, separate or divorce instead of cheating on your partner.
---

Offworlder1 posted...
yikes
---

When there are better ways to find a new partner cheating in the current year is plain stupid.
---

MabusIncarnate posted...

I recently learned that "Rule of thumb" derives from the belief that English law allowed a man to beat his wife with a stick, as long as it is was no thicker than his thumb.

That isn't actually true. The actual usage of that term for that phrase predates that folk origin by at least 100 years.

Also, in regard to the topic question, I give it a fair next. If you're caught cheating on your spouse, then it's your own fault if they lay hands on you.
---

Bio1590 posted...

OctilIery posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I can't

You aren't trying then.

Or you're just trying too hard to justify something that shouldn't be.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm saying there are situations that could be justified and we don't have enough info to say more.

shockthemonkey posted...

There is no reason to physical attack someone because they cheated on you.

You clearly have never been cheated on.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

OctilIery posted...

Bio1590 posted...

OctilIery posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I can't

You aren't trying then.

Or you're just trying too hard to justify something that shouldn't be.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm saying there are situations that could be justified and we don't have enough info to say more.

There is no reason to physical attack someone because they cheated on you.

No, but there is reason to be more understanding of the circumstances sometimes, thus reducing the sentence.

OctilIery posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

OctilIery posted...

Bio1590 posted...

OctilIery posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I can't

You aren't trying then.

Or you're just trying too hard to justify something that shouldn't be.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm saying there are situations that could be justified and we don't have enough info to say more.

There is no reason to physical attack someone because they cheated on you.

No, but there is reason to be more understanding of the circumstances sometimes, thus reducing the sentence.

No.

It doesn't give you reason to attack someone and should definitely not lower the sentence, or you are just excusing domestic abuse and making people feel they have the right to beat their spouse along with adding to the fear of people not coming forth as "they will have deserved it, so who is going to listen?"
---

People that are defending beating partners that cheat. People that I have previously tagged as sexist. There is a large overlap here. Gee, I wonder why that is.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

OctilIery posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

OctilIery posted...

Bio1590 posted...

OctilIery posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I can't

You aren't trying then.

Or you're just trying too hard to justify something that shouldn't be.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm saying there are situations that could be justified and we don't have enough info to say more.

There is no reason to physical attack someone because they cheated on you.

No, but there is reason to be more understanding of the circumstances sometimes, thus reducing the sentence.

No, there isnt. Adults who cant control themselves when they get emotional dont deserve to be out in society.

So how's that black and white worldview working out for you?

shockthemonkey posted...

I feel like being emotionally motivated to kill someone should increase the charge. Like if your inability to keep your emotions in check leads to murder then stay the fuck behind bars.

I know you arent very smart nor familiar with the legal system but the idea is a reasonable person would be furious and unable to make a rational decision in the situation.

You come home, your wife just drowned 2 of 3 of your kids, shes drowning the third kid. What would a reasonable person do? Hit her and make her stop? Just wait for her to murder the last kid and tell her she cant do that?
---

I think shockthemonkey is either very sheltered, or trolling at this point.
---

EdgeMaster posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

I feel like being emotionally motivated to kill someone should increase the charge. Like if your inability to keep your emotions in check leads to murder then stay the fuck behind bars.

I know you arent very smart not familiar with the legal system but the idea is a reasonable person would be furious and unable to make a rational decision in the situation.

You come home, your wife just drowned 2 of 3 of your kids, shes drowning the third kid. What would a reasonable person do? Hit her and make her stop? Just wait for her to murder the last kid and tell her she cant do that?

That isn't even remotely the same to cheating and the fact you try to say they are is frankly just offensive.
---

Funkydog posted...

OctilIery posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

OctilIery posted...

Bio1590 posted...

OctilIery posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I can't

You aren't trying then.

Or you're just trying too hard to justify something that shouldn't be.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm saying there are situations that could be justified and we don't have enough info to say more.

There is no reason to physical attack someone because they cheated on you.

No, but there is reason to be more understanding of the circumstances sometimes, thus reducing the sentence.

No.

It doesn't give you reason to attack someone and should definitely not lower the sentence, or you are just excusing domestic abuse and making people feel they have the right to beat their spouse along with adding to the fear of people not coming forth as "they will have deserved it, so who is going to listen?"

No, I'm not. I'm saying bad decisions are easier to make under high emotions, so it's more understandable and less heinous but still a bad decision. Nor am I saying every case would be the same, in many those circumstances shouldn't reduce it at all, in some they should raise the sentence.

Circumstances matter a lot. Holding someone accountable but acknowledging their rightful emotions isn't the same as excusing their actions.

Yeah and again: Even if there were circumstances where violence might be more understandable in cases of cheating (there aren't), how are we supposed to know which behavior was first? Like, if someone being abusive pushes the partner to cheat, then how is it extenuating? And before you say "why can't they just leave", keep in mind that it's not so easy or even safe to leave an abusive partner.
---