Lying about adultery can be legal... in Italy

Remove all ads!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7284134.stm

Italy's highest appeal court has ruled that married Italian women who commit adultery are entitled to lie about it to protect their honour.

The court gave its landmark ruling after hearing the case of a 48-year-old woman, convicted of giving false testimony to police by denying she had lent her mobile phone to her lover.

The appeal court did not agree that she had broken the law.

It said bending the truth was justified to conceal extra-marital relationships.

...

The woman who brought the appeal was from Porto Ercole on the Tuscany coast, and named only as Carla.

She had lent her telephone to her secret lover, Giovanni, who then used it to call Carla's estranged husband, Vincenzo, and insult him.

Giovanni, the lover, was convicted of abusive behaviour in a local court, and Carla convicted as an accessory.

But the Court of Cassation found that having a lover was a circumstance that damaged the honour of the person among family and friends.

Lying about it, therefore, was permitted, even in a judicial investigation.

It is not yet clear whether the ruling might also apply to men who have secret mistresses.

The Court of Cassation, which is largely staffed by elderly male appeal judges, has in the past issued a number of controversial judgements.

It once gave a ruling, later rescinded after protests from women's groups, that a woman could not be raped by definition if she was wearing tight jeans, since the jeans could only be removed with her consent.


Any comments? This seems to be a rather curious ruling, to say the least.

 

Curious. Yes. I have to say, the Italians have always seemed a little nutty to me, I'm just not sure who gets the award here.

Nothing against Italians, really, but:

1.) Is it illegal to insult someone in Italy, or is it just over the phone? Are we missing something here?

2.) How does 'protecting one's honor' justify lying to the police? Forget the part where she's cheating on her husband, just any situation in general.

3.) Ok, now remember the part where she's cheating on her husband. How much honor can the person have if they're cheating on their spouses and lying about it to police?

4.)

It had better. If not, the Italains really need to take a closer look at their values and who they allow to be judges.

5.)Unless there's something really screwy going on here, can we reasonably say she knew the boyfriend was going to use the phone to insult her husband? I mean, was she standing there with him and he said "Hey, can I use your phone, I wanna smash your husband a little?" or something? If she didn't know, and couldn't reasonably suspect, is she an accessary at all? If not, why the issue?

 

As far as 1) is concerned, I think many countries have laws against verbal abuse. They are not often invoked, but I believe that at least in my country you can be fined for insults. However, it's possible that it only counts when it's in public, in which case it would be libel of some sort. In any case, though, I believe htat giving someone a tongue-lashing might get you to the courts if they are determined enough - and I'd say getting the lip from your ex's current bedmate can be a great motivation.

2) is the big one imo. I mean, 3) I can more or less live with - it involves some pretty subjective stuff. Not everyone wants all the people around them to know their dirty underwear - like what did you smoke in college, who your previous boyfriends/girlfriends were, etc. That I can understand, although in this case it is being carried quite far. But if you can safely lie to police and courts, then just what is the point of the entire process?

 

A lawyer friend once told me that the only things you should ever say to a police officer are your name and address. Other than that plead the fifth amendment (at least here in the U.S.) and say nothing until you have legal counsel there.

 

Pretty sure in MOST countries, you can be tried for verbal abuse just like any other crime, although this probably constitutes to threats and the like.

I didn't think you could get arrested for something as pathetic as verbal abuse but even here in Aus I've seen it happen countless times.. And not just in crowded public places..

Works pretty much the same here, although I'm not sure if you are entitled any sort of silence here without a lawyer (I've only been arrested twice, and for pathetic charged mind you). But usually as long as you don't say anything, the outcome is usually good lol.

As for the Tuscany incident, I have to admit it DOES seem rather weird how the whole situation was handled, and I AM Italian.. When I stayed in Rome it seemed a lot different how threats were handled (as my friends and I saw a random walking down the street getting abused and authorities just asked him to move on) so I'm guessing it was just the ideals of the Judge(s) or perhaps just how things work there?

 

That's crazy. If you are under oath you should be forced to either answer all questions truthfully or take the 5th (or whatever it is in your country). I can understand not wanting to tell people about it but in a criminal case the truth is paramount.

It says something about how ridiculous these judges are if they seriously believe a woman in tight pants cannot be raped because she'd have to cooperate to get them off. That's among the stupidest things I've ever heard.

 

Hilarious how own unrightful conduct should create rights... As a rule you're entitled to shut up about whatever could cause you to be liable - you or close family, potentially including your lover. In some jurisdictions, they will also hold you entitled to lie in such cases.

I could construe a couple of arguments in the woman's defence regarding this offence, but except for avoidance of own or her lover's criminal responsibility, none would include a claim that the law wasn't broken. Rather that the law was broken but she wasn't criminally responsible.

Generally people shouldn't be forced to confess their crimes to the general public, but the police need to know the facts, oaths are not to be taken lightly either, and, well, certain categories of people should be entitled to certain truths. For example everyone is entitled to know if his or her current or potential lover has any sexually communicable illnesses, a history of sex crimes or domestic violence or even certain disorders. Future spouses of divorced people should be able to know about adultery or at least there should be no way of legally obstructing this information. As for current ones, I'm not entirely sure. They should probably be entitled to know about going affairs, while in case of past transgressions discretion could perhaps be the better way.

Back to the verdict, I don't like it. To build up a bit on what I said before, they could play with compulsion, duress, internal conflict, whatever, but to claim it was the right thing to do is a bit much. Honour is not exactly protected by lying about one's failure to keep it spotless. After all, having a lover is an elective circumstance. The stigma is a natural consequence attached to the act. While I can see why one wouldn't like to share it, I can't see why he should have an actual right to do so - rather than merely going unpunished because of the compelling power of his predicament.

 

I find the verdict absolutely reasonable. I will be accused of being cynical here, but alas.

The probable reasons for her lying lie in the peculiarities of Italian divorce laws. If the woman is 'guilty' of adultery, in divorce she'll be considered the party guilty of wrecking the marriage, and get nothing or very little in alimonies. People have to live. As a result of that, every side in a divorce has an interest to accuse the other of adultery. Talk is cheap, so the other side needs to prove their claims, which easily degrades the procedure into a mudslinging contest as soon as procedures have been opened.
Any woman, or any adulterer (male or female), in (his or) her right mind must approach this like an accused in a criminal trial, she has no reason to incriminate herself - so (he or) she is essentially entitled to lie, at the risk of looking very bad when exposed. We allow that right to every criminal, but refuse that to a divorcing wife? The moralists will probably point out that she could 'plead the fifth' and just shut up, but it is unrealistic to expect such cool morality that in face of an emotionally charged procedure such as a divorce. 'Honour' as part of the argument is just a nice way of stating that it is too much to ask from a woman (or an adulterer) to not only point a gun to (his or) her head but to, please, pull the trigger, too. And also, the rule cuts both ways, it's not a woman's privilege, men are lying and entitled to lie in court just as much, at their own risk. That is just a sober assessment, not an endorsement.

To avoid that Germany has adopted a different approach to divorce: After one year of separate lives the marriage is considered irreparably broken (that fiction can be disproved if the couple want to start over again, after all it's their marriage), alimonies are paid according to the rules in law, and the goods are divided. While this is unfair to those who have been cheated on it is easier to handle for the courts, to an extent. The mudslinging here begins with the allocation of goods and chattels .... "We open today's proceedings with item #146 of 2356 of the contested inventory - three pots with flowers, worth € 0,50 ...."

PS: Also, let's keep in mind that in a Western court marriage is a civil contract, in which the mutual obligations under the contract cannot be enforced with a verdict (just think of the 'marital duties'). In the West adultery is not, or no longer, a criminal offence, for good reason. Sex among adults is a part of the private life. It's nobody else's business. So there is little point in civil courts engaging in the business that criminal courts are no longer allowed to - issuing 'guilty verdicts' on adulterers. That's no longer considered to be an issue courts ought to involve themselves in, and I think that is a good idea.

 

Wow. I agree with Ragusa.

I believe the end of the world is officially at hand.

 

This is a bit off-topic but it is something I have been wondering about for quite some time. What is the deal with alimony? Why should you get paid after you have divorced someone? I am fairly sure that here in Sweden when you get divorced you are once again your own, you split the assets acquired during the marriage and go your separate ways. The parent taking main responsibility for any children is entitled to child support which is a set amount and the same for everyone. No part is supposed to pay the other part after they are divorced, what is the reasoning behind this? I remember a few years back there was this woman divorcing a very wealthy brewer and she must have been watching too many American movies because she started demanding alimony and dragged it to court where it got thrown out. She was an adult person well able to take care of herself there is no legal obligation for someone else to pay her to do nothing.

Can any of you legal people explain to my the reasoning behind the concept of alimony? To me it seems to belittle mostly women thinking they cant take care of themselves and screw over men just because they happen to be financially succesful (the roles can of course be reversed and often are nowadays).

 

Joa,
it's about traditional housewives, who traditionally have no professional education but have focused on raising the kids and keeping the house and who have no chance of getting a qualified job that would support themselves, much less so once they are beyond 40.

I wasn't correct when I said alimonies after the law, alimonies in Germany are mostly a result of judicial practice in interpreting the law rather than detailed regulations in the law itself. That is intentional because it allows to address individual cases individually. In a relevant decision one consideration among German judges was that after a divorce housewives should not go down the social ladder, and that the work they did as a housewife ought to be taken into account for fairness. In a case where the woman has a job that does support them they get less in alimonies. A short duration of the marriage reduces alimonies, too. However, the rules stress self responsibility, so both sides are obliged to seek a job. It's not about support for life. It's temporarily.

Example would be along the lines of: Man earns € 2.500, woman that has been a housewife before takes a job that pays € 750. The base for the calculations would be € 3.250, because her later earnings are considered a surrogate of the work she did when married (raising kids and so forth). According to that she would have a claim for the difference between the half of € 3.250 and her earnings, which is € 875. You get the idea. Kids complicate the calculations and I will spare you that.

Now consider the woman finds or always held a job that gives € 2.500, and do the math yourself

 

I don't think that's entirely reasonable. A woman who had a well-paying job before her marriage and is reasonably capable of achieving a similarly paying job afterward should not recieve alimony, regardless of how much money her husband made. Instead, alimony should be assessed based on the impact to the woman's earning power. Women that quite highschool, college, or graduate school in order to get married and start a family, for example, didn't earn the very vauable degrees that they otherwise would have. Similarly, a woman who has been out of the job market for 15 years raising kids is not going to be able to jump back into her profession at the same pay grade she left, but if she chose to stop working just because she was married and didn't need to (no kids involved) or she maintained a resume-relevant job durring the marriage, her career potential was at all times in her own hands, and she should not recieve alimony.

 

Italy is a fantastic country. Beautiful, friendly people, sexy women and great food, it's such a relaxed place. Had I money to live somewhre else and not have to work, I'd live in a coastal area of Italy, I really enjoyed Sorrento. I'll forgive them their little thing like this, no-one is perfect.

 

Cough. Cough. Do we? It's debatable, actually.

Few scholars debate impunity, but the "right" to lie is just a majority opinion.

Respectfully, I think they actually meant what they said and that means they think lying to protect your reputation is a right, at least in some extreme situations.

Actually, it's pretty much the spouse's business and when it harms one marriage, it harms the community, not to mention the children of the couple. Less damaging things than that are a crime. Adultery should also be a pretty sure-win tort case even in the current legal system, except I'm not sure anyone ever does that.

 

Chev,
it is their marriage. When they break it, it is their problem. I find it sensible to leave the morals and the moral judgement to them instead of imposing it on them to protect the morality of the community. Of course that is a political statement a society has to make, and the majority of Western societies have decided to stay out of that. Germany abolished the offences of adultery and homosexual intercourse in the same year, 1969. And I repeat, it is a sensible idea. We don't need a religious or morality police like they have in Saudi Arabia.

I concede that the Italians may be serious when they talk about the 'honour of the woman' bit, but mind this isn't a divorce procedure but that she was accused of a criminal offence, lying to the police. Even when adultery isn't criminal in Italy any more it would still be self-incrimination.
Generally, when you lie to authorities, you face the risk of adverse consequences when you're exposed. One day in court should teach one that people do lie, do persistently lie and do stupidly lie, and that that's generally a nuisance. But unless they're under oath that is it, and what I meant with impunity is that they aren't punished for that. They lose credibility, which has adverse consequences in itself that can be considered a sanction. And of course, there is fraud, which is a real criminal offence.

Fidelity in marriage cannot be enforced by power of a verdict. What will you do with an adulteress? Stone her as the Saudis do? Or send her to jail? Or leave her without support by her divorced hubby and take her children away? So that it will that teach the other adulterers? What if her hubby beat her, or was an a**hole without beating her, and she committed adultery to find some comfort with someone else? Life is a complex thing.

You're smarter than that. Please mind to separate the Sacrament of Marriage from the civil contract.

 

I'll go check the Hell weather forecast, okay? Stay put. Then again, I've agreed with TGS a few times and it hasn't snowed yet, but you can always hope yours will be the first time.

Nah, don't worry. According to Yahoo, they're only having light drizzle.

Anyway, the idea that someone might be authorized to lie to the police/in court does not sit well with me. I can understand giving written statements or in any other way being provided with a way to make your statements confidential, but to simply be allowed to say whatever you want in court or to the police sounds contrary to what I think the courts and the police exist for in the first place.

 

You misunderstand what I said when I meant 'entitled'.

They aren't authorised to lie and I didn't say that. I said that they aren't punished for lying. There is little way to sanction lying short of putting people under oath, or putting them under special obligations (like obliging a head of a company to report risk of bankruptcy, or being truthful to the tax office).

I see little point in criminalising people's weaselling about their extramarital affairs, that aren't even criminal acts, because they violated procedural rules when covering them up. And truth telling in investigations of crimes primarily serves procedural purposes. Same thing with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski. My view is that it is nobody else's business what Bill did with his interns as long as they consented. To put him under oath to force him to tell a thing that the questioners had no right to know, and to them impeach him for lying appears preposterous to me. If somebody asks me a question he has no right to ask I am entitled to lie. Period. That is why woman are entitled to lie to their employers or prospective employers when they ask impertinent questions like whether they want to get pregnant, like to hump around like merry bunnies or if they like anal sex. Now one can start discussing whether this reasoning applies to a Grand Jury. I do think so. Frankly, consenting marital or extramarital conduct is no crime, and thus no business for Grand Juries or the police. Even though in the US it is iirc a criminal offence to lie to federal officers. But even with that the prohibition of forced self-incrimination still stands.

And in Italy self-incrimination is to be understood broadly. Insofar, the 'honour of a woman' argument, if taken serious, in a sense sheds an amusing light on Italian society - adultery is ok as long as you are discreet about it, and that includes not telling anybody and not having to tell anybody. Maybe that's as good as it realistically can get. The verdict in question reinforces that view. It probably reflects Italian mentality. It also sounds realistic and sober.

 

Pacta sunt servanda, Rags. Marriage is a valid legal oath. It's not just a matter of arranging who one sleeps with.

Vide supra.

We don't quite need policemen dealing with evidence of adultery, if you catch what I mean, nor do we need provocations and the like. And in fact life could be a bit more beautiful without private detectives dabbling with it, too. Except adultery is still adultery and not, "a fact you need to accept." Up to this day we have mores in civil law and that's sensible. Blurring the distinction between what's good and what's bad is never a good idea.

Perhaps, but what they meant by honour was, I think, closer to reputation or good name.

"Complex" is no excuse for "bad". The fact a life situation is complex is not a free hand to commit criminal acts or otherwise wrong people. It reduces culpability for sure, but it's no green light.

What if hubby beat her, you ask? That's battery. Hello, Mr Jail-Warden. Or, more likely, a fine or a suspended sentence, but still. Separate subject.

As for what penalty, I'd honestly rather see her forgiven by her husband and allowed a second chance. However, perhaps having adultery on the list of offences could help reduce it?

Perhaps not.

But it feels right to have the law attach some sanctions to it. Not like I'm a fan of divorce, mind you.

Rags...

Okay. The difference may be seen as semantics by some, but it actually exists. It's one thing when we don't punish and another when we say it was an okay thing to do. But since the point is moot...

Not really... The primary purpose of investigation belongs to substantive law. That's finding out what happened and meting out justice - that's what substantive criminal law is about. The fact we get there through evidence and rules of evidence is another thing.

Who's to verify the consent? Abusing in any way a position of authority when obtaining sexual gratification is a crime in most jurisdictions.

Nope, Rags, sorry. You're entitled to tell them to get off it and in fact you may be entitled under natural law to stay silent when they ask you pursuant to positive law. This is as far as you'll get from me. On the other hand, lying is a whole different thing.

Nope, sorry, they aren't. This doesn't mean the employer has the right to ask this kind of questions. Cases of that go up to the ECJ.

That actually verges on criminal offence for the employer. There are provisions in criminal law, civil law and labour law to deal with such behaviour. Still doesn't mean there's any right to lie. "I believe you're being a bit too forward," is a fair answer.

Rags, there's a fundamental difference between the marital and the extra-marital, so let's not blur things here.

Yup. It sounds seriously wrong - as if your honour is affected not when you do something but rather when it comes to daylight.