Accepting the notion that this man’s actions were justifiable because it was his wife is very old, very traditional and very southern. You’re not going to pawn it off on liberalism. Crime of passion and alienation of affection were or are still laws on the books in some parts of the country. It would also be very old, traditional and southern for the man whose house he entered to have blown his head off for doing so, but the fact that he was screwing that man’s wife would make such an action just as dishonorable as screwing his wife. There are clear moral distinctions, just because you don’t accept them yourself doesn’t mean they don’t exist, speaking of liberal thought.
I am not pawning off liberalism, you are, and the fact you aren’t able to see it is mind boggling.
You are making a complete moral relevancy argument, this wrong act is worse that this wrong act, ergo the person who engages in the lesser wrong act has no consequences for doing so.
That’s complete moral relevancy and liberalism 101 my friend. You need to look in the mirror, the fact you can’t see the argument you are making is the very backbone of modern liberalism is astounding.
This man would be convicted in the deepest part of the bible belt, to think he will walk is self delusion. Which, since you can’t see that you are making the most complete liberal argument for your stand, I have to assume you have a lot of.
A “crime of passion” is still a CRIME... and no it does not absolve the person who committed that crime from facing the consequences for their actions. A “crime of passion” legally does NOT absolve the person for facing the consequences of their illegal action. Generally its used to remove premeditation from consideration for the punishment for their actions.
In this particular case, even “crime of passion” is not likely to even be relevant because this is not a situation where a husband walks into his own home and unexpected walks into his wife being unfaithful, and just reacts to a situation he did not expect a second before. This is an act of a man who showed lots of premeditation and engaged in a series of acts, all of them bad decisions, and many of them illegal over an extended course of time.
So, your line of argument is frankly uninformed and not relevant legally.
As to alienation of affections, that my friend is a CIVIL law, which means hubby is free to sue the man she is being unfaithful with for damages, but it doesn’t put him in jail and it doesn’t give him any right to enter his home without permission.