Editorial: Senate, Don't Keep Laws You Don't Enforce

On Wednesday, the New Hampshire Senate had the option to repeal a law that criminalizes adultery in the state. Violating the 200-year-old statute originally carried the punishment of being forced to stand on the gallows for an hour with a noose around the neck. That has since been softened to "just" a $1200 fine, but the law is not enforced these days.

So it must have been a pretty easy decision for the Senate, right?

Or not. The Senate voted Wednesday to keep the law on the books, despite the fact that the House had voted for its repeal earlier. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, the main argument against the repeal came from Nashua Democrat Bette Lasky, who said repealing the law could cause problems with civil divorce laws.

"Repealing the statute is problematic without first changing the civil code," she was quoted as saying.

Here's a thought for the Senate: How about we limit our laws to ones we're actually going to enforce? Constituents should know whether or not an action is illegal. They shouldn't have to worry about a gray area where an action is formally illegal, but informally acceptable.

We're sorry if repealing the law would require you to do a little maneuvering with the civil code and increase your workload in Concord. But it seems like having an up-to-date database of the laws we use to decide if people are criminals would be a good idea. Under the current law, those who engage in infidelity are classified as criminals. Last time we checked, New Hampshire wasn't a theocracy.

We don't want the police to crack down on those committing adultery. We want the Senate to crack down on outdated laws like this one.