Review questions from Chapter 3

1. Now that divorce is readily available, should we change some of the benefits and obligations that accompany marriage? In the Goodridgecase, the judges listed the many legal rights that flow from the marital status. In most cases, state governments instituted these provisions when marriage was more commonly a lifelong commitment. Should the legislature reconsider some of these rules, or perhaps require the marriage to exist for a set number of years before some of these legal rights take effect? Which legal ramifications of marriage, if any, should be changed and how might these changes be written? What are the unintended consequences, if any, from modifying the usual array of legal rights and obligations?

2.Divorce proceedings once required labeling one party as the plaintiff and the other as the defendant.With the advent of no-fault divorce, the legal community suggested these labels should be changed to complainant and respondent,to avoid any stigma that might attach to the term defendant.Should we do more to desensitize the divorce process, perhaps by treating it more like the termination of a contract and less like the failure of an intimate relationship? In what specific ways could the legal process be changed to decrease the stigma of divorce or the animosity between the divorcing partners? In what ways is the solution a legal issue and in what ways is it a public perception or societal norm issue?

3. As noted in Chapter 1, divorce cases do not usually qualify for a jury trial; instead, the judge is charged with the task of using sound judicial discretion as he or she applies the law to the complex nature of each marital dissolution. A plaintiff is more likely to have a jury in a tort case. The three cases in this chapter in some ways are hybrids of family law and tort law. In each, the wife sought a legal remedy separate from the divorce itself for alleged mistreatment. If the claims were solely allegations of personal injury, and if each asserted a legal claim recognized in the jurisdiction’s laws, a jury may have been appropriate. However, the federal Constitution does not mandate a jury trial in all litigation. In cases with a valid legal cause of action, such as Mrs. Neal’s claim for civil battery, what arguments would support or negate the view that a jury trial would be the more appropriate way to resolve the case? Putting aside any costs to the judicial system and focusing more on due process, in what ways, if any could the outcome be more trustworthy if the spouses had a full hearing before a jury rather than a judge?