Calif. bill would target spouses who hire hit men

[JohnnyLib2]

http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20100614/NEWS/100619923/1055&ParentProfile=1045



A bill scheduled to be heard Tuesday in a state legislative committee seeks to close what its author says is a loophole in the state's no-fault divorce code. In part, the legislation will specify that spouses who solicit the murder of their husband or wife are not entitled to collect financial rewards in divorce proceedings.

The bill was prompted by John Pomroy, a police detective in Pomona, about 30 miles east of Los Angeles. His wife collected about $70,000 from their estate after she was released from prison in 2004.

“If you commit arson on your house, you don't get the insurance money. You go to prison and all sorts of things happen to you,” Pomroy said in an interview. “But if you try to kill someone that is your spouse, the current law allows you to collect something.”

[Bucky]

1. Doesn't this take away some of the incentives to be a faithful, doting life partner?

I mean, if you know all along that your betrothed has a potential financial payoff for having you whacked, doesn't that make you put just a little more effort into keeping the home fires burning?

[Crabby Appleton]

2. It's getting so you can't hardly do anything anymore

without a bunch of whiners making a federal state case out of it.

[Lance_Boyle]

3. Why does CA let those who hire assassins out of prison?

Conspiracy and attempted murder ought to be enough to keep someone locked up long enough to make the divorce issue moot. I guess if CA insists on letting these violent felons out before they die, there might be a need for the new law.

[Jokerman]

4. Gotta make room for those evil pot smokers.

:sarcasm:

[old mark]

5. This is just SO unfair....damn republicans.....nt

[cloudbase]

6. They'll probably want to

charge sales tax on the hit man's fee.

[mitchum]

7. When will this go into effect? I really need to know. Quickly.

[JohnnyLib2]

8. At last, recognition that this is a PSA.

I'll call Ahnold and get the details. :evilgrin:

[surrealAmerican]

9. Has anybody considered the consequences of this change?

Surely this will lead to spouses hiring hit-men on themselves, in their spouses' name to avoid any financial obligations in a subsequent divorce.

[Q3JR4]

10. Huh. This happen a lot in California does it?

I guess it makes sense, given that they're attempting to fix a travesty of justice, but I for one wonder how many people it will actually apply to. Are the lawmakers just currying favor?

Q3JR4.
_{Yeah, yeah, dumb question. I admit it.}

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

11. Is this for any hit men? Or just non-union hit men?

Solidarity forever. Or, until death...

:hi: