The court held on June 14, 1994, that "bigamy" is an unlawful marriage committed by forming a second or subsequent marriage before the original marriage has been lawfully dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been pronounced presumptively dead by a decision delivered in the necessary processes. Under this ruling, there can be no bigamy even if the second marriage is invalid, such as when one partner is too young. There are several factors to be considered in determining whether criminal sanctions should be imposed for what is essentially a civil wrong. First, it must be remembered that the public has a right to expect that its leaders will always act in accordance with the law. Second, while private parties may resolve their disputes through contract, society has an interest in ensuring that those who are placed in a position of authority obey the law and don't use their positions to commit criminal acts. Third, criminal sanctions may have the effect of discouraging others from acting unlawfully. Finally, criminal sanctions provide a more severe punishment than does a civil action. In the case at hand, none of these factors support the imposition of criminal sanctions for what is essentially a civil wrong. The first factor is not relevant because there can be no bigamy even if the second marriage is invalid. As for the other three factors, it can be argued that criminalizing bigamy would have the effect of discouraging people from entering into second marriages, which is contrary to public policy.