CathInfo.com

If there's a clause, as you said, to void the terms of the prenup if a husband abuses his wife, then the wife need merely claim abuse to void the prenup.

These are just childish arguments.  A claim of abuse is not the same thing as abuse.  A claim of violence is not the same thing as a beating.  In a court of law, evidence is king.  Nothing will happen without evidence.  

Maybe the husband is thrown into jail for alleged domestic violence. Maybe his children are taken away for a short time.  This is NOT the final say; this is not the end of the case.  This is all short term crap that a husband would have to go through when dealing with a dishonest wife and is FURTHER evidence that the court system is against him and why a prenup is necessary.  But once lawyers get involved and the husband has the chance to defend himself (which he cannot do when cops are called on him at 1am), the the truth will come out and a lack of evidence, per the prenup, will give him a fighting chance.  

I don’t really like to think about all these “worse case” scenarios, and to think about evil spouses, but y’all are surprisingly pessimistic and naive to think that a legal docuмent, signed by both spouses, wouldn’t make a difference in court.  OF COURSE IT WOULD!  Courts take signed docuмents VERY seriously!

These are just childish arguments.  A claim of abuse is not the same thing as abuse.

In divorce court it most certainly is.  I've seen that exact scenario played out ... even when the husband was acquitted in the criminal case.  I have a relative who had the charge reduce to a minor disorderly conduct and then had the divorce judge use the alleged abuse against him in the divorce proceedings.  You're just blowing smoke without any first-hand knowledge of how these things go down.  Men are convicted of rape all the time based simply on the alleged victim's word.

even when the husband was acquitted in the criminal case.

If its not criminal abuse then the prenup penalties stand.  Abuse would not VOID the prenup, it would just trigger the different clauses in the docuмent.  

If two parties sign a lease and they go to court over a disagreement, the judge does not void the contract, he makes a decision based on the terms of the lease.  Have you ever watched “people’s court”?  The judge has to honor what was signed, unless criminal law trumps it.  

If there’s no criminal laws broken then it’s a civil case and a prenup agreement would bind the judge to consider its terms.  Now he could rule in favor of an immoral wife, or in favor of the husband or some combo thereof.  More than likely, he would urge a settlement and would delay, delay, delay in hopes the lawyers reached a settlement.  

The over-arching point of the ENTIRE discussion is that a prenup gives a husband a fighting chance at justice.  It’s not a guarantee, not a slam dunk win, not an iron-clad argument, but it’s damn sure better than going to divorce court with nothing but hope in an unjust, woman-loving world.  You can punch holes all day in the idea but it’s better than the alternative. 

The woman doesn’t need a prenup and signing one doesn’t even hurt her because at worst, she’ll get nothing from the husband and a bunch of $ from the govt.  At best, she'll get most of her former husband’s $ + govt assistance too.