The problem with this approach is that it is designed to appease the ''injured'' parent; if there were no children involved it might work, but it is not child-focussed and where children are involved it is important to maintain their relationship with both parents, regardless of how inconvenient or undesirable that may be for the parents themselves.
What Mike said, to go back to fault based divorce in its true sense would be a disaster, we would be talking trial and mud slinging and a great deal of damage to familys.
There are still country''s were lets say an adulterer gets nothing, and can be sent to prison, but we are talking parts of the world were you can be held without trial and have the death sentence, many of what are considered progressive lands model their judicial system on our own, particularly criminal.
Since 1973 conduct plays little if any part in financial settlements for many reasons, we had a very good solicitor help on wiki for a while, Mr Cowel, he used an example of what conduct would be accounted, so we have a super model with a great future, her husband in a rage slashed her face with a knife, her carer is over, this action financially disadvantaged her for life, as such the judge could compensate her if income and assets exist, and rightly so, another real example seen on wiki was a guy who discovered his wife had amassed huge gambling debts, even borrowing money from his parents claiming it was her husband with the problem but to embarrassed to ask!, what was left after paying the debt went to the guy who also was looking after the children, again rightly so.
The law we have right now is really based on respective needs, childrens needs are often the primary concern.
In short money is divided for the benefit of the family, well that was the idea, of course there are problems but these are usually born of dishonest people, a judge is often between a rock and a hard place trying to work out who is actually being honest when it comes to money.
Of course there are moral problems, if your a man or a woman who`s spouse has diddled a football/netball team your not going to be happy at the thought of the financial loss on top of the loss of a spouse, but law is about making the best of a bad job.
I can''t see how there could be mud slinging. If you want to leave the marriage that is fine - go but make no claims on the children or the assets accrued in the marriage. If someone commits violence or adultery, you lose everything. Likewise this is a pretty black or white situation and I can''t see where the mud slinging would come in. If anything this would seem to be a much more straightforward approach than the current system which sets up solicitors against each other to maximise financial awards for each party.
I can''t see that you can equate sentencing without trial with divorce - it''s a completely different situation.
In your two examples I would suggest the model gets everything from the marriage, the other party nothing because of the violence. In the second case - who was it who wanted to end the marriage?
Regardless of whether or not that arrangement was in the children''s best interests? As has already been pointed out, your proposal is very much focused on the "injured" party/parent, rather than being focused on the children.