Should a spouse have to pay support to an ex-spouse who raped them during the marriage?

Of course not. On a tangent,“We in the district attorney’s office are a voice for the voiceless.” – yeah right, my ass. They’re sure going to milk the hell out of this one, aren’t they? Have they forgotten that we’re not even yet at actual redefinition of rape in this country that goes beyond ‘must have stuck penis into a vagina’ thing?

No one should ever have to support their abuser.

It seems to me that this should be an obvious extension of the law that prohibits felons from profiting from their crime. The spousal support is a result of the divorce, and the divorce is a result of the crime. Looks like a pretty straight line to me, but apparently we need to make it black letter law. I hope the law to close this loophole passes soon, and I hope they make it retroactive.

Hell no. Rape would null and void any obligation to pay up in my opinion.

Although, this makes me think of a man I know who left his wife after years of marriage. They had two children. He was the bread winner, she had not worked in almost 10 years, but had had a good career previous to that. She was the abuser. She had hit him, threw things at him, he once called the police it was so out of control, she was arrested and spent the night in jail. She never hurt him to the point that he was very injured, but still. He wound up paying her child support, the had 50/50 custody and he paid her alimony for years.

@JLeslie The same should apply, obviously, to that case.

Fuck no.

Except I wouldn’t have to worry about that because my attacker wouldn’t be alive to ask for money.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

”‘We in the district attorney’s office are a voice for the voiceless.’ – yeah right, my ass.”

According to the report I linked, “San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is pushing for changes after a 10News I-Team investigation revealed a loophole in California law that can force assault victims to pay their attacker.”

I don’t know anything beyond the report to judge her sincerity for myself.

I don’t know about you, but whatever ill will I feel is toward the rapist and the judge. At this point, I feel none for the the DA and I hope that she’s sincere. I wish her my best in getting that loophole closed ASAP.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Yeah, the gender should not matter. The guy had cheated on her two separate time. And, I don’t mean one time each, I mean one affair several years before they divorced, and then another one before I finally asled for a divorce, I think she lost her mind with her husband cheating and being dissinterested in their marriage. My impression was she was not violent before things started to go south. Not that I am excusing her behavior.

I had another friend who left her husband because he barely worked, didn’t help with the kid, did nothing around the house, basically a loser. When she divorced him they were given 50/50 custody and she had to pay him child support. She left him because he did not financially contribute, and other reasons of course (in fact she was fine if he was Mr. Mom if he had been Mr. Mom) and then she had to pay him every month. Sucked.

I read that…I think the outcry will get it overturned.

@SavoirFaire

Excellent answer and ITA.

@Dutchess_III

I certainly hope so.

No. For me, I think an abuser relinquishes their rights to divorce monies, cheaters too. I know a man who’s mentally ill wife was verbally and physically abusive to him and one of their children yet he pays alimony to her, pays her therapy bills, all ordered by the court even though she was the abuser and also a consistent cheater.

Jesus christ…hell no!

No disrespect but every judge has the right to make his own decisions. I wouldn’t accept it but for the time being he represents the law so you gotta deal with that.

@Hibernate First, judges must act within the law. They cannot just make whatever decision they like. Second, the question here is not whether or not the judge had the power to make the decision he made. It is whether or not he should have the power to make a decision like this. That is, the question is about the law rather than the judge.

No. No. No and more no. Let’s hope the DA manages to get legislation passed to close this loophole.

The question here is: if a man an woman are legally married, does rape apply in this situation?

Rape can occur in marriage. Men do rape their wives. A wife has the same right to say no to her husband that an unmarried woman does. There is no question there for me @john65pennington.

No, @john65pennington, that is not the question. The law recognizes that rape can occur within marriage, as does any person with the slightest scrap of reason.

@Brian1946 The DA’s office isn’t one of those creatures whose behavior I judge case by case. That’s just a personal opinion.

Technically yes, the judge can make her do that (and he did), but morally, no, he shouldn’t do that.

@john65pennington ‘s question makes total sense.

I have the feeling from watching the video, that we’re not getting the full picture here. She taped it, so it appears she may have deliberately wanted to get her husband in trouble. As a juror, I would question the recording. If she wanted to get her husband in trouble, she might have just been faking some of it and over-dramatizing the situation. She recorded it, so that shows there was planning involved beforehand. I’m not condoning what her husband did, but all I’m saying is we should get the full picture before saying that the judge was totally wrong in his decision. He had his reasons, and we have to find out why he made such a decision in the end.

@MRSHINYSHOES it was not the place of the judge presiding over the divorce settlement to judge whether she was or was not raped. The man was tried, convicted and sentenced. His guilt is not in question.

The question is whether a person who is a victim of a violent assault should then be required to financially support her attacker because they were originally married and she earns more than him.

How on earth is anyone, in this day and age, unsure if such a thing as marital rape exists? I am seriously shaking my head, here.

I’m with @SavoirFaire. That answer not only makes it clear that it’s morally wrong, but should be legally, as well.

No matter how you’ll want to look at the case in the end the law will state that he acted correctly and made a good decision. Annoying as it may be California law allows him to get financial support from her. It’s not me who’s saying this it’s your own laws. ” According to California law, there’s only one way Crystal Harris could have avoided paying her ex-husband: if he had tried to kill her. ” Now let’s not talk about stupid laws.
@SavoirFaire no, I’m not laughing or anything and the situation might be sad but it’s not something we might discuss.

And the DA is taking preventive measures only after one case like this happens.

Let’s resume. This was a perfectly legal decision.

If I am wrong then I am wrong according to what that news report presented on their site. How about we get ourselves a lawyer from the state of California to help us out clarifying this.

@john65pennington What?!

@Hibernate Again, no one is saying that this isn’t how the law works. What we’re saying is that it isn’t how the law should work. Saying “you have to deal with it because that’s the law” doesn’t really add anything to the discussion.

@MRSHINYSHOES “She taped it, so it appears she may have deliberately wanted to get her husband in trouble.” – he was supposed to ‘be in trouble’ – he was forcing her to do it against her will. I’m glad she recorded him. Or are you one of those people who think where everything the victim does is debatable but the ‘defenseless’ man is the one getting ‘tricked’? If this was happening a lot or even that one time, he deserves the harshest punishment.

@MRSHINYSHOES The only way @john65pennington‘s question makes sense is if you have been living under a rock for the last 30 years in the US; that he is a cop even blows me away more. There have been famous cases about rape during marriage, made for TV movies about it, and generally there is an overall knowledge, or at least I thought an overall knowledge that a woman always has the right to say no. Always. At least legally always, I am sure some could argue some religious obligation a woman has in marriage, but law trumps religion period.

@JLeslie

“The only way @john65pennington‘s question makes sense is if you have been living under a rock for the last 30 years in the US….”

Are you sure it’s only 30 years?
I heard about a judge (in Oregon IIRC) saying that the idea of a wife charging her husband with rape was preposterous, and I think that was sometime in the middle 60’s. I realize that doesn’t mean that view didn’t prevail for another decade or more, but I’m not sure.

@Brian1946 My history is fuzzy for sure on this topic. I know as a young teen, I am 43, I knew women can be raped by their husbands. I am pretty sure some states didn’t change laws until recently, where the previous laws were that woman have conjugal obligations to their husbands, or some bullshit like that. But, just because a law is still on the books does not mean it is enforced when we should know better in America in the 21st century. I vaguely remember UN discussions on the matter not too long ago regarding woman’s rights and safety.