Spousal Rape Victim Forced to Pay Alimony

http://www.10news.com/news/29656942/detail.html

To summarize, a man was convicted of orally raping his wife. Upon his release, the judge deemed it fit that the woman, being the breadwinner, should give this guy $1000 a month. In California, the only crime that absolves one of paying alimony is attempted murder.

I think the law should be revised. Even if it is there in place to ensure that frivolous lawsuits do not jeopardize people's right to alimony, it seems more just to do away with alimony altogether than allow things like this to happen. Thoughts?

I agree. Exemption should be in place.

edited 3rd Nov '11 4:17:04 PM by Erock

Stay classy, California.

Wait. How did this happen? I mean I wouldn't be shocked if it was the sexes were switched (Even though it would still be wrong) but seriously!? Shouldn't he be in jail?

He served his time, as the word release would indicate.

Parole for violent sex offenders. What a load of horse shit.

The whole California law system sounds terribly designed, I must say.

I woulda said, it might have made sense if it was child support, but then again, giving custody to the parent that was a criminal would also seem insane.

Yeah I don't see this one working at all.

What a complete load of horseshit that judgment was.

The US justice system has holes and issues in general.

It's just California's turn to show off theirs.

@USAF: Gonna have to disagree with you there. Sentence served (note: the possibility of parole is a part of any and all sentences in jurisdictions that have parole), debt to society paid.

With that said, I do agree that committing a felony against your spouse should be grounds for no alimony. If I were her, I'd sue him in civil court for the financial damage caused by the rape, and insert the present value of the expected alimony. (Gotta love jury trials.)

That's a good response, but considering her current lawyer managed to get her paying alimony, I don't believe she'd get a verdict there either.

That's actually the reason why I think she deserves the verdict she recieved. Because her ex just got out of prison and could get a better attorney than she did.

Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil.

Violent sex offenders can collectively take a 9mm round each for all I care.

This little bastard doesn't deserve any money, and the fact that such a spectacularly stupid loophole exists is disgusting in its entirety.

I agree with that, USAF. Violent sex offenders honestly shouldn't get parole.

So another victim of a crime got screwed over by the legal system in America? Are people really still surprised by this?

At least here, it's refreshing to see the roles reveresed (especially in a rape case), though I'd bet that if a man was the victim, this loophole wouldn't even be considered a loophole, and carried out as fair justice.

And again, the outrage is based on conflating two different parts of the legal system.

Rape is a crime. It's subject to criminal law.

Alimony is part of divorce law. It's a financial arrangement based on who was supporting the couple/family prior to the divorce.

The two parts of the law are not connected.

edited 3rd Nov '11 5:35:55 PM by Madrugada

It does, however, suggest that the laws might be in need of revision.

Oh, but they are. Unless, of course, you expect rape victims—male or female—to stay with their rapists as spouses.

If a person is convicted of a felony against their spouse, they should not be entitled to anything of the spouse's in the inevitably ensuing divorce.

^^^ They are in the case of attempted murder, on the basis that a person forfeits the right to the spouse's support once they attempt to send him or her to the hereafter. Why shouldn't rape classify as a crime that puts an indelible rift in the spouses' duties to one another?

edited 3rd Nov '11 5:40:57 PM by kashchei

I'm of the view that if violent acts can disqualify alimony, then rape needs to be considered a violent act.

Accepted though, they are different parts of the law, so it's the implication that rape is not violent, thus not qualifying it under the legislation that disqualifies things like attempted violence from such payments, that I find distasteful.

I don't think the laws involved would be hard to revise, would they? They would certainly provide some good political capital to a senator who proposed a revision.

It's also my understanding that judges are meant to take the laws we have in place, knowing that the laws and their writers are fallible and not able to adequately cover all situations, and apply them in a way that uses common sense.

I don't care if the judge was following the letter of the law... this is a massive injustice. If he couldn't see that, he's not fit for his position.

Is/was the judge, considering California is a no-fault state, even allowed to consider the rape-conviction in the divorce trial?

From the lawmakers' perspective, I imagine what happened is that they realized that in the event that a divorce happens because of a felony between the couple, the felon shouldn't get alimony. But it probably didn't occur to them while writing it that spousal rape was a thing, so it didn't make it into the law.

And yeah, I agree that the law absolutely needs revision, but I can't be too angry at the people who wrote it.

edited 3rd Nov '11 11:16:37 PM by INUH

We can and should criticise the judge for this, but he was only following the law as written.

So the law should be rewritten.