Spousal rapist awarded alimony.

emzie

wicked witch of the North
Moderator
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
21,364
Location
Ottawa, Canada
She was forced to have sex with him, and now she's being forced to pay his bills.

Crystal Harris of Carlsbad, Calif., had been financially supporting her unemployed, abusive husband Shawn Harris for years. But after he sexually assaulted her in 2008, she took him to court.

The jury heard a damning audiotape of the attack secretly recorded by Crystal Harris, and her husband was convicted of forced oral copulation.

Even so, in 2010, the year their divorce became finalized, he requested spousal support. The judge awarded him $1,000 a month, and also asked Crystal Harris to pay $47,000 of her ex-husband's legal fees from the divorce proceedings.

"It stunned me and I think it's shocking," said San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who is fighting to close a loophole in the law that allows judges to exercise this kind of judicial discretion. "It's a priority for our office."

Harris, who turned 39 Thursday, makes between $110,000 and $120,000 a year as a financial analyst, and says she has been supporting her husband -- a former car salesman -- ever since their first son was born in 2002.

Under normal circumstances, Harris would have been required to pay $3,000 a month in spousal support after the divorce, but because of the domestic violence she endured, the judge said he would lower that amount to $1,000.

"I call that the rape discount," Harris said
.

She appealed the judge's ruling, pointing out that her ex-husband will have no expenses while he's in jail.

The judge agreed, but when Shawn Harris, 40, is released from Donovan State Prison in 2014, he's entitled to ask for spousal support again. And California law entitles him to have it.

http://news.yahoo.com/victim-ordered-pay-attacker-spousal-support-201444230.html

I dislike when states treat oral sexual assault as something different than rape. But anyway, getting back to the absurdity of this case, is this an outdated law / hold over from when women were generally supported by men, or should an abusive spouse be entitled to financial support?
 
Moderator Action: <SNIP>

But yeah, not good mojo.

Crystal Harris of Carlsbad, Calif., had been financially supporting her unemployed, abusive husband Shawn Harris for years.

This is the problem.
 
Moderator Action: <snip>

Seriously though, this is messed up. Once a partner commits physical or sexual assault all alimony should go out the window.

Of course anyone who doesn't get a pre-nup is a dumbass.
 
Moderator Action: <snip>

Is rape really something that we should be making sick jokes about?
 
Rape is a horrible thing. The lady should've bit his dick off.

That said, people make jokes about all sorts of things, from prison abuse to pedobear to Nazis.

The idea of preparing for rape by getting out a tape recorder seems odd to me though. Some mace would seem like a better precaution.

This all could've been avoided with a pre-nup. Then she wouldn't have had to wait 'till something horrible happened that she could prove in court before getting rid of the creep. Why people don't get them is beyond me.
 
people make jokes about all sorts of things, from prison abuse to pedobear to Nazis.

But pedobear and Nazis are actually funny.:D
 
Wait.. if he raped her... Why isn't he in jail?
 
Is rape really something that we should be making sick jokes about?

We do joke about wars, murders, executions, persecutions, famines, and genocides. I don't see why we should make a special exception for rape.

But pedobear and Nazis are actually funny.:D

One stands for child abuse and the other for institutionalised hatred.

Wait.. if he raped her... Why isn't he in jail?

He is. He's being released in 2014, as per article.
 
He is. He's being released in 2014, as per article.

Oh... So it does.
Although the idea of her having to pay alimony to a person she was victimised by is definitely horrifying, I do not see why she does not have to pay alimony after he has served his punishment in jail, since the whole point of alimony is that the more stable partner helps the dependent partner to get back on his feet.

Afterall, if he has served his time, he has paid the price of his crime. To continue to judge him base on that is not fair.
 
Moderator Action: Good rule of thumb is not to joke about individual cases of murder, rape etc.

And because it's a rule of thumb, notice also that it doesn't give you permission to joke freely about such things in general.
 
Oh... So it does.
Although the idea of her having to pay alimony to a person she was victimised by is definitely horrifying, I do not see why she does not have to pay alimony after he has served his punishment in jail, since the whole point of alimony is that the more stable partner helps the dependent partner to get back on his feet.

Afterall, if he has served his time, he has paid the price of his crime. To continue to judge him base on that is not fair.
This case is simply wrong. Alimony laws (especially in many US states) should be rewritten.

Alimony should only be paid by the wealthier part if that spouse has done something wrong to give reason for the breakup. If the less stable spouse commits a wrong, like rape, attempted murder or assault on the other, or cheats with someone else, then there should be no alimony. Alimony in these cases just goes against what most people consider justice. That also goes if the less stable spouse files for divorce for "no fault".
 
The idea of preparing for rape by getting out a tape recorder seems odd to me though. Some mace would seem like a better precaution.

She was trying to record death threats.

Oh... So it does.
Although the idea of her having to pay alimony to a person she was victimised by is definitely horrifying, I do not see why she does not have to pay alimony after he has served his punishment in jail, since the whole point of alimony is that the more stable partner helps the dependent partner to get back on his feet.

Afterall, if he has served his time, he has paid the price of his crime. To continue to judge him base on that is not fair.

It's simple. Alimony should apply for no-fault divorces, or when the supporting partner commits a wrong. When the dependant rapes his wife, that's not a no-fault divorce.

Having her pay his legal fees is also insane.
 
Why would you continue to live with someone who is making death threats in the 1st place?

Why don't you just come out and say women who don't leave abusers are idiots?
 
Incidentally, reading the Wiki page on spousal rape is incredibly depressing. Someday I'm going to hunt down quotes claiming that feminist activism wasn't needed anymore prior to 1993, when the last American state recognized that being married wasn't the same thing as consenting.
 
One stands for child abuse and the other for institutionalised hatred.

Pedobear is a joke about sexual attraction to children, not the abuse of them. I have never heard a story in which Pedobear is successful in his schemes.

Nazis are funny in ways that don't directly tie in with the genocide bit. Silly accents and wacky war machines come to mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom