Man gets no jail time for drugging and raping wife

[derspiess]

I think a big part of the problem is rape outrage exhaustion.  Too many acts that are not "decades of prison sentence" terrible are being called rape, so it's easy to become cynical about the whole concept.

That, plus it's a lot harder to prove than murder.

[merithyn]

Rape is just a baffling thing to me.  Supposedly it is just slightly less bad than murder but man it sure easy to get out of it and nobody seems particularly eager to enforce it.  I have speculated that perhaps the penalties should be less draconian...but at the end of the day it is still a felony.  Also it has all these damn gray areas since people consent to sex all the time but rarely consent to being killed.  It is a serious problem but I have no idea what there is to be done about it.

In this case, the guy videotaped the rape with his cellphone, wrote a letter to his wife admitting that he'd drugged and raped her for several years, and admitted in court to drugging her. Not much room for confusion regarding consent.

Often, I hesitate because it's almost always a he said/she said situation. But in this case, he was convicted and admitted it to her in writing.

And the judge's response was to tell the victim that she should forgive the guy because he's had a hard time about all of this.

[Malthus]

Rape is just a baffling thing to me.  Supposedly it is just slightly less bad than murder but man it sure easy to get out of it and nobody seems particularly eager to enforce it.  I have speculated that perhaps the penalties should be less draconian...but at the end of the day it is still a felony.  Also it has all these damn gray areas since people consent to sex all the time but rarely consent to being killed.  It is a serious problem but I have no idea what there is to be done about it.

With murder, you often have a dead body lying about, and that needs explaining. With rape, the very sex act may not be easy to prove unless the victim gets themselves to a rape kit pronto; and even proving that, doesn't answer the question of consent. It is especially difficult when dealing with ex-spouses.

None of that applies to the current case in the OP, though. Here, there is according to the article actual video proof produced by the perp himself. The fact of rape was established beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.

[Valmy]

I think a big part of the problem is rape outrage exhaustion.  Too many acts that are not "decades of prison sentence" terrible are being called rape, so it's easy to become cynical about the whole concept.

That, plus it's a lot harder to prove than murder.

It is absurd how hard it is to prove.  That NFL case where the guy told his teammate he was going to rape the girl, everybody saw her unconscious, and he proceeded to do so and get her pregnant.  All these facts were well known and it STILL was not enough to convict him.  I mean geez it's crazy.

[Valmy]

Rape is just a baffling thing to me.  Supposedly it is just slightly less bad than murder but man it sure easy to get out of it and nobody seems particularly eager to enforce it.  I have speculated that perhaps the penalties should be less draconian...but at the end of the day it is still a felony.  Also it has all these damn gray areas since people consent to sex all the time but rarely consent to being killed.  It is a serious problem but I have no idea what there is to be done about it.

With murder, you often have a dead body lying about, and that needs explaining. With rape, the very sex act may not be easy to prove unless the victim gets themselves to a rape kit pronto; and even proving that, doesn't answer the question of consent. It is especially difficult when dealing with ex-spouses.

None of that applies to the current case in the OP, though. Here, there is according to the article actual video proof produced by the perp himself. The fact of rape was established beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.

True.  I was just discussing rape in general.

[merithyn]

It is absurd how hard it is to prove.  That NFL case where the guy told his teammate he was going to rape the girl, everybody saw her unconscious, and he proceeded to do so and get her pregnant.  All these facts were well known and it STILL was not enough to convict him.  I mean geez it's crazy.

I think that's why there's so much outrage when a case like this comes up, and the guy doesn't get any jail time at all. It's pretty much ignored/impossible to convict most of the time, so when it's a gimme, people want a bit more blood.

[CountDeMoney]

While the sentence may outrage some, they have to realize that there are two victims here.   

[LaCroix]

I think that's why there's so much outrage when a case like this comes up, and the guy doesn't get any jail time at all. It's pretty much ignored/impossible to convict most of the time, so when it's a gimme, people want a bit more blood.

isn't that their problem? the man was convicted of rape. the judge examined the facts particular to this one case and ruled that based off what he saw, the husband did not deserve jail time. pure retribution is not always at heart of every criminal sentencing, thank god. there are lots of factors that come into play, such as recidivism. sometimes people disagree with judicial decisions, but that doesn't mean the judge was wrong

[merithyn]

I think that's why there's so much outrage when a case like this comes up, and the guy doesn't get any jail time at all. It's pretty much ignored/impossible to convict most of the time, so when it's a gimme, people want a bit more blood.

isn't that their problem? the man was convicted of rape. the judge examined the facts particular to this one case and ruled that based off what he saw, the husband did not deserve jail time. pure retribution is not always at heart of every criminal sentencing, thank god. there are lots of factors that come into play, such as recidivism. sometimes people disagree with judicial decisions, but that doesn't mean the judge was wrong

For three years, he drugged and raped his wife. She trusted him implicitly, and he raped her... repeatedly... for years....

And you can't see how people might think the guy deserves a few years behind bars? I mean, I realize that it's not rape-rape, since you know, it was his wife and all... but still. Of the 80 years he could have gotten, nothing?

[LaCroix]

For three years, he drugged and raped his wife. She trusted him implicitly, and he raped her... repeatedly... for years....

And you can't see how people might think the guy deserves a few years behind bars? I mean, I realize that it's not rape-rape, since you know, it was his wife and all... but still. Of the 80 years he could have gotten, nothing?

do you believe in the death penalty?

also, rape is rape - i don't adhere to the "rape-rape" philosophy

[Malthus]

I think that's why there's so much outrage when a case like this comes up, and the guy doesn't get any jail time at all. It's pretty much ignored/impossible to convict most of the time, so when it's a gimme, people want a bit more blood.

isn't that their problem? the man was convicted of rape. the judge examined the facts particular to this one case and ruled that based off what he saw, the husband did not deserve jail time. pure retribution is not always at heart of every criminal sentencing, thank god. there are lots of factors that come into play, such as recidivism. sometimes people disagree with judicial decisions, but that doesn't mean the judge was wrong

It seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity. 

[crazy canuck]

It seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.

I have yet to read a newspaper article which accurately describes a court decision to the degree necessary for me to become outraged by the decision without first having had the benefit of reading it.

[derspiess]

It seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.

I have yet to read a newspaper article which accurately describes a court decision to the degree necessary for me to become outraged by the decision without first having had the benefit of reading it.

Hmm, no link provided, either.  WHAT ARE YOU HIDING MERI???

[LaCroix]

It seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.

of course, and the judge imposed a 20-year sentence. and the charge wise was convicted of did not require jail time, or even home detention - so, the judge wasn't exactly giving the husband the lightest sentence possible

[Malthus]

It seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.

I have yet to read a newspaper article which accurately describes a court decision to the degree necessary for me to become outraged by the decision without first having had the benefit of reading it.

Fair enough. So let me rephrase my point: It seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.