Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

riversedge

(70,239 posts)
Sat Feb 23, 2019, 10:51 AM Feb 2019

Her husband was not convicted of drugging and raping her - because it is still legal in Minnesota

Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune




One woman's trauma is pushing state lawmakers to repeal what is known as the marital rape exception.

By Stephen Montemayor Star Tribune
February 22, 2019 — 9:57pm



RENÉE JONES SCHNEIDER – Star Tribune
Jenny Teeson, with her parents Jerry and Terry Teeson, reacted to the unanimous House vote on the bill to outlaw marital rape.


Jenny Teeson learned that she had been drugged and raped more than a year after the assault took place, when she found videos of it on her computer.

She watched in horror as a man forcibly penetrated her motionless body with a sex toy while her toddler son lay sleeping nearby — all documented in a video shot inside their Andover home.

But Teeson’s attacker will never be charged with rape because, until recently, that man was her husband.

“I know why victims give up,” Teeson said in a recent interview. “Nothing on his record says criminal sexual conduct, that he raped me. Nothing says anything to the sex crimes that he did.”

Minnesota is one of about a dozen states that still grant spouses and cohabiting partners exemptions from its sexual assault laws under certain conditions. The state’s “voluntary relationship” statute, which dates to the 1970s, does not exempt spouses from prosecution for forcible rape. But while it is otherwise illegal in Minnesota to engage in sexual penetration with someone who is “mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless,” that provision does not apply in marriage.......

Read more: http://www.startribune.com/her-husband-was-not-convicted-of-drugging-and-raping-her-because-it-is-still-legal-in-minnesota/506246802/



Have to admit, I did not know these cruel laws were still on the books #metoo
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Her husband was not convicted of drugging and raping her - because it is still legal in Minnesota (Original Post) riversedge Feb 2019 OP
This message was self-deleted by its author littlemissmartypants Feb 2019 #1
Not sure the law is wrong (read my comments), but if he drugged her, isn't that a crime? lostnfound Feb 2019 #2
That isn't the reason these laws exist Major Nikon Feb 2019 #5
Because the husband owns her body. crazytown Feb 2019 #7
Well before then actually Major Nikon Feb 2019 #8
Law is a blunt instrument: mental incapacity laws were once justified as part of eugenics lostnfound Feb 2019 #12
Are you serious? yardwork Feb 2019 #13
I'm talking about the law in general, not this case lostnfound Feb 2019 #14
That's not what we're talking about at all. We're taking about rape. yardwork Feb 2019 #16
No duh. Why did DU get so hostile to discussions of nuance? No duh. Nt lostnfound Feb 2019 #17
You'd have to prove he drugged her. LisaL Feb 2019 #15
How about looking at the definitions of those terms, shall we? moriah Feb 2019 #18
Something discussed in advance lostnfound Feb 2019 #19
I would make sure this story follows him forever. rainin Feb 2019 #3
More here: littlemissmartypants Feb 2019 #4
didn't know this was still legal Lazy Daisy Feb 2019 #6
Another disincentive for marriage. Ilsa Feb 2019 #9
Since his son was nearby how about child porn charges? cstanleytech Feb 2019 #10
Wow. Sickening and shocking that rape is allowed anywhere, let alone in America. SunSeeker Feb 2019 #11

Response to riversedge (Original post)

lostnfound

(16,179 posts)
2. Not sure the law is wrong (read my comments), but if he drugged her, isn't that a crime?
Sat Feb 23, 2019, 11:26 AM
Feb 2019

Tons of people have spouses that BECOME mentally or physically incapacitated, or physically “helpless”...yet those relationships remain loving, and it would be lacking in imagination or kindness to automatically deem sexual relations in such circumstances illegal. Love can transcend limitations of human frailty. I would prefer that the state not judge my loving husband or loving wife from showing affection to me, should I ever become “mentally or physically incapacitated, or physically helpless”. Such things are private matters.

But drugging a women in order to have sex with her should be a crime in all cases.

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)
5. That isn't the reason these laws exist
Sat Feb 23, 2019, 12:56 PM
Feb 2019

The idea was that a person can only be charged with rape if the person wasn't their wife. This principal has been ingrained into British common law for centuries. All 50 states have at least partially repealed this intentional loophole, however a few remain which still allow this loophole in all but cases where physical force is used.

So it's really not an issue where the law has been loosened to allow for unique circumstances which may exist between committed couples. It's more of a situation where the vestiges of archaic laws are allowed to persist. There's several states in the US where you can drug your spouse to the point of unconsciousness, rape them, and never be subject to any sort of sexual assault legal ramifications.

crazytown

(7,277 posts)
7. Because the husband owns her body.
Sat Feb 23, 2019, 01:13 PM
Feb 2019

She is property. The father gives her to the husband. He picks up and carries his property into his house on his wedding day. She cannot deny him use of his property. Goes right back to biblical times.

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)
8. Well before then actually
Sat Feb 23, 2019, 01:15 PM
Feb 2019

But the bible is a big reason why we still to this day can't get rid of bronze age ideas of how morality works.

lostnfound

(16,179 posts)
12. Law is a blunt instrument: mental incapacity laws were once justified as part of eugenics
Mon Feb 25, 2019, 09:31 AM
Feb 2019

A depressing read from 1914, in the midst of a burgeoning American eugenics movement.

At present thirty of the United States, including territories and the District of Columbia, have restrictive marriage laws of some sort. Twenty-two of these simply declare voidable marriage of insane persons or of idiots. In several of the states there is a general statement to the effect that marriage of those physically incapable or having a want of understanding may be declared voidable. The remaining eight states have definite legislation restricting the marriage of the unfit of various classes. The reason for the prohibition is usually a legal one: namely, that marriage is a contract, and that the affected person is incapable of making a contract. However, in a number of cases the prohibition is apparently made primarily on eugenical grounds-for the purpose of cutting off the bad germplasm-to diminish the number of children who will eventually need state aid.

Jessie Spaulding Smith, Marriage Sterilization and Commitment Laws Aimed at Decreasing Mental Deficiency, 5 J. Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 364 (May 1914 to March 1915)

Which parts of marriage law are derived from misogynistic concepts of women as property, and which parts were derived from an appalling eugenics movement in the early 1900s, and which parts were derived from racism, is probably a fascinating and dark subject.

Law is a blunt instrument: I have seen feature stories in which people with mental disabilities have to fight to get permission to marry. I have also read articles on how “nursing homes” or assisted living facilities prevent residents from autonomy of their own sexuality — unless you’re married when you arrive, there’s no living together allowed.

lostnfound

(16,179 posts)
14. I'm talking about the law in general, not this case
Mon Feb 25, 2019, 09:50 AM
Feb 2019

Some of these “mental incapacity” laws have been used to stop disabled people who want to get married from being allowed to marry. Just saying, one needs to be careful in not recognizing the complexities of the issue.

yardwork

(61,622 posts)
16. That's not what we're talking about at all. We're taking about rape.
Mon Feb 25, 2019, 11:22 AM
Feb 2019

There is no justification for assaulting a spouse. Just because two people are married does not give the husband the right to rape his wife.

LisaL

(44,973 posts)
15. You'd have to prove he drugged her.
Mon Feb 25, 2019, 11:00 AM
Feb 2019

If she found tapes from years earlier, then it's too late to do a tox screen. So there would be no proof.

moriah

(8,311 posts)
18. How about looking at the definitions of those terms, shall we?
Mon Feb 25, 2019, 01:01 PM
Feb 2019

In Arkansas, "mentally defective" means:

" (4) (A) "Mentally defective" means that a person suffers from a mental disease or defect that renders the person:

(i) Incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of a sexual act; or

(ii) Unaware a sexual act is occurring.

(B) A determination that a person is mentally defective shall not be based solely on the person's intelligence quotient"

-----

So, no, I really don't want my "loving husband" having sex with me if I suddenly develop a mental disease that makes me not understand exactly what sex was and why we were having it and the consequences of it, or that we were having it at all. In fact, I'd be rather worried that anyone would think sex was a good idea in those circumstances at all -- what's the point of having sex with someone who is essentially incapable of participating in the act enthusiastically?

Notice the law doesn't say they can make this judgement based just on IQ, meaning that people who have mental limitations but do actually understand sex is happening, and that it can make babies and give people diseases, can still get married and have kids.

-----

" (5) "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is temporarily incapable of appreciating or controlling the person's conduct as a result of the influence of a controlled or intoxicating substance:

(A) Administered to the person without the person's consent; or

(B) That renders the person unaware a sexual act is occurring."

------

If my husband drugs me unwillingly or thinks sex with an unconscious woman is sexy, I'd worry about myself AND them. Even my dad lost his boner when he and my mother were having sex on LSD and she said "You know, my grandmother was a beautiful woman." She probably did realize they were having sex, but was so totally not into it that HE wasn't into it.

------

" (7) "Physically helpless" means that a person is:

(A) Unconscious;

(B) Physically unable to communicate a lack of consent; or

(C) Rendered unaware a sexual act is occurring;"

------

Again, while some couples may be into sleep sex, that should be something discussed in advance. If it's not, I again would worry about my "loving" husband's proclivities and why he couldn't TELL me he had that fantasy and let me drug myself if I wanted to help him fulfill it. And if I'm ever rendered totally paralyzed, again, I'd be worried if he still wanted to get it on with me when I couldn't say yes or no.

lostnfound

(16,179 posts)
19. Something discussed in advance
Mon Feb 25, 2019, 04:45 PM
Feb 2019

There’s not a day that goes by that I don’t wonder whether I’m experiencing the onset of early Alzheimer’s.

No reason for me to try to point out that the law is a blunt object, or that things aren’t always what they seem. Just another misunderstanding which is all I ever find anymore

rainin

(3,011 posts)
3. I would make sure this story follows him forever.
Sat Feb 23, 2019, 11:30 AM
Feb 2019

Maybe he can't be jailed, but nothing would stop me from warning future girlfriends and employers who this man is. That would at least narrow his future opportunities, plus be a vital public service.

littlemissmartypants

(22,689 posts)
4. More here:
Sat Feb 23, 2019, 11:35 AM
Feb 2019

Some states continue to treat marital and non-marital rape differently. The relevant laws are detailed below.

In Ohio, a rape that happens in marriage when the spouses are living together can only be charged under subsection A(2) of 2907.02 Rape, which states that: "No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force." By contrast, a person who is not married to the accused or who is married but living separate and apart can rely on many laws which deal with various forms of coercion. It is notable that subsection A(1)(a) of 2907.02 Rape that deals with drugging someone "surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception" to coerce them into sex does not apply in marriage (except in case of separation). The whole article 2907.03 Sexual battery, that deals with various forms of coercion (for instance it states in subsection in A (1) that "The offender [commits a crime when he] knowingly coerces the other person to submit by any means that would prevent resistance by a person of ordinary resolution does not apply at all to married people.[23][24] In 2015, a bill[25] was introduced to remove these exemptions.[26]

Similarly, Maryland law states that, if the spouses are living together, a prosecution can take place only if the accused "uses force or threat of force and the act is without the consent of the spouse." If the spouses are separated they are treated as if they were strangers (See Section § 3-318)[27]

A similar situation exists in Mississippi. A person can be convicted of sexual battery of a spouse when they are living together only if he engages in "forcible penetration against the victim's will".[28] This excludes, among others, situations where the victim is "rendered incapable of knowing or controlling his or her conduct, or incapable of resisting an act due to the influence of any drug, narcotic, anesthetic, or other substance administered to that person without his or her consent".[29]

Nevada law appears to require force or threat of force. Article 200.373?states that:?"It is no defense to a charge of sexual assault that the perpetrator was, at the time of the assault, married to the victim, if the assault was committed by force or by the threat of force."[30] This seems to imply that if force or threat of thereof were not used, marriage can be a defense. The general definition of sexual assault uses the wording "against the will of the victim" or "under conditions in which the perpetrator knows or should know that the victim is mentally or physically incapable of resisting or understanding the nature of his or her conduct".[30]

In Oklahoma, rape by a spouse can only be charged under subsection (B) of Section 1111 - Rape Defined which states:[31]

B. Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a male or female who is the spouse of the perpetrator if force or violence is used or threatened, accompanied by apparent power of execution to the victim or to another person.

For instance, a person in Oklahoma can not charge her/his spouse for rape if she/he is compelled to submit due to drugs "administered by or with the privity of the accused as a means of forcing the victim to submit", or when she/he is unconscious, as these situations are dealt under subsection (A) of Section 1111 which define rape as intercourse "with a male or female who is not the spouse of the perpetrator ".

In Virginia, the main difference lies in punishment. Under certain circumstances, if the victim and the attorney for the Commonwealth agree, the perpetrator can undergo a therapy program, which if completed successfully, replaces any punishment. This can happen if "the court finds such action will promote maintenance of the family unit and be in the best interest of the complaining witness."[32] While the victim has to agree to this option, this can expose the victim to intimidation and threats from the perpetrator, or to social pressure to remain in the relationship.

In Rhode Island, Article § 11-37-2 'First degree sexual assault', has four subsections; while subsections 2, 3 and 4 apply to spouses, subsection 1 does not; it reads: "The accused, not being the spouse, knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally incapacitated, mentally disabled, or physically helpless."[33] This has the result of excluding from prosecution, among other situations, incidents where the victim was drugged by the perpetrator ("Mentally incapacitated" is defined by legislation as: "a person who is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his or her conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or other substance administered to that person without his or her consent, or who is mentally unable to communicate unwillingness to engage in the act".[34])

In Minnesota sexual violence occurring between spouses at the time they cohabit or between unmarried partners can be prosecuted only if there was force or threat of thereof, due to exemptions created by Article 609.349 'Voluntary relationships'[35] which stipulates that certain sexual offenses do not apply to spouses (unless they are separated), and neither do they apply to unmarried cohabitants. These are offenses that deal with situations where the lack of consent is due to the incapacity of consent of the victim, including where the victim was drugged by the perpetrator. These situations which are excluded from prosecution are where the victim was "mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless". The term "mentally incapacitated" is defined as a person who "under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person's agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration". (see Article 609.341 for definitions).[36]

In Michigan, Section 750.520l excludes situations where the criminality comes solely due to the spouse being "mentally incapable, or mentally incapacitated."[37] Section 750.520a Definitions reads: '"Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his or her conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or other substance administered to that person without his or her consent, or due to any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent.'[38]

Connecticut has a specific crime dealing with forced sex with a spouse and this doesn't apply only to spouses but also to unmarried cohabitants. The law is more narrow than the other sex laws and it has a shorter penalty. It is called Sec. 53a-70b. Sexual assault in spousal or cohabiting relationship and it reads:[39]

No spouse or cohabitor shall compel the other spouse or cohabitor to engage in sexual intercourse by the use of force against such other spouse or cohabitor, or by the threat of the use of force against such other spouse or cohabitor which reasonably causes such other spouse or cohabitor to fear physical injury.

The spousal rape law of Connecticut makes reference to force used or threatened against the "other spouse or cohabitor" while the 'ordinary' sexual assault law deals with force used or threatened against the "other person or against a third person".[39]

South Carolina represents the most extreme situation. Not only is marital rape punished less severely and the victims have only 30 days to report, but the law requires a higher level of violence to be used. The law, titled "Spousal sexual battery" reads as follows:[40]

(A) Sexual battery, as defined in Section 16-3-651(h), when accomplished through use of aggravated force, defined as the use or the threat of use of a weapon or the use or threat of use of physical force or physical violence of a high and aggravated nature, by one spouse against the other spouse if they are living together, constitutes the felony of spousal sexual battery and, upon conviction, a person must be imprisoned not more than ten years.


I would have just posted the Wikipedia link but I couldn't get it to work. Here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_(United_States_law)

 

Lazy Daisy

(928 posts)
6. didn't know this was still legal
Sat Feb 23, 2019, 01:00 PM
Feb 2019

Don't know if it angers me more than frightens me. Thought we were past this barbarianism.

Ilsa

(61,695 posts)
9. Another disincentive for marriage.
Sat Feb 23, 2019, 01:23 PM
Feb 2019

Even if they are cohabitating, at least they have a legal line drawn if there is not a common law marriage.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Her husband was not convi...