Monday, October 08, 2012

Another stupid new law

Here is another new law:
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation introduced by Assembly member Toni Atkins, (D-San Diego) that prevents victims from being forced to pay spousal support to ex-husbands or wives who are convicted of violent crime against them. Assembly Bill 1522 was inspired by the case of a San Diego-area woman, Crystal Harris, who was ordered to pay her former husband monthly spousal support during the pendency of his criminal trial. After he was convicted and sentenced to six years, Harris was ordered to pay a portion of his legal fees.
This may sound reasonable, but look at the case that justified this law:
A man accused of sexually assaulting his wife will not have to stand trial again, 10News reported.

Shawn Harris is scheduled to be sentenced Nov. 5 after he was convicted last Friday of forcible oral copulation against his wife, Crystal. Jurors deadlocked on the two other charges, including forcible rape. ...

In court, she testified her husband had raped her and said the attack was the culmination of abuse that started months before. ...

For her own protection, she said she set up a tape recorder to record the threats. However, one of the recordings was the actual rape, Harris added. ...

While too graphic for 10News to broadcast in its entirety, jurors who listened to the 50-minute recording did not believe the defense's story that the sex was part of role-playing. But the jury did not completely buy into Crystal Harris' story as well.

"There were inconsistencies in their stories. Some things are just not plausible," said juror Lisa Yumi Mitchell. ...

"This is one of those crimes that I don't ever hear talked about in the media or in our culture," said Harris.
Nobody talks about it because no one believes that it is a crime. What kind of wife tape-records her husband having sex with her, and then claims that the tape is evidence of rape? Even tho she was free to say whatever would best frame her husband, the jury did not believe her story.

The wife was not exactly helpless. This is not the Crystal Harris who left Hugh Hefner at the altar last year. This Crystal Harris had the money:
Despite Shawn Harris' record of domestic violence and the fact that he was awaiting a separate trial for rape charges during their divorce proceedings, family court Judge Gregory Pollack ordered Crystal Harris to pay her husband $1,000 a month, in part because she was the family breadwinner, a financial advisor making about $120,000 a year, while her husband stayed home with the kids. Before the birth of their sons, Shawn Harris had worked as a used car salesman.

"The computer came up with a number of $3,000 a month that I should pay Shawn, but the judge did lower that down to $1,000 a month," Crystal Harris said.
The new law seems severe:
(1) An award of spousal support to the convicted spouse from the injured spouse is prohibited. ...

(4) The injured spouse shall be entitled to 100 percent of the community property interest in the retirement and pension benefits of the injured spouse.
So the wife makes a bogus rape accusation and the husband loses 100% of his pension?

Harris was not trapped in an abusive relationship. She could have left at any time. We have unilateral (no fault) divorce for that. She had an ongoing sexual relationship with her husband. If she changed her mind about how much she liked the rough sex, she could have gotten a divorce. It appears to me that this vindictive woman set up her husband so that she would not have to pay alimony.

San Francisco sheriff Mirkarimi faces a big vote on whether he gets fired for once grabbing his wife's arm. They would probably try to take his pension away also, if they could. Stay tuned for how liberal Democrats intervene in the private personal lives of others.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nobody talks about it because no one believes that it is a crime. What kind of wife tape-records her husband having sex with her, and then claims that the tape is evidence of rape? Even tho she was free to say whatever would best frame her husband, the jury did not believe her story.

So he was convicted of a crime that and no one believes her story ?

Maybe the jury that found him guilty believed her.

Anonymous said...

George. When I read (4) regarding retirement and pension benefits, it states: "The injured spouse shall be entitled to 100% of the COMMUNITY PROPERTY interest....." Maybe that means 50% (not 100%) of the retirement and pension benefits, since community property is typically 50% in California. I amy be wrong, but that is what is seems. Barbara

Anonymous said...

So, that is 100% of the 50%.
Barbara

George said...

No, she gets 50% without the new law. This law gives here 100%.

This law says "injured spouse", but Mrs. Harris was not injured. She had sexual relations with her husband. That is not an injury.

Anonymous said...

Not an injury ? The husband was convicted of rape ! Sentenced to 6 years, and you figure because it was "sexual realtions with her husband" , she wasn't injured ? Are you serious ? Maybe in your world, rape can't exist between spouses.

George said...

I am relying on the article I quoted. It did not say that the wife was injured in any way. It also said that the jury was deadlocked on the forcible rape charge, as some jurors did not believe the wife's story. I believe that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Anonymous said...

I suggest readers see the real story to get the actual facts and not rely on your description and obfuscation.

George said...

That is why I give links to the facts that I have. The proponents of this new law have distorted the story.

Anonymous said...

Not an injury ? The husband was convicted of rape ! Sentenced to 6 years, and you figure because it was "sexual realtions with her husband" , she wasn't injured ? Are you serious ? Maybe in your world, rape can't exist between spouses.

Anonymous said...

I believe that someone is guilty after a jury convicts them beyond a reasonable doubt. Your version of the story is distorted.

The audio tape helped convict him of forced oral sex. The other two charges he faced -- spousal rape by force and sodomy -- resulted in a hung jury, and the district attorney decided not to retry the case. Shawn Harris may be released from Donovan State Prison in 2014.

George said...

All of that info is in the story that I posted. I did not distort anything.

Anonymous said...

If her husband forced rough sex or rape on her, then she was most likely physically injured. Barbara

George said...

The jury did not believe her rape accusation, and no one claimed that she was injured.

Anonymous said...

The jury convicted the the husband. Get it ?

George said...

Yes, the jury convicted on one count, and deadlocked on the other two counts. That is all in the quote that I posted.

Anonymous said...

Not an injury ? The husband was convicted of rape ! Sentenced to 6 years, and you figure because it was "sexual realtions with her husband" , she wasn't injured ? Are you serious.

The audio tape helped convict him of forced oral sex.Blogger George said...

The jury did not believe her rape accusation, and no one claimed that she was injured.

Even tho she was free to say whatever would best frame her husband, the jury did not believe her story.

So the jury didn't believe her story, and she was not injured and the husband ended up being convicted and sentenced to 6 years, right ?

George said...

I am just quoting the news story. If you have some additional info, then go ahead and post it.

Anonymous said...

So the jury didn't believe her story, and she was not injured and the husband ended up being convicted and sentenced to 6 years, right ?

Anonymous said...

"Nobody talks about it because no one believes that it is a crime."

The jury spoke about it. They said the husband committed a crime and found him guilty and he was sentenced to 6 years.

Anonymous said...

Wow George, you are angry. The fact that the jury found him guilty says a lot specially in this case. It is extremely difficult to prove rape between a married couple so if they did find him guilty there must have been some evidence supporting that. I am not sure how you came to your conclusion that she was over rough sex by reading a newspaper column. That says a lot more about you then I think you realize.

Anonymous said...

If you think she wasn't injured just because she didn't have marks on her, think again. She is injured for the rest of her life. Rape, especially from your spouse, is the most vile crime against a woman ever. Emotionally, sexually, and mentally it will follow her forever. I've been there, I know! A woman is different than a man in the sexual arena. You have no clue as a man, what rape does. She could NOT just leave anytime either. When men, who are misogynistic like Shawn abuse women, they mean it for a lifetime. If she left do you think he would have left her alone and let her go? He would have carried out his threat to kill her. You can't possibly believe she wasn't "injured" and she could just walk away. This man is very sick and "anger management" classes are not going to change him. He's got a lot more far deeper issues to deal with that probably stem from his childhood and his relationship with his mother or father.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately I know these parties, and he actually DID rape her and he actually DID suddenly flip on her and turn violent. She had no reason to drag her good name and her sons through the mud in court to avoid paying $1000. That's an ignorant assumption.

Anonymous said...

It's because if ignorant comments like George's that I almost wish every man could be violently raped just once in their lives so they would understand what it's like for us women.

Subhadra said...

Wow, George, you know nothing about domestic violence and the cycle of abuse.
Really depressing. Even women who make a lot of money are subject to the psychology of what happens in an abusive relationship, and feelings of powerlessness.

https://afternarcissisticabuse.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/how-the-trauma-of-narcissistic-abuse-changes-our-world-views/

Anonymous said...

Heres the deal unwanted sexual advances by a man woman boyfriend girlfriend husband wife or anything else should be considered rape. And as for claims of her not being raped that is a biased opinion. She knows what she went through and you dont. As a victim of rape myself i can tell you that obviously something like this has never happened to you. Reguardless of who did it its uncalled for and i hope you are forgiven for your awful opinion and taking the fathers side

lori whitaker said...

So, "Angry Dad", ite would seem that you support rape--oh, I'm sorry, that's right, your view is that sex (whether consentual or not) is not rape. You are, quite frankly, a repulsive individual. Shame on you. SHAME on you.

erikaedge said...

You're an idiot