Woman claimed her husband repeatedly raped her, jury says he is not guilty

People are free to read my entire original message.

 

What's a "straw man"? You concede that you are NOT arguing "rape is rape"?

 

Uh duh, that does not make what I post "illogical" as you claim.

"""she is not property....women do not give up their rights when they marry.""

It's a statement of fact....maybe that's why you think it's illogical.

 

Is that supposed to be an argument against my argument that it is a small mitigating factor and makes what he did less bad?

Your statement is still not a complete argument against my argument that even if it is bad and violates her rights that alone is not necessarily adequate enough reason for any official legal action to be taken. (A husband cutting up his wife's wedding dress, or cheating on her, also violates her rights and is a bad thing, but no one argues the police should get involved)

 

"One juror later told the prosecutor there wasn't enough evidence to support a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Griffin, who declined to comment, appears to be the only husband in at least the past five years to stand trial in Iowa on charges related to raping his wife while they lived together, according to court records.

His defense lawyer, Robert Rehkemper, told the Des Moines Register the jury saw through what he called Battani's false allegations."

The verdict was not about whether a man can rape his wife, or the other way around I guess, but was there enough evidence to convict him and send him to prison.

 

I think you are just actually reading into this what you want to read into it. (interpreting that statement in the article with a preconceived assumption and bias)

Yes, the jury came to the decision that there "wasn't enough evidence to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt", and part of that reason may have been because they were not sure that what happened was a "rape".

First they don't know if the wife might have been totally lying about her account of what happened, but on top of that, many of the jurors may likely have felt too uncomfortable and unsure if that type of sex between husband and wife even constituted rape.

As I explained in another thread (down at the very bottom, read that Star Trek thing), there can be situations where the woman genuinely feels like one thing happened, but the man has a genuine different perception. Sometimes there can be two sides to a story. Even though it seems like both of them can't be true, it can still be possible that neither side is deliberately lying.
Another case of Australia's sexual consent law

If I was a juror, one of the first questions I would ask myself is "Is that woman lying?", but on top of that I would also ask myself "Even if this woman is not intentionally lying, is it still possible that this situation that happened wasn't exactly rape?"
Maybe from her perspective it felt and seemed like rape, but from her husband's perspective that was not so clear.

Maybe it's not totally obvious to YOU, but it's totally obvious to most normal reasonable people that when this sort of situation is inside a marriage, between two people who are married to each other, it is viewed a little bit differently from a situation in which the two are not married.
(And by that I mean even if that person believes that non-consensual sex between husband and wife is enough to constitute rape)

The husband is going to have more benefit of the doubt in his actions. Because it's perfectly normal for the two to have sex. This is not a situation he needs to approach more cautiously. Because sex is a lot more of a casual thing between two people who are married to each other, happens all the time. A particular individual act of intercourse is probably not something most married people think about very much or would even remember. Just as I can't remember the details of brushing my teeth the other day.

 

One juror later told the prosecutor there wasn't enough evidence to support a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There is no doubt they were married, the doubt is whether anything actually happened.

 

Which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

The doubt is over what exactly happened, and whether that constituted "rape" in that situation, given that the two were married.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
""she is not property....women do not give up their rights when they marry.""


It's a statement of fact....maybe that's why you think it's illogical.

It is a statement of fact :

""""she is not property....women do not give up their rights when they marry.""

It is a statement of fact.

No, those actions don't violate her rights.....and it is VERY weird that you used a wedding dress as an example...(???)

...so you must be arguing with yourself...

 

The way you characterize women in your anti-abortion posts now makes a hell of a lot more sense after reading the above.

 

You seem to have trouble identifying the actual MAIN reasons rape is so bad.

Imagine a woman says "I consented to sex with you yesterday, and I consent to sex with you tomorrow, but I do not consent to sex with you today." Would anyone really try to argue that having sex with her anyway even though she said no is "just as bad" as having sex with a woman who never consented to sex?

 

Your usage of the terminology "do not give up their rights" is a little bit vague in this situation.
I think your usage of that statement in this argument is an overgeneralization fallacy.

Of course most everyone would agree with a statement like that, but they are not reading the exact same meaning into that terminology that you mean in this situation.

It's only an incontrovertible fact depending on what the exact meaning is.

I personally believe if a woman leads a man into a hotel room, wearing a provocative dress, she is indeed "giving up some of her rights", in one sense. If she claims rape, and has a rape kit test to prove it, if them walking together into the hotel room is captured on security video, that could be taken as evidence against the woman.

 

You do realize that if most wives had to choose, their husband having sex with them once when they had said no would be the less bad option compared to him cutting up her wedding dress she had been saving. The latter could be likely to do more damage to the relationship.

FoxHastings, you seem to be treating husband and wife as if this were just some random two people and the woman was only there for some casual sexual hook-up.

 

YES, I would....they are identical.

QUIT TRYING TO JUSTIFY RAPE....

when a woman says no it means no.... being married to her does not give a man the right to abuse a woman in any way.

 

YOU do NOT know that...
Most people KNOW that rape is NOT as bad as cutting up a dress but IT SAYS ALOT ABOUT YOU THAT YOU THINK THAT RAPE IS LESS THAN CUTTING UP A DRESS.

YOU are treating woman (wife) as if she is the husband's property and has no rights...

AND YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN PEOPLE LOSE THIER RIGHTS WHEN THEY MARRY.... yet you keep insisting they do...based on, wait for it, NOTHING.

 

There are some "rights" in a relationship that women should not have. I don't believe we should be so quick to make police and the courts involved, in something that is really more of a domestic relationship dispute.

She can leave that relationship at any time.

This is something that should involve marriage counseling, not an arrest.

You think if a wife steals $40 out of her husbands wallet she should be arrested?

 

"Proven"? What evidence do you need?
A plausibly convincing logical argument is not enough?

This is not even the type of debate that calls for proof of fact.

 

UNCHERRY PICKED POST :Most people KNOW that rape is NOT as bad as cutting up a dress but IT SAYS ALOT ABOUT YOU THAT YOU THINK THAT RAPE IS LESS THAN CUTTING UP A DRESS.

YOU are treating woman (wife) as if she is the husband's property and has no rights...

AND YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN PEOPLE LOSE THEIR RIGHTS WHEN THEY MARRY.... yet you keep insisting they do...based on, wait for it, NOTHING.

NAME THEM....it'll show the real you...

So you believe married women can be beaten and raped and abused because they are married ??!!!

AGAIN, WHAT rights should women ( YOU LEAVE OUT MEN) have taken away because they committed the crime of getting married?

Totally irrelevant.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
AND YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN PEOPLE LOSE THEIR RIGHTS WHEN THEY MARRY....

When did that happen????

I have never heard of married people losing their rights....
AND YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN PEOPLE LOSE THEIR RIGHTS WHEN THEY MARRY....

LOL, calls for proof of why you have such a ridiculous opinion...there are no facts to back up married people losing their rights.

 

No it isn't. She is not a slave. It's not even truly POSSIBLE for her to be repeatedly "raped" again and again, because she DOES have the option of leaving. But she doesn't leave. She stays in that relationship, she stays in the same home with that man.

In my view, that is NOT rape; it is not the same thing.

Imagine a woman claims she was raped, but she gets that man's phone number and meets him afterward on a date. Would anyone say that was a rape??

 

I bet in your view nothing is rape....

QUIT TRYING TO JUSTIFY RAPE....

when a woman says no it means no.... being married to her does not give a man the right to abuse a woman in any way.

I have explained to you why some women stay but of course you dismiss that in your attack on women...

 

I bet in your Feminist view everything is.

 

IT'S NOT RAPE!!!

Just because you call it so doesn't make it so.
There are some huge key elements in place that make it different from rape.

She consented to have sex with this man. She consented to specific acts of sex with him in the past. By staying in the monogamous devoted marriage relationship she is consenting to continued sex with him in the future.

He is not really doing anything to her that he has not done before, that is not normal between husbands and wives.
The only issue here is consent to specific acts of sex at a specific time.

"You can have sex with me Monday and Wednesday but not Tuesday."

 

For the majority of women in this situation, her husband having sex with her when she says no would still be preferable to him cheating on her and having sex with other women behind her back.

That is something to think about.

I think that kind of gets to the core about what the marriage relationship is about.

If that's not the situation, then maybe you're right, maybe it could be considered rape.

If it were one of those modern "open marriages" it would be completely different.

 

You keep trying to dishonestly include beating into this. This has nothing to do with beating.

If the injuries are severe enough (not just a few light bruises she could have easily inflicted on herself) the man can be charged with physical assault.

Is that your only strategy? Conflate this with beating and physical assault?