NCJ Number
96920
Journal
Vermont Law Review Volume: 7 Issue: 1 Dated: (Spring 1982) Pages: 33-57
Date Published
1982
Length
25 pages
Annotation
This investigation of the origins of the spousal exemption rule concludes that marital rape is a serious problem in terms of cases and impact on victims and recommends removing the exemption both as a practical measure and as a symbolic act to reaffirm the equal rights of married women.
Abstract
While women were little more than chattels owned by their husbands in past centuries, today there is no logical basis for a legal rule of marital exemption from rape. No more than five States, however, have completely removed their spousal exemptions, although some have modified such laws. Gains made by reducing the marital rape exemption have been counteracted in some States by a move to expand the marital rape exemption to unmarried cohabitants and even voluntary social companions. Proponent of the exemption argue that marital rape is not a serious problem and the victim does not suffer. Critics maintain that the incidence of marital rape is far higher than projections of women raped by strangers, and women in rape crisis centers say that marital rapes are characterized by some of the most serious physical abuse. Other common arguments against removing the exemption are that criminal law is not the appropriate forum for dealing with marital rape, that it is too difficult to prove such cases, and that women are vindictive and will lie or file false rape charges. These attitudes confuse forcible rape with marital problems and denigrate the position of women in contemporary society. The continued vitality of the exemption demonstrates that legislators view a modicum of family violence as the norm and some violence by men as expected. The article includes 132 footnotes.