Marriage

Sexual Assault Victim Must Pay Her Attacker Spousal Support

|

Crystal Harris

A San Diego judge ordered Crystal Harris to pay $1,000 a month in spousal support to her ex-husband—just as soon as he finishes up his six year prison sentence for sexually assaulting her. As 10News reports, "The entire assault was caught on tape and what it captured was enough to convict Shawn Harris of a felony—forced oral copulation."

So why is a victim being forced to pay her attacker? According to Judge Gregory Pollock, it's because Crystal Harris brought home six figures worth of bacon while Shawn Harris was unemployed.

"I can't look at a 12-year marriage where one side is making $400 a month, the other side is making over $11,000 and say no spousal support," Pollock said in court. "That would be an abuse of discretion."

The legal system currently only disqualifies perpetrators of attempted murder from spousal support entitlement. Crystal Harris and the local District Attorney are hoping to change the law so it will also exclude offenders of all violent felonies, including rape.

While it certainly makes sense to adopt such a change, it only cures a single symptom of a much larger problem. The Huffington Post recently pointed out the absurdities of an alimony system based upon irrelevant measures of "means and needs" rather than any reasonable aspiration for fairness or justice. 

The notion of getting government out of the marriage business has been gaining traction lately. Perhaps it should get out of the divorce business as well.

Reason on marriage.

H/T to the Nerevarine Elder Scrolls Enthusiast AuH20.

Advertisement

NEXT: Tower Heist

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Nerevarine Elder Scrolls Enthusiast Goldwater”

    It’s a gamer thing? I thought you were some kinda Jooish-Mormon hybrid.

    1. Oh sloopy, you thoroughly, thoroughly sicken me. The one and only time BTW.

      Google “Morrowind.”

    2. It’s called Skyrim. It’s coming out in a week and all the cool kids will be spending their Friday nights playing it and you aren’t invited so there!

      1. You lost me at “cool kids.”

        Serious question: why no version for Wii?

        1. Wii isn’t a real platform.

          1. I bought a Wii to play with my wife and kids. I play real games on my PC.

        2. Playing an RPG with that stupid wand thing? Oh yeah, that would be fun.

        3. Graphics horsepower requirements.

      2. TES used to be the reason why I kept upgrading my PC. But given that after all those years I still spend more time with Daggerfall than Oblivion, I’m thinking about saving some money and skipping Skyrim.

  2. “The legal system currently only disqualifies perpetrators of attempted murder from spousal support entitlement. Crystal Harris and the local District Attorney are hoping to change the law so it will also exclude offenders of all violent felonies, including rape.”

    Give spouses a financial incentive to falsely accuse their soon to be ex-spouse–what could go wrong?

    1. Of course, given the choice between falsely accusing their soon to be ex-spouses–and keeping a ton of money a year for the rest of their lives–not everyone, necessarily, will choose the false accusation.

      But some of them will.

      That’s the way perverse incentives work.

      “The notion of getting government out of the marriage business has been gaining traction lately. Perhaps it should get out of the divorce business as well.”

      Oh, and sorting through people’s overlapping and conflicting rights? If there’s any appropriate place for government at all–that’s it. It’s there to protect our rights.

      1. “To protect [you name it, fill in the blank.]

        ? Progressives need government and love it.
        ? Socialist need government and love it.
        ? NeoCons need government and love it.

        Then we have the schizo-political community who love and hate it, depending on which way the wind bloweth.

        ? Communists need strong government but want to see it wither away.
        ? Libertarians need strong government but want to see it withered mostly away or withered completely away.

        And all agree that mankind as a specie somehow biologically evolved horribly wrong and even sinful, and needs the city-State to save his soul from Hobbesian hell.

        The crow, dolphin, squirrel, and White Indian families on naturally evolved successful species look on with horror as the city-State you love (and often hate) destroys life.

        “They forget that The State [City-State (Civilization)] lives at the expense of everyone.” ? Fr?d?ric Bastiat

        1. HEY MISS RECTAL I HEARD THERE’S A DEAD BODY DOWN BY THE CRICK YOU WANNA GO WITH ME TO POKE IT WITH A STICK?

        2. Seriously though?

          The idea that small-government libertarians such as myself think that one of the few appropriate uses of government is settling contract disputes–shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.

          I keep getting this vibe like you think there’s something inherently contradictory if someone is a libertarian but not an anarchist.

          …and the thing is that most libertarians, probably, are small-government libertarians but not anarchists.

          You are aware that a lot of libertarians aren’t anarchists, right? …and that if we never said there shouldn’t be a government, then there’s nothing inherently contradictory about saying that there’s a proper role for government somewhere.

          Oh, and by the way, this is the appropriate way we should be treating marriage–as a contract. If you get married without a contract, there should be a standard understanding. Sort of like a default rental agreement. If you don’t want the default agreement, then each party should get a lawyer and draw up a contract.

          That’s the way it was done back in ancient Rome! Worked great. That’s what dowries used to be about. They covered the bride’s living expenses, and in the case of divorce, the contracts usually stipulated that the bride would get back her dowry minus her living expenses while married.

          I think you need courts to settle and enforce child support judgements too. All of these agreements, of course, should be entered into voluntarily, but just because you enter into a contract voluntarily doesn’t mean you get to break the agreement whenever it suits you. …and leaving breech of contracts, like skipping out on child support responsibilities, up to the wayward parents?

          That’s not a free society in Ken Shultz’s opinion.

          We treat marriage contracts like they’re something new–but they’re as old as the hills.

          1. Ken. Dude. Troll-free Thursday. Please don’t feed it.

            1. Responding rationally to trolls doesn’t feed them.

              SCREAMING ACCUSATIONS AT THEM DOES!

          2. appropriate uses of government

            Government is aggression, i.e., initiation of force.

            What appropriate uses of aggression are there?

            marriage contracts…old as the hills

            Actually, marriage contracts are as recent as the city-State, when mother Earth was dominated, and women became property.

            What is as old as the hills is this:

            Duffy (1984) found that each child in an Mbuti camp calls every man father and every woman mother. Forager children receive far more care, time, and attention than do those in civilization’s isolated nuclear families. Post and Taylor (1984) described the “almost permanent contact” with their mothers and other adults that Bushman children enjoy. !Kung infants studied by Ainsworth (1967) showed marked precocity of early cognitive and motor skills development. This was attributed both to the exercise and stimulation produced by unrestricted freedom of movement, and to the high degree of physical warmth and closeness between !Kung parents and children (see also Konner 1976). Draper (1976) could see that “competitiveness in games is almost entirely lacking among the !Kung,” as Shostack (1976) observed “!Kung boys and girls playing together and sharing most games.” She also found that children are not prevented from experimental sex play, consonant with the freedom of older Mbuti youth to “indulge in premarital sex with enthusiasm and delight” (Turnbull 1981). The Zuni “have no sense of sin,” Ruth Benedict (1946) wrote in a related vein. “Chastity as a way of life is regarded with great disfavor. . . Pleasant relations between the sexes are merely one aspect of pleasant relations with human beings. . . Sex is an incident in a happy life.”

            John Zerzan
            Future Primitive
            http://www.primitivism.com/future-primitive.htm

            1. “What appropriate uses of aggression are there?”

              I think there’s only one way to appropriately use force, and that’s to protect people’s rights.

              The military can appropriately use force to protect our rights from foreign threats.

              The police can appropriately use force to protect our rights from criminals.

              The courts can appropriately use force to enforce our rights.

              Those bodies don’t always do what they’re supposed to do they way they’re supposed to do it, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do correctly.

              If we had a primitive anarchist society tomorrow, I suspect we’d need to reinvent those three bodies to perform those same functions the next day. Such an anarchist society might not call their military, police and courts “government”, but if it quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, and it walks like a duck…

              1. Your “rights,” enforced by government aggression are at the expense, and deaths, of other innocents. Using the word “rights” is a way to whitewash the truth of how aggressive agricultural city-State (civilization) has operated for the last 300 years on Turtle Island.

                1. “Your “rights,” enforced by government aggression are at the expense, and deaths, of other innocents.”

                  Just for the record, we’re all against expense and deaths by government aggression.

                  That’s sort of what libertarians are all about. Obviously you don’t agree with our methods, but it’s kinda interesting how…you seem to be an anarcho-primitivist?

                  …and it’s kinda odd that as an anarchist you have so much hate for libertarians, who I would think would be basically fellow travelers for you.

                  We’re not primativists, but if you’re looking to bother the hell out of statists, there are a lot of other places you could go. Both Democrats and Republicans, both liberals and conservatives, they’re all a lot more statist than libertarians are.

                  Why all the contempt for libertarians? They’re tying to make the state bigger; we’re trying to at least make the government a whole lot smaller. Make the government small enough–and you can argue for primativism then. In the meantime, why direct so much animosity at one of the few semi-mainstream groups that are at least trying to move in your direction? …on how big the state should be anyway.

                  1. …promised by Leninists and Liberarians alike.

                    I really don’t see any difference, Ken. You advocate aggression against Non-State society, and whitewash the aggression with “rights” talk.

                    Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

                    MARX: Negative.
                    MISES: Negative.

                    You refuse to acknowledge anthropological, ethnological, and archeological data of the last few decades that would allow you to check your premises about the rise and perceived necessity of the agricultural city-State (civilization.) Marx and Mises may have had the excuse of not knowing, but now all you can do is evade.

                    You’re an apologist, just like Democrats, for the benevolence of the State.

              2. The gaping maw opens wider and still Ken stands on the edge of the abyss, his faith in reason stretching to the limit.

                1. “The gaping maw opens wider and still Ken stands on the edge of the abyss, his faith in reason stretching to the limit.”

                  Trolls live to provoke retarded reactions from people.

                  Fill the thread with personal attacks in ALL CAPS and their job is done.

                  Reasonable responses don’t cause problems for anybody. That’s not faith. That’s a fact.

                  1. Reasonable responses don’t cause problems for anybody.

                    Ken, I do acknowledge and appreciate your ability to respond in complete sentences and exchange thoughts, instead of the primitive monkey shit throwing that seems to be staple here.

                    Only PIRS, yourself, and a couple editors of Reason have that apparently unique ability. Again, thank you.

            2. $$ spam $$ for JZ, tool of the State and educated by the State.

        3. is what causes the neoBarbarian tribe to shun WI.

    2. That might be what already happened here.

      “He wanted to have sex and I said no,” Crystal Harris said as she described her assault. “He kept saying this is not up for negotiation. When I finally realized that I had no choice, I mean, he was pushing my head down; I finally talked him into letting me go to the bathroom. I realize I’ve got that tape recorder not far from where we are right now.”

      If she could go to the bathroom and set up a tape recorder, couldn’t she just leave? Instead, she allegedly went back planning to perform oral sex on tape. That doesn’t sound like rape.

      1. I don’t know that’s what happened here, but if we gave people an incentive to accuse their undesired spouses of witchcraft, plenty of them would accuse their spouses of witchcraft.

        People get falsely accused of doing all sorts of terrible things with their kids by their spouses–especially when they’re duking it out for custody. Some of those accusations are spot on, but if you give people an incentive to falsely accuse each other,…

        Point is that regardless of whether this was a clear, rock solid case in this particular case, there’s an excellent reason not to give people a financial incentive to falsely accuse each other.

        The other thing that bugs me about this is that it seems to me there’s already a remedy for this. Sexual assault isn’t just a crime–you can sue people in civil court for the damage they cause you in committing a crime against. …and the standard is lower than in criminal court.

        If a prosecutor can convince a jury to unanimously convict her ex-husband of sexual assault, the chances of her being able to win in civil court with the lower standards are very high. Why not just remedy the injustice that was perpetrated against her in civil court?

        Why reinvent the wheel?

        1. I think you answered your own question. This proposed change in the law would create an incentive to make more accusations of rape and domestic violence.

  3. Good. Our first catch of the day.

    1. Good. My first poop of the day.

      *pulls up pants*

      1. HI RECTAL IT’S COOTER I HAVEN’T SEEN YOU AROUND FOR A LITTLE WHILE BUT I SURE AM GLAD YOU’RE HERE ‘CAUSE I WANTED TO ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD GO TO THE FAIR WITH ME THIS WEEKEND? I HEAR THERE’S GONNA BE COTTON CANDY AND RIDES AND EVEN A PIG BEAUTY CONTEST! YOU’RE NOT ALREADY GOING, ARE YOU?

        1. Oh for the love of christ epi, I always use my handle! You have got to get over your fixation with me.

          1. HI MISS RECTAL! IS THAT A YES? CAN I PICK YOU UP AT 6?

            1. I DON’T CARE!

              1. I’M SORRY IF I WAS TOO FORWARD MISS RECTAL I’LL TRY TO BE MORE ‘SPECTFUL FROM NOW ON! MAYBE WE COULD JUST TAKE A WALK IN THE PARK SOME TIME?

                1. I’M NOT A STALKER REALLY BUT MY DISEASE DEDICATION TO ANARCHO-INDIVIDUALIST STALKING PHILOSOPHY FORCES ME TO STALK PROCEED WITH MY TWISTED AND SAD STALKINGS STUDIES IN ANARCHO-INDIVIDUALIST…

                  WHERE WAS I GOING WITH THIS?

                  OH YEAH! I WANTED TO ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD GO TO THE…FAIR…WITH ME THIS WEEKEND? I HEAR THERE’S GONNA BE…COTTON CANDY AND RIDES AND EVEN A…UM…

                  WHERE WAS I GOING WITH THIS?

                  WARTY? SUGAR-FREE?

                  HELLER?

                  [TAP TAP]

                  IS THIS THING ON?

                  1. PLEASE DON’T HIT ME MISS RECTAL! I’M SORRY! I JUST THOUGHT MAYBE YOU COULD FEEL ABOUT ME THE WAY I FEEL ABOUT YOU!

                    1. YOU WANNA STICK IT IN MY ASS BIG BOI? YOU CAN’T HANDLE A REAL WOMAN!!! GIVE ME A CLEVELAND STEAMER AND WE’LL TALK!

                    2. NO, MISS RECTAL! WHY ARE YOU SAYING THESE DIRTY THINGS! JESUS DOESN’T LIKE TO HEAR THIS KINDA LANGUAGE!

          2. stop using my name and email

        2. Going, hell! I’m fixin’ to win me that beauty contest, Cooter!

  4. However, if the man had been assaulted, and was still paying alimony, that’s so normal that I doubt the Huffpo would have even mentioned the case.

    1. It’s worse than that. Male victims of statutory rape have to pay child support.

  5. The only thing worse than the alimony system is the absurd child-support scheme that exists.

    The fact that a woman can have an abortion without the father’s consent, and that that woman can also demand child support from a man who does not want a child is bullshit. Also, the fact that when that woman gets married later to a man whose income of $150k per year is not factored into the support equation is bullshit. The fact that she can refuse visitation rights because of “geographic hardship” due to her fear of flying is bullshit. The fact that she can essentially use a man as a sperm donor, keep the child from him, yet collect $195k in support over 18 years tax-free while her household income is well over $200k and her donor’s income isn’t close to that is also bullshit.

    Sorry for the diatribe. I know you guys have heard this from me before, but it bears repeating how bad the courts have fucked me on that one.

    1. And on the third day, we learned to not get married in the first place.

      1. Don’t take this the wrong way, Paul and sloopy, but you guys made some really bad choices. It sucks monkey balls that you got screwed as you have been, but remember, she wasn’t foisted on you (unless your stories are wilder than I imagine). You made a choice.

        1. I made a choice to have sex with a woman who both claimed to be on birth control and said she couldn’t have kids after her first child. I never made a choice to have a child.

          IOW, I was defrauded. Too bad the judge who issued the support decree said, “it may not be your fault, but it’s not that child’s fault either,” then refused to hold the responsible party solely responsible.

          Sorry, Epi. I know I’ve made some poor decisions, but this wasn’t one of them.

          1. If she lied to you, then I retract my statement. You thought you were making one choice and she deceived you into another.

            If I wanted to be niggling I could say “you should have worn a condom anyway”, but considering how much I hate them I totally understand your choice.

            1. What the fuck is this “condom” thing you speak of?

              1. It is a thingy that cost a couple of dollars but saves you $195k.

                Be happy that you have a child, the bitterness isn’t worth your time

                1. When I want advice on pickling with certain orifices or being as fat as Jabba the Hut, I’ll come to you. Until then, fuck off.

                  1. Who would you rather do, Jabba or Jar Jar?

                    1. So, it’s either fuck the rectal from a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…

                      Or, a racist caricature of a lanky black Rastafarian.

                      Tough call, but I’m gonna say Jar Jar (no homo). It might get him to shut up for a while.

            2. No, you still hold it against him. I dont care what a bitch tells me. A man handles his own business. He let his dick do his thinking for him and now he’s got to pay the price. Too bad, so sad. Hopefully lesson learned. You know how to tell a bitch is lying? Her mouth is moving.

              1. So a woman can have an abortion on demand and the man has no say in the actual life of the child, but a man sticks his dick in a woman who swears she is both on the pill and is physically incapable of pregnancy and the man can be forced to financially support it?

                Sorry, but there needs to be the equivalent of abortion for men. They should have an opportunity to opt out of responsibility for the child same as a woman can. If a woman can end a life without their partner’s consent, why can the man not do the same thing, only financially?

                Or are you not for equality in the eyes of the law?

                1. what is needed is a male “pill”. the technology is already there, it’s just not FDA approved.

                2. I am for equality in the eyes of the law. Lobby your state legislature to get it. But in the current system you’re a fucking idiot if you believe anything a woman tells you about her birth control status. Its called covering your own ass. No one else has the responsibility to make sure you don’t fuck up your life. Put a hat on Jimmy. The slight loss of sensation is worth the peace of mind. REALITY, women are not held to the same standard as men in family matters. Does it suck…sure. But it is the way it is. Deal with reality brother. Not the way it SHOULD be. You made a choice, deal with it.

          2. That shit drives me fucking insane. I know a few “proud single mothers” who got knocked up. I’m fine with “child support” in a sense.. but as a male, if the judge says he’s going to take your kids and half your paychecks away from you for 18 years, it’s almost like he’s provoking you to act out violently.
            My best friend’s wife of 10 or so years is now cutting it off, after 3 children, because “he just doesn’t open up to her”.. and she’s taking him to court solely for the alimony and child support.

            1. I guess what I hate most about it are the perverse incentives for impropriety. Something about family courts saying “it’s okay to fuck other people while the kids are being paid for by a loving, nonviolent parent” warrants some serious hostility.

              1. What makes it worse is when the baby is born, you are asked to sign a document stating you are the parent. It’s done within a few hours of the birth (the requirement is 48 hrs) and you are given no time to have it reviewed by an attorney. If you refuse to sign it, the woman is asked who the father is and it is filled out without your signature. You are then forced to prove you are not the father, and the courts are reluctant to force the child into a paternity test since, ta-da!, the child is a minor and the mother can refuse the DNA test that determines paternity.

                It’s all a fucking scam that is designed to fuck men over all in the name of “fairness.” I swear, I go into a rage when I discuss this because it is about as unjust as anything could possibly be.

                FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!

                1. What? How does that not count as some type of forgery?

                  Luckily I dodged a bullet and didn’t knock up my ex-wife. Based on what I’ve seen with both sides of my family, women know no shame when it comes to destroying their ex’s life, including turning their kids against them.

                  1. How could it be forgery? They just fill out her half of the form and use her sworn statement (a notary fills it out) to show that you are the father. At least that’s how it went down when I was sloopyinva.

                    And even if one could go to court and prove they were not the father…without being able to force a paternity test, the woman could just say she was mistaken. The court isn’t going to throw her in jail for it if you had sex with her.

                    Trust me, when you have sex with a woman and she has a child 9 months later, you are pretty much fucked if she wants you to be.

                    1. “If you refuse to sign it, the woman is asked who the father is and it is filled out without your signature.”

                      That part is what I mean.
                      On a more positive story, my friend beat the spread(hehe) when he thought he knocked this chick up. He was so convinced that it was his that he could pinpoint the date he banged her. But it must have been a busy night because he found out at least 2 other guys were sweatin it, too.

                  2. True, I know someone who makes 40-50K a year or so, and has to pay about 75% or so of his salary to his ex who makes 100-125K or so a year. This leaves him with about 10-15K a year to live on and about 150K for his ex and two kids. How did it get this high? He made about 40-50K and has support of 30% or so, he got a better job and she went to court for increased payments and got it. Next he lost the job and had to go back to the old salary. He went to court to have it lowered and the judge refused because “he is capable of making more”, which just isn’t true in today’s economy.

        2. My story is a lucky one. And I take full responsibility for my choices. My new default choice: don’t marry.

          One of the reasons I feel so strongly about the divorce racket is because I got lucky. It’s like how someone must feel when they get grazed by a bullet. Because of the ridiculous stupidity that is divorce law, I could have been raped sideways.

          I came into the marriage with a career, income and assets and 0 incidental debt and a 401k. She brought 0 income, no assets and 60,000 in student loan debt. If she had wanted to, she could have walked away with half of everything I owned and handed me 30,000 in debt.

          I consider that God’s warning shot across my bow. Paul has learned his lesson well.

          1. Yeah, there’s nothing like dodging a bullet to make you very fucking careful in the future, whether it’s marriage or anything else.

          2. But I did get a really great kid out of the deal. My ex wife and I are really good friends. But the financial mess I got dealt as I was heading into my sunset years was enough to scare the bejesus outta me. As chris rock said, if you got 20 million, if she get 10, you ain’t starving… But if you got 30,000 and she get 15?

            1. Hey, the two kids I got out of my marriage are awesome. Not only are they both very bright, they are also blossoming into wonderful libertarians, some of their exploits being chronicled here.

              The bastard kid? I wouldn’t even know him if he showed up on my doorstep tomorrow. His mother has made sure of that.

      2. Oh, this isn’t my ex-wife. That’s another story altogether, and it’s costing me even more money, even though her new husband makes really good money as well.

        The difference there is, I wanted to have those children and was willing to be held responsible for their well-being. The other chick duped me into a financial nightmare I was not a decision-maker in.

    2. Always treat a gun like it’s loaded.

      Seriously, that sucks though.

    3. Amen, my brother, amen.

  6. See guys, if you wait long enough, government will eventually self destruct their own institutions.

    1. It’s a really, really long wait.

      1. He’s here to speed things up.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt

    2. Yeah, if you wait long enough eventually a proton will decay; I wouldn’t hold my breath though.

  7. Whoa momma this thread has the potential to get super heated.

    Crystal: I feel for the injustice. You shouldn’t have to pay. But rules is rules, and he who brings the most into the marriage, loses the most. Solution: don’t get married. Solution 2: marry up, not down.

    1. Solution 3: Publically* refuse to pay, incite outrage, and get the law changed.

      If only it were that easy.

      *Misspelled? Probably.

      1. HI DOKTOR IT’S EPISIPUNK I HAVEN’T SEEN YOU AROUND FOR A LITTLE WHILE BUT I SURE AM GLAD YOU’RE HERE ‘CAUSE I WANTED TO ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD GO TO THE BLOG WITH ME THIS WEEKEND? I HEAR THERE’S GONNA BE NARCISSISTS AND PUPPET DANCES! YOU’RE NOT ALREADY GOING, ARE YOU? KISSES ANYWAY, AND I’M NOT REALLY GAY, I’M NOT!

        1. HI MISS RECTAL YOU SEEM MIGHTY STEAMED ABOUT SOMETHIN’ I HOPE IT WASN’T ME ASKIN’ YOU TO THE FAIR! I WAS JUST HOPIN’ IS ALL!

          1. WELL HUCK-SUCH AND SHAZAM MISS EPISIARCH! I’M NOT “RECTAL” BUT I DO APPRECIATE YER ATTENTION AN’ ALL, AN’ IF I DO SEE Y’ALL AT THE FAIR I’LL KICK YER LITTLE CANDY ASS AN’ STILL HAVE TIME FER THE RING TOSS, YA LITTLE PIECE O’ SHIT!

            1. PLEASE DON’T HIT ME MISS RECTAL, I WAS JUST ASKIN’! I DIDN’T MEAN NOTHIN’ BY IT! I’M SURE YOU CAN TAKE A BIG TEDDY BEAR LIKE COOTER! WHY, I WOULD NEVER EVEN HURT A FLY!

  8. Link to the tape?

    1. Here you go, my good man.

      1. why oh why did I..

        1. I believe the correct response is: “What is this I don’t even“.

          1. YOU KIDS AND YOUR INTERPORN GET OFF MY TELEGRAPH

      2. Good thing that link is SFW.

        Oh, wait….

      3. “Watch Max give these dirty birds hard core stuffing as only he can!”

        Love the classics.

  9. From each according to her ability…

  10. Simple solution: men should never receive alimony. Go out and earn your own money, and stop leaching off a woman.

    1. Simple solution: men people should never receive alimony. Go out and earn your own money, and stop leaching off a woman other people.

      1. One step at a time.

        1. Not if it’s a step in the wrong direction, knucklehead.

          1. How is reducing the number of people receiving alimony a step in the WRONG direction, fucktard?

            1. Because equal protection isn’t supposed to have an asterisk, you infantile nitwit.

              1. Maybe it’s not supposed to, but it does. Rules and laws vary depending on a person’s skin color and gender (i.e. affirmative action and hate crimes). What fantasy world have you been living in, numbskull?

    2. That should apply to both partners, unless one is clearly the cause of the problem, in which case, they should pay alimony. In this case, clearly the husband is at fault.

      1. Women sometimes need help to get by. Men should be self-sufficient, and not take handouts.

        1. That’s pretty sexist if you ask me.

        2. sexist much?

          1. Giving preferential treatment to a designated minority group is neither sexist or racist. In fact, it’s the opposite. Get with the program, dipshit.

        3. It’s a troll guys. The women are weaker and therefore need protection doesn’t pass muster anymore.

          1. Unless, of course, you’re a family court judge.

            Seriously, the double standard is still there. This is a man bites dog story, a freak exception. Business as usual is more like “What do you want, honey? Because I can order him to pay that.”

            1. I didn’t mean to suggest it doesn’t pass muster in family court. I meant to suggest it doesn’t pass muster in polite society.

          2. Not a troll, a factual statement of our society. Why else would women (who make up the majority of the population) be considered a ‘minority group’ and benefit from affirmative action? It’s a total double-standard, but one I can live with. I don’t want or need handouts from anyone, but I don’t begrudge or look down on any women who do.

  11. Oh, and Epi, it’s Thursday. Why are responding to that dumbass?

    1. What are you talking about? I can’t control what Cooter does.

      1. I don’t think the original Star Wars commenter is rectal. Not her style to post one identical sentence in every thread, and knowing the dudes actual name is pretty hard-core nerdy. Hell, even I had to look it up, and I know the quote.

        1. Oh wait, sloopy was asking why I responded to the Capt. Lemmox post? I didn’t; that wasn’t me, it was rectal doing one of her super weak spoofs.

          1. It was no such thing. See my comment above.

            1. HI RECTAL DID YOU ENJOY THE FROG LEGS? I CAUGHT THEM MYSELF IN THE SWAMP AND EVEN SAW TWO GATORS!

          2. Fair enough.

      2. Epi-Cooter = Bubbles-Conky?

  12. Spousal support reaks of more bullshit than child support.

    1. I worked with a guy once who was so glad to get rid of the wife that he signed an alimony agreement to pay the ex for the rest of her life even if she remarried. And she did, to a well to do gent, and he kept having to pay like 1/4 of his income until he eventually died and the gravy boat sank.

      1. Solution: Clothes on the beach, fake name, life in the tropics.

  13. The legal system currently only disqualifies perpetrators of attempted murder from spousal support entitlement.

    What about actual murder? Are you telling me successful murderers are eligible for spousal support from their victim?

    1. Yeah, it’s called that hefty life insurance policy with a 100k AD&D clause in it..

    2. IANAL, but unless stated otherwise in the will, I would assume they would be the sole heir to the property of the deceased.

      Could one of our legal brethren answer this?

      1. Generally the spouse gets everything by default unless there are kids not from the marriage.

        If you intentionally kill someone, you do not get their money from a will, trust, life insurance, etc.

        Your state’s laws may vary.

        1. That’s why’s we makes it look likes she fell down the stairs.

        2. Then who gets it?

          Let me guess…the fucking state gets it if no will exists?

          1. I’d imagine whatever inheritance the murderer had goes to intestacy and the state decides how to distribute it. IIRC the state only gets it if there are no legitimate heirs.

  14. The Nerevarine Elder Scrolls are blasphemy! Lord Vivec is the true god!

    No but seriously- adjectives are a thing. And I couldn’t be happier for mine, especially given that I posted this up in Morning Links, which normally doesn’t get hat tips. Thanks you!

    1. I guess adjectives are fine. Official Titles are better.

    2. STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM

      So I see you got credit as the Nerevarine. Good work, sir.

    3. I did so much dungeon crawling in IV, I never got around to actually playing the game and completing quests and what not. I am so burned out on it, that to this day I still have not attempted to go back and actually play it.

  15. Well? The current system was called no-fault divorce for a reason. Working as designed.

  16. I feel bad about her getting fucked with the rape. But I don’t have the slightest sympathy about getting fucked with the alimony.

    It has been said that one is statistically more likely to make more money if they have a college degree. More women than men are getting college degrees. Thus, more and more women will be making more than men. Which will result in us seeing results like this happening more often.

    As a wise man once said to Neo, “Welcome to the Real World.”

    1. I feel bad about her getting fucked with the rape.

      Was that pun intentional? If so…hilarious.

      1. of course and you’re welcome.

        1. The term “irrumatio” would have been more accurate.

          1. Wow you learn somehthing new every day. Annette Schartz is pretty good at that. The term also applies to titty fucking.

      2. Dude. I’ve been on the road. Beer going out tomorrow. Sorry for the wait.

    2. correlation, causation, it’s all the same, right?

  17. It seems misogyny trumps principle here at H&R. What’s with the collective responsibility argument that women should pay for the actions of their own kind?

  18. Devil’s advocate:

    Take one devious, smart, and really pissed-off wife who wants to not just divorce her husband, but take all their marital assets and get him thrown in jail (infidelity can make women really crazy).

    They have a history of rough role-playing sex. He wants a blowjob. She feigns reluctance, knowing that will turn him on. He gets ready to do her. She excuses herself, leaves the room, gets a tape recorder, and comes back with it turned on, but obviously not catching the prior conversation, thus taking things out of context. She gives him head while role-playing reluctance, really making it sound convincing, he cums, she shuts the tape recorder off, and then gets a really smart lawyer.

    He gets a crappy lawyer. She accuses him of sexual assault, he denies it, tape is played in front of sympathetic jury. He gets rolled and goes to jail.

    Non-cynical Reason staffer does not ask if the guy could be not guilty, writes a post.

    This scenario would fit the facts related in this post.

    1. Yeah, I’m having kind of a hard time with the whole “He raped me, without actually ever threatening me, and certainly without physical coercion, oh, and I ran out and got a tape recorder in the middle if it” thing.

      1. I’m having a hard time (so to speak) with the whole forced oral copulation thing. Personally, I’m not putting my member anywhere near an unwilling mouth, particularly if full of teeth. I just don’t even see the pleasure in that.. at all.

        1. That too.

          I also wonder how she set up a conveniently-located tape recorder in the room where her husband already was, without him noticing.

          And if she had the time and ability to do all that, she could have just as easily called the cops instead.

    2. I didn’t RTFA, but if it had gone down (!) that way, I’m pretty sure even a dimwitted lawyer would’ve mounted that particular defense.

      1. That doesn’t mean he didn’t try. And a “history of rough role-playing sex” might fall under rape shield laws.

  19. Print|Email
    Tower Heist
    Grand theft

    Kurt Loder | November 3, 2011

    A buddy comedy? With Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy? Directed by Brett Ratner? I can hear your eyeballs cartwheeling in your head.

    But Tower Heist is that uncommon thing, a big-budget Hollywood holiday movie that really is funny. Oh, the titular heist (carried out during the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade) is a shambolic affair, and some promising glimmers of romance never pay off, and the final plot development is a deflating miscalculation. But the laughs prevail, thanks to a cast that’s sharp beyond the call of PG-13 entertainment.

    This is not really a buddy movie, either?not in the machine-tooled manner of the old 48 Hrs. films, or the Rush Hour series (which Ratner also directed). It’s a buddies flick, with even the top-billed stars, Stiller and (more than you’d expect) Murphy, fitting themselves smoothly into the picture’s smartly assembled ensemble.

    The plot arises out of our current economic disarray, but the movie wisely avoids message-mongering. Stiller plays Josh Kovacs, the manager of a Manhattan luxury hotel with a tower wing of deluxe apartments inhabited by wealthy permanent residents. Foremost among this coddled crowd is Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), a Wall Street investment titan so loaded he keeps a vintage Ferrari on display in his living room. (He’s at pains to point out that the car once belonged to Steve McQueen.) When an FBI team led by Special Agent Claire Denham (T?a Leoni) suddenly arrives at the hotel to bust Shaw for fraud, Kovacs and his staff discover that their company pension account, which had been under Shaw’s supervision, is now entirely empty, and they’ve been left penniless. So when it looks as if Shaw might beat his rap?and when Agent Denham suggests that he could have millions in stolen funds socked away in his apartment?Josh and his now-impoverished staffers decide to break into the place and steal the money back.

    Josh’s ad-hoc heist team is of course intimately familiar with the hotel’s layout and personnel routines. Straitlaced Charlie (Casey Affleck) is the concierge, bumbling Enrique (Michael Pe?a) is the bellhop, and randy Odessa (Gabourey Sidibe) is a room maid (and, fortuitously, a locksmith’s daughter as well). Also onboard for the caper is another tower resident, the down-on-his-luck Wall Street drone Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick), whose company has gone belly up and who is overstaying eviction from his swell digs. (“I went to Yale 20 years ago,” he says glumly. “Now I’m a squatter.”)

    Naturally, none of these people have any criminal expertise, so it’s decided to bring in a real felon, a fast-talking con called Slide (Murphy) as a consultant. Murphy is the film’s most valuable asset. After years of brainless Klumps and Norbits, this oddly misguided comic finally reaches back to retrieve the motor-mouth hostility that made him a star in the first place, and he brings a blast of energy to every scene he’s in. (Whipping out a plastic Baggie containing a dead roach at one point, and suggesting a visit to a local restaurant, he tells his startled accomplices, “Lunch is on me!”)

    Murphy’s virtuoso bluster doesn’t overbalance the movie, though (well, not entirely), because the rest of the actors are in such nimble form. Stiller, carefully restrained here, is notably generous in allowing room for his fellow players to shine?especially Broderick (the po-faced soul of existential defeat), Leoni (an undervalued comic actor who doesn’t work nearly enough), and Sidibe (who provides some irresistibly sly line readings). Even Alda, that icon of low-key affability, demonstrates an unexpected mastery of purring condescension.

    If only the actual heist were a little more believable (and coherently staged), and if Stiller and Leoni finally got together at the end (their growing flirtation just dribbles away), Tower Heist might have been a mainstream classic. Given the usual run of lobotomized seasonal movie fodder, though, it’s hard to be much else but happy about what we get.

    Kurt Loder is a writer living in New York. His third book, a collection of film reviews called The Good, the Bad and the Godawful, will be out on November 8th from St. Martin’s Press. Follow him on Twitter at kurt_loder.

    [ Download ]

    Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

    Tweet
    more sharing

    Try Reason’s award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
    See all 21 comments | Leave a comment

    Editor’s Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
    Capt. Xamuel Lennox|11.3.11 @ 5:07PM|#

    Good. Our first catch of the day.
    Episipunk|11.3.11 @ 9:27PM|#

    OH SHUT THE FUCK UP RECTAL–YOU ARE RECTAL AREN’T YOU?–ANYWAY DEEP DISH MICHAEL BAY TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE STATE FAIR WHAAAAAH!
    Episiarch|11.3.11 @ 9:53PM|#

    GEE WHILIKERS MISS RECTAL YOU SURE SEEM PRETTY UPSET DO YOU WANT ME TO GET YOU A LEMONADE SO THAT YOU CAN SIT ON THE PORCH AND COOL OFF?
    EDG reppin’ LBC|11.3.11 @ 5:21PM|#

    I trust Loder’s reviews. I’m glad he liked this because I want to see it. It has the potential to be pretty funny, or to be a hot mess. For me it hinges on Eddie Murphy. Good to hear he’s playing it Axel Foley instead of Professor Klump.
    Capt. Xamuel Lennox|11.3.11 @ 5:28PM|#

    Have you ever been shot in the junk with an ion cannon?
    chris|11.3.11 @ 5:40PM|#

    How many of those Stiller/Vaughn movies of the early oughts could have worked well instead of fizzled if Murphy was a member of that crew of comic actors?

    A team of good amateur film editors and cgi artist should go ahead and retcon him into Old School, and the lesser ones. It should be done.
    The Immaculate Trouser|11.3.11 @ 5:50PM|#

    Eddie Murphy’s always been pretty hit-or-miss in his comic outings on the big screen. He’s going to either make or break the film.

    Charlie Murphy, OTOH…
    Pro Libertate|11.3.11 @ 5:55PM|#

    Charlie Murphy!
    Rick James|11.3.11 @ 6:00PM|#

    Charlie Rangel!
    ?|11.3.11 @ 6:02PM|#

    I trust Loder’s reviews.

    The Rolling Stones
    Undercover
    ****1/2

    NEVER FORGET
    Paul|11.3.11 @ 6:08PM|#

    Ye gods! 4.8 stars on IMDB. Nothing…nothing comes in under 6 stars on IMDB because of the bizarre many-clicks/averaging theory of the internet.
    KL|11.3.11 @ 6:57PM|#

    Glad to see somebody’s tracking 30-year-old record reviews. Although not closely enough: That review was published long before RS started using star ratings on reviews. The stars you note were appended at some later date.
    WWJGD|11.3.11 @ 6:50PM|#

    I’m holding out for Loder’s review of A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas.
    EDG reppin’ LBC|11.3.11 @ 7:02PM|#

    Damn the revieews for Harold and Kumar! Just go see it and laugh your ass off.
    Episiarch|11.3.11 @ 6:54PM|#

    Ben Stiller = suck. As much as I would love to see Eddie come back and come back strong, I wish he had chosen something without Stiller in which to do it.

    Did Loder do a review of Drive? Now that’s a fucking interesting movie.
    alexdroog|11.3.11 @ 8:20PM|#

    Loder’s Drive review.
    Joshua Corning|11.3.11 @ 7:01PM|#

    I have missed Eddie Murphy.

    And Shrek does not count.
    Doktor Kapitalism|11.3.11 @ 7:19PM|#

    I’m somewhat ambivalent about the theme here: evil financier steals poor working people’s money. Reinforcing the idea that Teh Rich!!!!!!!on!!!1e!1%!!!! only got that way by stealing.

    Ignoring that, the preview was funny.
    cw|11.3.11 @ 7:44PM|#

    Agreed. But what do you expect? People are angry, and feeding into their preconceived notions satisfies them.
    Ted S.|11.3.11 @ 9:45PM|#

    Is this better than Fitzwilly?
    Subjectivity|11.3.11 @ 11:23PM|#

    Today it is not
    only the stereotypical yuppie workaholic
    who tries to cheat despair
    via activity,
    preferring not to contemplate
    a fate no less sterile
    than that of the planet
    and (domesticated)
    subjectivity
    in general.

    1. WALL OF TEXT. GO AWAY

  20. By what logic is anyone, anywhere owed “spousal support”?

    1. I believe that back in the day, a woman married to a man who was a loyal housewife and raised his kids, allowing him to have the high flying, prestige career was seen to be owed something for her time and effort put into the marriage.

      It’s the no-fault, “i get half” states that I think are crazy. You get married late in life, build up retirement accounts, acquire real estate, assets, then you get married… two years later she has an affair and goes through an emotional journey of self discovery which results in her deciding you don’t figure into her future. She walks away with half. We call this enlightened policy.

  21. Guys, can you imagine getting raped by this pig?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..times.html

    1. Fap. Fap. Fap. Fap. Fap.
      **catches breath**
      fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap

    2. I just threw up in my mouth.

      1. You’ve got incredible control of your gag reflex – I need a new monitor.

    3. From the article:

      “Sullivan even bought the youngster a pair of trainers as a reward when the pair slept together for the 100th time . . .”

      I don’t speak British – can someone tell me what “trainers” are?

      1. Shoes, particularly running shoes.

  22. i would hope that even IF they change the law, that it does not apply retroactively. iow, that she has to continue to pay alimony.

    generally speaking, retroactive PUNISHMENT is unconstitutional but retroactive “administrative” changes aren’t

    for example, when VAWA was passed, people who had previously pled guilty to minor DV assaults NOW lost their RKBA essentially retroactively.

    regardless, it SOUNDS like the judge in this case *is* right on the law.

    the law carves out the exceptions, this aint one of them, so he gets the alimony

    simple

    the result may not please some people, but law is about, as i say repeatedly – process analysis, not results analysis

    1. That’s right, dunphy. Don’t ever question authority.

      1. wow. nice trolling attempt

        yes, when the authority is “the law” , that’s what a JUDGE is supposed to rule on. not his opinion, contrary to law.

        if a cop catches a murderer, and gets a confession after arrest without miranda, a judge is SUPPOSED to “submit” to the authority of the law and say “that’s inadmissable as direct evidence” because… that’s the authority of the law.

        and i am sure if and when a person you LIKE is protected or benefited by the “authority ” of the law, whether it be the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to remain silent, etc. you would say the ‘authority’ of the law is a good thing

        there is a way to CHANGE that authoritah, as i said. change the law. but if the law did not carve out the relevant exception, then the judge did the right thing. he ruled on the law, NOT the ‘best result’

        that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to work in a system that values rule of law OVER arbitrary rule of men in authority

        but maybe you would prefer to prostrate yourself to those in authoritah

        feel free to lick their boots. i’ll choose rule of law

        1. what? Judges rule on their opinions all the fucking time.

          And judges change the law through their opinions, jackass.

        2. what? Judges rule on their opinions all the fucking time.

          And judges change the law through their opinions, jackass.

          1. And, no, I for one believe that if a law is inadequate in serving justice to the people, it needs flexibility. In this case, it clearly does. She should be absolved of any alimony payments up to her spouse’s conviction.

            1. right. iow, rule of law doesn’t matter and judges should have discretion to ignore the law as long as they ignore it IN THE DIRECTION THAT THE ONE GREAT SY thinks they should.

              so, if like a really bad murderer gets beaten into a confession and like that’s the only evidence the state has, well clearly the law (exclusionary principle) is inadequate for “serving justice to the people”, so it needs FLEXIBILITY

              this is why i thank god i live under a rule of law. as flawed as it is, it is 1000X better than having ad hoc revolutionary justice field marshalls deciding the law should be “whatever serves justice to the people”

              really, this is like a twisted version of judicial activism, mixed with a little che, and then all melted up with some alice in wonderland

              love it, man.

              1. When a policeman can violently attack someone in a wheelchair and not even get suspended for it, or for the falsification of the arrest report, then he “Rule of Law” you speak of does not exist.

                If the police are held to lower standards that other civilians IRT assault, false imprisonment, witness tampering and intimidation, falsification of official documents, perjury, murder, reckless endangerment, sexual battery, and myriad other things, then there is no “Rule of Law.”

                So, go fuck yourself, you pig.

                1. ok, probably pip

                  this sounds like his “from my mama’s basement while she wipes my ass and brings me hot pockets” type bigoted rantings

                  1. Oh, poor fucking dunphy. “waaaa people mistrust cops waa”

                    1. So, dunphy, you believe nullification should be a crime?

    2. Nobody’s innocent. Everyone is guilty of something. Sometimes we bring them in on the wrong charge. Next time though, it will stick. Plus they’ll have a prior.

      1. yawn. lots of people are innocent. innocents are arrested and convicted.

        yawn.

        another weak trolling attempt

        must be pip,… or maybe sarcasmic still butthurt about being guilty as fuck…

        1. nobody’s innocent. everyone’s guilty of something.

          1. is this like that star trek episode? are you like evil bearded spock?

            1. Aren’t there some innocent civilians you should be harassing?

        2. Better 100 innocent go to jail than 1 guilty go free

    3. I’m against the idea that someone shouldn’t be able to have a gun because of misdemeanor domestic violence, not only because it’s bullshit, but because that person is more likely to defend themselves against a crazy ex.

      1. so am i. i also don’t think a simple nonviolent felony, like writing a check on a closed account should be disqualifying

        fortunately, ex-post heller THERE HAS BEEN some good case law going forward in such cases. covered at volokh.com

  23. The law always protects the state’s interest first. In this case the guy was a an unemployed bum who would require the state to support him once he is out of jail. They don’t want to support him so they dump the support on the spouse. Many marriages exist after the marriage fails because the financial burden one spouse would incur due to the other not wanting to work would ruin the spouse wanting to leave the relationship. This is true even if there are no children involved. It isn’t fair or right but the courts aren’t about fair or right but protecting the interest of the state. If this woman were smart, she’d contract to have him bumped off for a 1x fee. It would be cheaper and the world would be a better place without him.

  24. I don’t think it’s wise to create financial incentives for people in the middle of a divorce to get their spouses convicted of a crime.

  25. So why is a victim being forced to pay her attacker? According to Judge Gregory Pollock, it’s because Crystal Harris brought home six figures worth of bacon while Shawn Harris was unemployed.

    When my exwife was unemployed for 90% of our marriage, everyone called it being a homemaker.

    1. also, note the victim is being forced to pay her attacker, because (under the law) the two incidents are unrelated.

      marriage is, essentially a contract.

      if the two had engaged in some other sort of business contract, and the contract was being questioned, the fact that one had violated the other’s rights in another matter might or might not be relevant, etc.

      again, this may not be the best “result” or “just” in the eyes of many, but it is apparently consistent with the law

      if “the law is an ass”, you change the law. you don’t (hopefully) have a judge ignore the law because the outcome would be bad. another good example is the recent decision not to press charges against the child abusing judge

      statute of limitations expired.

      may not be a good “result” but it’s the law

    2. It’s called no fault divorce. It doesn’t matter what the reason is, no one is at fault. As Bduce said, it’s about the state protecting the taxpayer’s by ensuring no one becomes dependent on the state.

      No fault creates the situation that the lower income spouse can demand divorce, i.e. be released from their obligations of the marriage contract while insisting on ‘maintaining the standard of living they’ve become accustomed to during the marriage’. That is, continue to enjoy the financial benefits of being married without fulfilling it’s obligations.

      If my ex hadn’t been reasonable in mediation, I’d have insisted in court on conjugal rights as part of ‘ the standard of living I had become accustomed to during marriage’ if she was going to recieve the financial benefits.
      Fortunately, she wanted out of marriage and motherhood. I got full custody with her receiving visitation in my home.

      Anyway, marriage isn’t a contract. At least in no-fault states. You can’t break a contract and continue to receive the benefits.

      The ‘maintaining the standard’ only makes sense where the lower income was betrayed/hurt by the higher income and deserves the benefits since they fulfilled their obligations.

      1. well you are correct, in that in no fault states its not a contract in that the issue isn’t fault, etc.

        but it is a contract in that when you enter it, certain obligations apply. the difference is (vs. standard contracts) that when one party chooses to dissolve the contract, they don’t need a reason (no fault) nor is their reason usually relevant at all (unless there is a prenup or in certain circ’s) but that the obligations still apply regarding certain asset stuff, etc

        but i totally concede that you are right. it’s very distinguishable from a “contract” in that all those fault issues, etc. are irrelevant

  26. Neglected to add, but I hope it was implicit that I know the conjugal benefits thing would be laughed out of court; but I would love to see someone make the argument in a high profile case just to point out the absurdity of no-fault.

  27. Ken Shultz has it right. The law should leave most, maybe all, the details of a marriage up to the participants — but it is still a contract, and contracts lead to disputes, and when they do, someone has to act as a judge.

    Perhaps we should promote the use of prenups containing arbitration clauses.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.