It’s 2019, And States Are Still Making Exceptions for Spousal Rape

A controversy involving Deval Patrick’s ex-brother-in-law highlights an old double standard.

Almost immediately after former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick entered the presidential race last week, he started facing questions about his 2014 decision to push out two officials who had tried to put his brother-in-law on the state’s sex offender registry.

The backstory: According to a complaint filed by one of the officials, in 1993, Bernard Sigh pleaded guilty under California’s spousal rape law to using force to rape his then-wife, Patrick’s sister. He served four months in prison, reconciled with his wife, and moved with her to Massachusetts in 1995. The following year, the state enacted a law requiring anyone convicted of a sex offense in Massachusetts or “like” offenses in other states to register. Sigh didn’t submit his name to the registry. His conviction remained largely unknown until Patrick ran for governor in 2006, when it was unearthed in what was widely viewed as an attempt at campaign mudslinging.

Patrick won anyway, and in the following months the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board examined whether Sigh should have been on the list. Sigh argued that he shouldn’t be required to register because California’ s spousal rape law was not similar enough to Massachusetts’ rape law, which did not distinguish between offenses that occur in and outside of marriage. A registry officer agreed, but the chair and the executive director of the board unsuccessfully tried to overturn the ruling. Seven years later, shortly before he left office, Patrick ousted the two women from their positions. He explained in a press conference that his decision traced back to them “inappropriately interfering” with Sigh’s case years earlier.

In a recent statement to the Washington Post, Patrick defended his decision to push out the two officials as an attempt to hold them accountable, and he characterized the episode as a painful personal matter best “left out of the public eye.” But the controversy over his actions has glossed over the ruling at the heart of the matter—and the idea that spousal rape is legally different than other kinds of rape. 

That distinction is an old one. For most of American history, rape within marriage wasn’t considered rape. The idea traces back to the writings of Sir Matthew Hale, an 17th-century English jurist who theorized that wives give “irrevocable consent” to their husbands. “By their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract,” Hale wrote. For centuries, the American legal system nodded along with this notion. And the logic behind it persists: In 2015, Donald Trump’s then-fixer Michael Cohen told reporters, “By the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.”

Yet in the 1970s and 1980s, women’s rights activism, court rulings, and a growing body of research into the prevalence of marital rape led state legislatures to expand their definitions of sexual assault to include incidents between spouses. By 1993, when Sigh was convicted, every state had laws classifying spousal rape as a crime in some form.

But many states still treat spousal rape as different from other rapes, providing exemptions for spouses depending on the facts of the case and the severity of the charge, says Patti Powers, a former Washington sex crimes prosecutor and attorney advisor at AEquitas, a nonprofit that educates prosecutors about gender-based violence. Some laws consider spousal rape to be rape only if it involves physical force—a loophole that overlooks incidents in which the victim was drugged, unconscious, or otherwise unable to consent. Some states have exemptions for spouses in their statutory rape laws, or in laws prohibiting sexual contact between people with a “supervisory relationship,” such as therapists and patients, or teachers and students.

Many states still treat spousal rape differently



Four decades after the start of the movement to criminalize spousal rape, states are still updating their statutes. This year, Minnesota eliminated its marital exemption for rape cases in which the victim is incapacitated. Bills to remove martial exemptions in Ohio and Maryland both died in committee. Meanwhile, states that specifically criminalize spousal rape treat the crime differently in some respects: California requires people convicted under its law to register as sex offenders, but only if they used “force or violence” and were sentenced to state prison.

The particulars of Sigh’s spousal rape conviction in 1993 and subsequent move to Massachusetts allowed him to avoid registering as a sex offender. No longer: In June, a Massachusetts jury convicted Sigh of rape, kidnapping, stalking, witness intimidation, and other crimes in connection with sexually assaulting his estranged wife in December 2017. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate