Yes, both of those old rules are unfair and unconstitutional. A marriage license is not a permission slip for sexual assault. The old-fashioned ideas that a wife is her husband's property or that she gives permanent consent are wrong and have no place in modern law. Protecting a marriage doesn't mean allowing violence within it. The rule that only men can be guilty of rape is also unfair. While it's less common, women can assault men, and the law needs to protect everyone equally. Instead of getting rid of the rape law completely, we are fixing it by removing the unfair exemptions. From now on, anyone who forcibly rapes another person in New York can be charged, regardless of whether they are married or what their gender is. Because Mario's actions were illegal even under the old law (due to the protection order), his conviction stands.

Yes, the laws that treat rape differently based on marriage or gender are unfair and unconstitutional. The old reasons for allowing husbands to rape their wives, like the idea that a wife is her husband's property or that she can never take back her consent to sex, are not acceptable anymore. Rape is a terrible, violent crime that seriously harms the victim, whether they're married or not. And letting only women be victims of rape and only men be guilty of it is also wrong, because the government can't show a good reason for treating men and women differently here. So the solution is to get rid of the unfair parts of the laws and make them apply to everyone equally. Mario's conviction is upheld.

Fortunately the Court of Appeals determined in 1984 "that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between marital rape and nonmarital rape

The Court of Appeals found that "there is no rational basis for distinguishing between marital rape and nonmarital rape," and that "[t] he various rationales which have been asserted in defense of the exemption are either based upon archaic notions about the consent and property rights incident to marriage or are simply unable to withstand even the slightest scrutiny."

The stigma and other difficulties associated with a woman reporting a rape and pressing charges probably deter most attempts to fabricate an incident

While the legislature did not amend the ERAP Act to require a due process hearing to allow the courts to determine whether the tenant/occupant is engaged in some conduct to delay the ERAP application process, New York law requires this court to construe its statutes so as to avoid constitutional impairment

Thus, appellants' constitutional equal protection claim cannot be avoided and the only relevant legal maxim is the one that demands proof by the State that a classification based on gender be substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental objective

Just as a husband cannot invoke a right of marital privacy to escape liability for beating his wife, he cannot justifiably rape his wife under the guise of a right to privacy

—supra) the court held that the marital exemption contained in Penal Law §§ 130.35 and 130.50, first degree rape and first degree sodomy, and the gender exemption contained in Penal Law § 130.35, first degree rape, violated equal protection.

The Court of Appeals has explained that: "When a statute is constitutionally defective because of underinclusion, a court may either strike the statute, and thus make it applicable to nobody, or extend the coverage of the statute to those formerly excluded..." [The] court's task is to discern what course the Legislature would have chosen to follow if it had foreseen [the court's] …

As 17th century English jurist Sir Matthew Hale opined, "the husband can not be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself in this kind unto her husband which she can not retract

The current trend, however, expresses the contrary view that rape within marriage is blameworthy and is typically an expression of unequal power within the marriage and of actual spouse abuse.

Yes, the marital and gender-based exemptions in New York's rape and sodomy statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause. The marital exemption lacks a rational basis, as its historical justifications—such as implied consent and the wife as property—are archaic and indefensible. Modern justifications, like promoting marital privacy or reconciliation, are not rationally served by allowing forcible sexual assault, which is a violent act that destroys rather than protects the marital relationship. The court found no legitimate state interest in distinguishing between marital and non-marital rape. Similarly, the gender exemption in the rape statute fails intermediate scrutiny because it is not substantially related to an important government objective. The state's proffered justifications, including the prevention of pregnancy and physiological differences, are based on overbroad stereotypes and do not justify a law that punishes males for forcible rape but not females. Rather than invalidate the entire rape and sodomy statutes, the court remedied the constitutional defects by severing the exemptions, thereby extending the statutes' application to all persons regardless of marital status or gender.

Yes, the marital and gender exemptions in the statutes for rape and sodomy violate the equal protection clause because they arbitrarily burden specific groups of individuals without a rational basis. The traditional justifications for these exemptions, such as implied consent and the idea that a wife is the property of her husband, are based on archaic notions that have long been rejected. There is no rational basis for distinguishing between marital and nonmarital rape, as the various rationales asserted in defense of the exemption, such as marital privacy and reconciliation, and difficulties of proof, cannot withstand scrutiny. Marital rape is just as violent and harmful as nonmarital rape. The gender exemption also fails, as the People have not shown that the exemption serves an important governmental objective better than a gender-neutral law would. The remedy is to strike the marital and gender exemptions and extend the coverage of the statutes to any person who engages in the prohibited conduct. The defendant's conviction is affirmed.

People v. Liberta

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot