# Paula Rader paying for the crimes of her husband **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767 "2005-11-12T21:48:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/1 "2005-11-12T21:48:35Z")
Paula Rader is trying to sell the house she owns. All rights in the house were granted to her in the divorce from her ex-husband, the BTK killer. From [CNN](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051112/ap_on_re_us/btk_killings): > [@](#): > > However, relatives of three of Rader’s victims — Shirley Vian Relford, Nancy Fox and Vicki Wegerle — filed court papers in September seeking to prevent Rader’s relatives from keeping profits from the house sale, said Paula Rader’s attorney, Jim Walker. > > And Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline filed a lien on the property for reimbursement of the costs of Rader’s public defenders. > > … > > Another possible hurdle is a ruling issued last month by Sedgwick County District Court Judge Greg Waller, who ordered Rader to pay nearly $42,000 in restitution to relatives of his victims. In what way are these actions anything more than mean-spirited towards Mrs. Rader? They will affect the killer not at all, but will instead deprive an innocent woman of her only asset. These actions are morally reprehensible and despicable. Should family members be made to suffer for their own tragedy of being married to a criminal? Obviously, I say not. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/2 "2005-11-12T22:38:32Z")
The thing is, she was apparently still his wife, and the property was still in part legally his, when he was arrested: > [@](#): > > An emergency divorce granted after Rader’s arrest gave Paula Rader all the couple’s property and his retirement benefits. I agree that it’s rough luck on Paula Rader having been married to a violent criminal, and I don’t think anyone should try to punish her for it. However, I also see the justice of using a criminal’s assets to make partial restitution to his victims. This doesn’t work if criminals are allowed to shed assets for the financial benefit of their family members. Yes, Paula Rader shouldn’t be punished for having married a criminal, but she shouldn’t make a profit off it, either. I don’t see how she is morally entitled to **all** his property and **all** his retirement benefits just because he’s a convicted criminal and can no longer use them himself. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/3 "2005-11-12T22:40:50Z")
It looks like what the people involved are afraid of is that the divorce is an attempt by Mr. Rader to hide assets. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/4 "2005-11-12T22:53:14Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yes, Paula Rader shouldn’t be punished for having married a criminal, but she shouldn’t make a profit off it, either. I don’t see how she is morally entitled to **all** his property and **all** his retirement benefits just because he’s a convicted criminal and can no longer use them himself. How is she profiting off her husband being a criminal? The house and other assets came from her husband having a steady job and owning a home, not from him being a serial killer. She’s not even profiting, really, as she hasn’t gained anything she didn’t already have just from being married to the guy. His conviction hasn’t enriched her at all, and it seems grossly unfair to impoverish her for her husband’s crimes. And she’s morally, and legally, entitled to all those assets because she was the guy’s wife. Him being a psychopath doesn’t change that remotely. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/5 "2005-11-12T23:13:35Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > How is she profiting off her husband being a criminal? […] She’s not even profiting, really, as she hasn’t gained anything she didn’t already have just from being married to the guy. Well, yeah she has: she’s gained complete control over all the assets that used to be the **joint** property of her and her husband. That was not so much because he committed crimes as because he got arrested and jailed for them. If she had divorced a law-abiding husband, or an undetected criminal, there’s no way she would have received **all** their joint property and **all** his retirement benefits. > [@Miller](#): > > And she’s morally, and legally, entitled to all those assets because she was the guy’s wife. Him being a psychopath doesn’t change that remotely. I’m not sure I get that reasoning. If he legally owed money to creditors, she wouldn’t be allowed to take all his property if she divorced him, right? Some of it would have to be turned over to the creditors to settle his debts. Similarly, if he owes money to the families of his victims, does she have a moral right to keep all his property just because she managed to divorce him after he got caught but before he got sentenced? Maybe your position is that criminals should be punished strictly through the criminal justice system, not by being required to make monetary restitution to their victims. So Rader doesn’t actually owe anybody anything, financially speaking. If so, then I see your point. If Rader doesn’t owe any money to anybody, and he has no use for money where he is now, then there’s certainly no reason his wife shouldn’t get all his assets upon divorcing him, just as she would if she were widowed. But if he **does** owe somebody, I’m not convinced that his wife is morally entitled to snaffle all their joint property for her personal use while his creditors get nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/6 "2005-11-12T23:42:42Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, yeah she has: she’s gained complete control over all the assets that used to be the **joint** property of her and her husband. That was not so much because he committed crimes as because he got arrested and jailed for them. If she had divorced a law-abiding husband, or an undetected criminal, there’s no way she would have received **all** their joint property and **all** his retirement benefits. Well, how much she would have got would depend on the relative skill of their attornies. Probably not all, but likely she’d have gotten the house and a substantial portion of their assets. The problem is, there’s no way at this point to say how much she would have gotten under the terms of a “normal” divorce. She divorced the guy, she got all his stuff. That stuff is now hers. She didn’t kill anyone, so she doesn’t owe any of that stuff to anyone else. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure I get that reasoning. If he legally owed money to creditors, she wouldn’t be allowed to take all his property if she divorced him, right? Some of it would have to be turned over to the creditors to settle his debts. If he owed it while they were being divorced, you’re right. When they got divorced, though, he didn’t owe any of that stuff to anybody. If, the day before he got arrested, he gave an expensive birthday gift to a friend, do the families of his victims have any claim to that gift? > [@](#): > > Similarly, if he owes money to the families of his victims, does she have a moral right to keep all his property just because she managed to divorce him after he got caught but before he got sentenced? Yes. She did no harm to anyone, and she got the property in an entirely lawful manner. It’s hers, and no one else has any claim on it. > [@](#): > > Maybe your position is that criminals should be punished strictly through the criminal justice system, not by being required to make monetary restitution to their victims. So Rader doesn’t actually owe anybody anything, financially speaking. If so, then I see your point. If Rader doesn’t owe any money to anybody, and he has no use for money where he is now, then there’s certainly no reason his wife shouldn’t get all his assets upon divorcing him, just as she would if she were widowed. No, I don’t have a problem with this sort of thing in principle. Just not in this case. > [@](#): > > But if he **does** owe somebody, I’m not convinced that his wife is morally entitled to snaffle all their joint property for her personal use while his creditors get nothing. Debts incured after the divorce are not the responsibility of the ex-spouse. He didn’t owe any money at the time the fines were assesed. He does owe something to several people. His wife doesn’t owe anything to anybody. Attempts to collect on his debts from an uninvolved third party are unethical. It’s a shame, I admit. He owes the families of his victims quite a bit. Too bad he was smart enough to get rid of everything before they could collect. It’s not fair, but you don’t correct one injustice by commiting a second injustice. I’m also curious how much you think she should have to give up to settle her husbands debts. I’m not familiar with her financial standing: how much did she bring to the marriage? Did she have a career, or was she a housemaker? If they take the house because he was a serial killer, does she end up out on the street? Does she have any means of support outside of what she got from the divorce? Would there be anything left for her after all his legal debts have been settled? If not, is it moral to completely ruin her, to pay off punitive fines levied against a man who is already going to spend the rest of his life in a cell? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/7 "2005-11-12T23:44:26Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > It looks like what the people involved are afraid of is that the divorce is an attempt by Mr. Rader to hide assets. That may be, but that’s foolish if so. Assets will do Rader no good where he’s going to be for the rest of his life. It seems to me that Rader is trying to do the right thing by his wife, who, in my opinion, is just as much a victim as the murdered people’s families. > [@Kimstu](#): > > But if he does owe somebody, I’m not convinced that his wife is morally entitled to snaffle all their joint property for her personal use while his creditors get nothing. Legally, you may be correct. However, no judgement has been made. And if a judgement is made, Mrs. Rader will be left impoverished. Even if they only take the money the state wants for his defense, that’s half of the price the house sold for. That’s ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/8 "2005-11-12T23:53:23Z")
I think the point is that the divorce/transfer of assets was clearly done to avoid anyone laying claim to Rader’s assets for restitution. If the owner of a large corporation was caught stealing from the company and did the same thing to avoid paying off potential lawsuits from stockholders and fines from the government, we (at least most of us) would be screaming bloody murder at his abuse of the system that allows this. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/9 "2005-11-13T00:07:01Z")
> [@SaintCad](#): > > I think the point is that the divorce/transfer of assets was clearly done to avoid anyone laying claim to Rader’s assets for restitution. If the owner of a large corporation was caught stealing from the company and did the same thing to avoid paying off potential lawsuits from stockholders and fines from the government, we (at least most of us) would be screaming bloody murder at his abuse of the system that allows this. Yeah, but that’s because the assets he’s moving around _were never his to begin with._ If you steal something, then give or sell it to someone else, that person has no legal claim to it. None of Rader’s assets were stolen: he legally owned all of them, and legally transfered that ownership to his ex-wife. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/10 "2005-11-13T00:33:17Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The thing is, she was apparently still his wife, and the property was still in part legally his, **when he was arrested** : Arrested, not convicted? I don’t see it if so. That money should go to her and the kids. At least the money from the sale of the house. I’m unsure about the retirement benifits, are they just medical coverage or also money? Those might be questionable, and could go to the victim’s familys. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/11 "2005-11-13T00:35:55Z")
I’m with the wife. She had nothing to do with the crimes, and she had every right to believe, prior to his arrest, that the house and his retirement money would _all_ benefit her, directly or indirectly. The mortgage, taxes and insurance on the house, for instance, don’t get cut in half just because her husband is in jail. It’s therefore illogical to state that she shouldn’t get the full value of the house or the retirement benefit because he’s in jail and owes something to his victims. In sum, I can’t come up with a reason why she should be punished for her husband’s crimes. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/12 "2005-11-13T00:46:31Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, yeah she has: she’s gained complete control over all the assets that used to be the **joint** property of her and her husband. That was not so much because he committed crimes as because he got arrested and jailed for them. If she had divorced a law-abiding husband, or an undetected criminal, there’s no way she would have received **all** their joint property and **all** his retirement benefits. You’ve got a good point. But I still don’y like it. If there is anything to settle at all in court of law, I think the law abiding spouse should be able to claim damages for a long term marriage that was a total lie and a compromised future ahead as a prefered creditor wrt the guilty spouse’s share of the estate. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/13 "2005-11-13T01:42:35Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yeah, but that’s because the assets he’s moving around _were never his to begin with._ If you steal something, then give or sell it to someone else, that person has no legal claim to it. None of Rader’s assets were stolen: he legally owned all of them, and legally transfered that ownership to his ex-wife. Forget stealing the money, he splits the company into two parts, one with all the valuable assets (WifeCo), and an impoverished one with all the debts (HubCo). All the debtors get to squeeze their blood from the HubCo stone, while WifeCo gets to go on with business as usual. Legal? Probably not. Moral? No way in hell. BTW, she was granted a divorce a month after Rader pled guilty, but 3 weeks before the sentence was decided upon. If she had been required to wait the standard 60 days for divorces to go final, she would have been legally married to him after conviction. A judge granted her an immediate divorce because of her mental state. Rader pled guilty to a crime, one which he would clearly be financially liable for. It is nigh-impossible to successfully defend yourself against a wrongful death lawsuit when you pled guilty to murder. After this guilty plea, setting up a liability, she gets a quickie, uncontested, divorce that grants her 100% of all joint assets and his retirement benefits, leaving zippo for the victims. You’re cool with this? ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/14 "2005-11-13T01:45:01Z")
**Cheesesteak** , that changes things then. I amend my veiw a bit, though I think that the wife and children are entitled to be able to live above poverty lines at the least. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/15 "2005-11-13T01:54:42Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Rader pled guilty to a crime, one which he would clearly be financially liable for. It is nigh-impossible to successfully defend yourself against a wrongful death lawsuit when you pled guilty to murder. After this guilty plea, setting up a liability, she gets a quickie, uncontested, divorce that grants her 100% of all joint assets and his retirement benefits, leaving zippo for the victims. You’re cool with this? I am. Why should she pay for his crimes? How does it benefit the victims to take money from her? And we’re not talking untold riches here - the house would have sold for a whopping $90,000. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/16 "2005-11-13T02:33:18Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Rader pled guilty to a crime, one which he would clearly be financially liable for. It is nigh-impossible to successfully defend yourself against a wrongful death lawsuit when you pled guilty to murder. After this guilty plea, setting up a liability, she gets a quickie, uncontested, divorce that grants her 100% of all joint assets and his retirement benefits, leaving zippo for the victims. You’re cool with this? Yes. She doesn’t owe anything to the victims, and it’s not fair that she should suffer because her husband is a serial killer. I don’t think she should be forced to give up half of everything she owns because of it. It’s absolutely horrible, what happened to this guy’s victims, but having something horrible happen to a family member does not automatically grant you the right to a pot of money. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/17 "2005-11-13T03:17:31Z")
While IMNA Kansas L, there ought to be a fair chance that Mrs. R’s homestead rights and the general, if not universal, exemption of the homestead from execution might help her out. She might be able to claim a yoke of oxen and a musket or shotgun, too. ---
**Author:** ![BJMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/18 "2005-11-13T04:06:55Z")
I don’t know as she would have homestead rights since she moved out immediately after Rader’s arrest and hasn’t returned (maybe she should). Part of the problem may stem from the fact that the house was auctioned off before the divorce decree. Maybe that put the identity of the seller in question. At any rate the high bidder has just given up on obtaining title and the auctioneer says that, for now, it is simply impossible to sell the property. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/19 "2005-11-13T06:48:32Z")
As far as I can see, she’s just as much a victim of her husband as the dead people are, aside from not being actually dead of course. She did nothing aside from marry the wrong guy, she has been deprived of her mainstay and income, and as for the families of the victims thinking they’re entitled to money I have to just say “oh please!” They’re DEAD. Money will not bring them back, or improve the lives of their families to any great degree, especially considering how little there really is to Rader’s estate. Going after money because someone in your family was murdered just reduces the magnitude of the wrongdoing to the status of a supermarket slip & fall. That poor woman gets to live out her life with the unearned stigma of being BTK’s wife, and if you don’t think THAT’S going to be unpleasant you don’t know how most people behave toward those who get into the public spotlight for notorious reasons. Leave her alone to get on with her life as best she can, and let her take what comfort she can from the fact that although her husband turned out to be a psycho killer he at least felt some responsibility to shield her from the fallout of his hobby. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767/20 "2005-11-13T12:28:47Z")
This Years Model and Miller. I don’t see any difference between this debt, and the running up of credit card bills, or stock market debt, or any other personal debt he may have generated during his life. Those assets belonged to him when the debt was incurred, you can’t just transfer it over to someone else to get out of the debt. I don’t necessarily think that she should have ALL her stuff taken away, but it is totally unfair to cut the victims families out entirely. Apparently Kansas also wants money to pay for the public defender. AFAIC, they are at the bottom of the list. The numbers from that article: $57,000 - Appraised value of the house $45,000 - Value of the judgement $90,000 - Sale price of house (some premium, eh?) I think somewhere in these numbers is an equitable split that satisfies debts Rader incurred and gives his ex-wife the ability to go on with her life. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paula-rader-paying-for-the-crimes-of-her-husband/330767.md?page=2)