archmichael, don’t you think Paula should have some of that money?
Robin
Because it looks exactly like an attempt to protect [Dennis] Rader’s assets. Sure, it MIGHT be the result of a compassionate judge trying to help Paula, but the result is exactly like so many other cases of fraud in which the person suspected moves money to family members or frineds to hide it. And rest assured that it’s a common thing for people to do, even knowing that, like Dennis Rader, they’ll never get their OWN hands on the money again – at least “our family” gets the money, and not “those people”, seems to be the thinking.
So it’s a “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,” issue.
And it IS like someone “put it all in his wife’s name just before he declared bankruptcy.” After the suit was filed, his tangible assets were transferred beyond reach of the suing families, as if by an act of God.
I’m confident I wouldn’t be allowed to try that in a court of law if I was sued.
Sailboat
???
I don’t know how to say it clearer.
I think she deserves to keep any of her property, and her share of the joint property.
The victim’s family do not have a right to take her money.
I don’t think anyone has advocated anything different.
I believe that all the victims are entitled to his all his assets and his share of any joint property. If you believe that she is a victim, and she deserves a potion of his assets as well, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. But she would get at most just as much as a victim’s family.
I have a problem with someone trying to tell me she suffered so much more than the victim’s families, that she deserves all of his assets as compensation.
What part do you disagree with?
I wish we had a lawyer involved in this thread, because I kinda get a sense that this might be one of the quirks of law. Maybe a judge in a divorce can only look at the fact that the husband is going to jail, the husband wants the wife to have all the joint assets, and the wife wants all the joint assets. And the fact that victims families are currently or might in the future sue for damages cannot be a factor in his decision.
It wouldn’t hurt; there must not be any interested. Drag.
IANAL, but I have been in this position. I got all the assets because the law gave them to me, not because of any desires on the part of my ex. In fact, my ex tried to contest the divorce.
I will do some research on Kansas divorce law WRT marital assets later tonight.
Robin
I think it would be great if everyone involved were able to deal with their grief and rebuild their lives. Obviously, that’s not necessarily going to happen. It would be nice if there were a way to give everyone whose lives were ruing by this man everything they deserve, but that’s not possible. So what we end up doing is trying to create some sort of hierarchy of victimization. “Person A lost a spouse to Denis Rader, person B lost a child, so person B’s grief is clearly more important than person A.” That’s bullshit. There’s no way you can categorize this sort of grief, to say that someone is more deserving than someone else. Everyone is deserving of everything they can get, including Paula Rader and including everyone who lost a loved one to her husband. But there’s no way to do that, and there’s no way to divide up what he had without being grossly unfair to someone. So I don’t think the attempt should even be made. You’re not going to reduce anyone’s grief by doing this, you’re just going to move it around to someone else. Leave things the way they are. No, it’s not fair. But nothing you’re proposing is going to make it more fair.
Of course I wouldn’t change my opinion. I’m arguing from principle, here. But that doesn’t mean I can’t also take practicalities into consideration.
What profits? In what way if Paula Rader better off now that her husband is in prison? She hasn’t gained anything out of this. In fact, she has already lost considerably. And you still want to pull her down even further.
His assets have always been her assets. That’s the point. You’re taking away at least half of everything this woman owned, when she didn’t do anything wrong.
Now you’re being ridiculous. Yes, it sucks that when people are punished for their crimes, often their families suffer. It is also necessary, because if we didn’t do that, we would have to abandon the rule of law entirely. But we’re not talking about punishment, here. Denis Rader has been punished as totally as is possible without sticking a needle in his arm. He has already lost everything he owns, and will never have the opportunity to own anything more substantial than his prison uniform and maybe the odd carton of cigarettes. The criminal trial is over, and the state has taken its punihsment out on him. What’s left if for the victim’s families to try to get their pound of flesh from him, and finding that he has nothing to take, they’ve turned on the nearest convenient target, without regard to her culpability in what happened. That’s no kind of justice
They may have jointly owned some or all of those assets together while they were married , or they may not have - my husband doesn’t own any part of my deferred compensation or pension. But if they had divorced before his arrest , there is no way she would have gotten all of the assets while he was left penniless.
Unrelated question- why does everyone assume there’s no possible way Rader could still have access to that money? Sure, his wife divorced him, she got all the assets, and he’ll be in prison forever. Nothing prevents her from hiring lawyers on his behalf in the future, putting money in his comissary account, etc. I’m not saying she will, but it sure is possible.
Probably not, although the fact that she did get 100% of the assets is, itself, proof that there are some circumstances in which one spouse can get everything and the other nothing. But even leaving that aside, there’s no guarantee that everything would have been split 50/50. How do we determine, now, how much of the martial assets she would have gotten had they divorced before he was arrested? Especially when you consider that, without the arrest, there might never have been a divorce in the first place?
For that matter, what about alimoney? Even assuming a fifty-fifty split of exsisting assets, odds are that Denis Rader would have had to pay alimoney for some time after the divorce. Obviously, that’s never going to happen now. Souldn’t Paula have some rights in that direction?
Good point, I hadn’t really considered that. But I believe he pled guilty to avoid the death penalty, right? Is there anything for him to appeal? What would he need a lawyer for? And I’m not familiar with comissary accounts in prison. How do they work?
So now you think creating a hierarchy of victimization is bullshit? Didn’t I just go off on you for trying to tell me that Mrs. Rader had it worse than the victim’s families.
Did you miss the part where in the judge gave all community property to her? Or maybe the part where the house is selling for $33,000 above its appraisal. If she had divorced him a year before being arrested she would be financially worse off than she is now. Which is probably why people think some of the monies should go to the victims families.
No. If you are in a community property state, any asset that is earned is owned jointly. Kansas is not. So if Rader was the sole income in the family, the house is his. Meaning all the proceeds should go to the victims. If they got a normal divorce, I assume a judge would have divided the house equitably considering the fact she contributes to the household even if she stays at home.
They have nothing to take because it was granted all to her. There not taking stuff away from her. They want the assets that shouldn’t have been granted to her in the first place.
I say this over and over again. It’s not like the state and the victim’s families are picking on her, because she married a serial muderer. Denis Rader did this to her. These are all the results of his actions. They are going after his assets. And the sad result is that she is being burden as a result of his actions
In fact this seems to be the latest fuck-you in a line of fuck-you’s. Seeing the glee he had in recounting his murders, it wouldn’t surprise me if he gets a kick out of seeing his victim’s families trying to get money that is no longer there.
Obviously, without knowing Mrs. Rader personally, there is no way to answer that. I have to say that I consider that possibility even lower on the scale of “that could happen” than I consider monkeys flying out of my butt. (Which reminds me - I need to get my tuna noodle casserole in the oven.)
…
Y’know, I almost started this thread in the Pit. I seriously suspected that there would be no debate here. I am honestly bewildered and confused at so many people agreeing with the actions against Mrs. Rader here. And I expect that many of you are honestly bewildered and confused at my view of the situation.
We’re throwing around a lot of what-if’s here, but there has been one person who from personal experience has stated that the wife can get all the assets if the husband is in prison. There has been a judge who decided that same thing in Mrs. Rader’s case.
All of the reasons offered why she should not get all the assets boil down to, “They’re victims.” Well, so is she. They have no greater moral claim to the assets of that marriage than she does, and in fact have a lesser claim. As I alluded earlier, the fact that they would even consider doing what they are doing moves them right down on my moral list.
This may cause actual harm to her. When all is said and done, and assuming the courts rule in her favor, will the $90,000 still be on the table? Will she ever be able to sell the house? Will she be able to sue them for the money they’ve cost her?
Tell it to the judge.
The simple solution to that is to not attempt it. It’s not right anyway.
You went off on me somewhere in this thread? I must have missed it. But, to be clear, I never argued that she deserves more because she’s suffered more. You argued that she deserved less because she suffered less, and I said that wasn’t necessarily the case, but I never argued that she deserved anything special because of it.
She owned the community property before the divorce, too. Denis Rader no longer has co-ownership of it, but it was an asset that was at her disposal and affected her quality of life. Taking it away from her, on the basis that it used to also belong to her husband, is going to completely gut her quality of life.
As to wether the property would have sold for more before the murder, that’s frankly debatable. An appraisal is a guess at the market value of a property. The actual value is whatever it actually sells for. I concede that it’s likely that the house’s status as the former home of the BTK killer increased its value, but it is by no means certain.
I thought you said that the community property was awarded to her. Which is it? Is it community property, or not?
But there’s absolutely no way to determine how a judge would have divided the property in the case of a “normal” divorce, especially since the entire reason for the divorce was his arrest. The fact is, a judge already determined that the assets of the marriage belong to her.
The assets were hers, for all intents and purposes, before her husband was arrested. If he had died, they’d have been hers without question. If they’d gotten a divorce sooner, more than half of it may very well have been hers, as well. Now you want to redistribute it all on the basis of conjecture and "what if"s. That’s a crappy way to run a system of justice.
No, she is being burdened as a result of the victim’s actions. They don’t intend to pick on her, and no one is claiming other wise. But that’s the result of their actions, and that sucks. It’s blatantly unfair to her, and it’s fuckin’ petty.
Could be. I don’t really care how he feels about it. He’s no longer a person, in my eyes, and wether or not something pleases or hurts him is not a factor in forming any of my opinions.
They have. And they have stalled the sale. So if you have a problem with that you would do well to follow your own advice.
So let me be clear. Do you believe that any attempts to get financial reparations for a crime are wrong? Because most of these cases try to go after financial assets will affect the criminal’s family.
Miller/This Year’s Model/MsRobyn
I see your points–but I think archmichael makes a very valid point here, and none of you have addressed this. I think the emotion of a serial killer makes it much easier to take the stance you are both advocating, but how about this scenario outlined above? Does that change your thinking, or would you still take your current stance?
I think you’re all missing something important in this argument. Rader, in addition to
being a sociopath, is also egocentric and I have no doubt that there will be a book
deal in the next year or so, probably by Ann Rule. If Mrs. Rader is smart she may
contribute to the book and get some compensation in return, but I suspect that the
lion’s share of any proceeds will be available, through the courts, to the victim’s
families. If I’m right then there will be far more than a piddling 40-50,000 up for
grabs. Given the number of victim’s it still won’t be significant after it’s divvied up, but
never the less it will be an amount worth fighting for. Of course, as usual, the
attorneys will come out better than anyone else.
Tell me the circumstances and I’ll tell you if I think it’s wrong. You should be able to find some real cases instead of hypotheticals. In this case, I think it’s wrong.
Cop out.
I assumed that you thought this was a special case, because it doesn’t make sense that someone would be against all these types of judgments on general principal. Like I have said repeatedly, this is not the first case where one persons actions impoverishes their family, so why is this case so special. Why does she deserve to remain untouched by this tragedy? Why is it so important that her quality of life is maintained? But you couldn’t expand on your belief beyond ‘its unfair to her’ and ‘mean-spirited of them’. You can’t answer direct questions. So I do what I do when I cant seem to make a connection, re-evaluate my assumptions and see if you really are against all these type of judgments.
Now you do the “I don’t do hypotheticals” escape. Why bother starting the thread if you weren’t willing to defend your opinion? Close the thread, pick up your toys and go sulk at home.
I would consider it low on the scale of "that could happen, too. Except I don’t know Mrs Rader, and I’ve seen lots of women stay with men who were sentenced to prison for life , making the trip to prison every two weeks,putting money in commmissary accounts,sending books and clothing.
We determine that (or actually a judge does) by looking at the standards normally used in divorce cases.