Why is improving all the other victim’s quality of life so much more important? Why do you get to judge who gets to profit the most from Denis Rader being sent to prison?
Okay.
Here is the section of the Kansas statute authorizing emergency divorces.
Here is the relevant part of the divorce code about property division.
As you can see, there are a number of factors that determine the division of property. However… (my Google-fu is strong this morning):
I FOUND THE DIVORCE DECREE! (You’re welcome)
It stipulates that all real and personal property go to Paula, which we knew. However, Dennis has no legal interest in the house anymore, and hasn’t since July. Furthermore, under the terms of the decree Paula is responsible for her debts, but “Husband assumes all liabilities for any debt or obligation not known to Wife.” I don’t know how the Kansas courts interpret “not known”, but since there’s no mention of who’s responsible for Dennis’s obligations, I’d think Paula’s lawyer could make the argument that it ain’t her.
Robin
Don’t give me that ‘judge’ crap. Yes, I believe the victim’s family should get money, just as you think they shouldn’t
I guess I have to spell everything out.
If you loan money from me than refuse to pay it back. The law allows me to sue you and garnish your wages. The law allows me to affect you and your familiy’s quality of life to restore my quality of life because I am the one who is wronged.
If you maim me in a car accident through your negligence, I can sue you and garnish your wages because I am the one who is wronged.
If you kill me either accidently through your negligence or maliciously, my wife can sue you and garnish your wages, because she is the one who is wronged.
Now in each of these instances, your family’s quality of life will be adversely affected. Even if they did not commit the acts themselves. Even if they feel they are ‘victims’ of your actions also.
In none of these instances would your wife be able to go to the judge and claim that because she is your wife AND also indirectly wronged, her right to her quality of life trumps the rights of those directly affected. If you wife divorces you and miraculously gets all of your assets and joint assets, I would be forced to go after your wife for the money.
In this case, all of you are claiming that Mrs. Rader should get it all while those directly affected are shit outta luck. None of you have been able to adequately explain why in this instance a wife should get everything when in every other situation she would not.
Couple things…
That link with the divorce decree is a .pdf.
Second, if I were Paula, I’d write my life story as the wife of BTK and donate the proceeds to a fund for victims’ families, just because that’s the decent thing to do. She has no moral obligation to these people, and it’s debatable if she has any legal responsibility, either.
That said, I think the whole concept of wrongful death civil suit following criminal conviction needs to be overhauled. I’m not opposed to monetary damages for their own sake, but I don’t think the plaintiffs should have the right to leave spouses and children destitute. In this case, I think the behavior of the victims’ families has been absolutely abhorrent; these murders occurred some 30 years ago, so any financial burden has long been rectified.
What I would do is fix a statute of limitations from the time of the crime, not from the arrest or conviction. I would make it generous, maybe 10 or 15 years. I would also require that any judgment be against the person found guilty, and forbid collection from any other member of the killer’s family.
Profiting from the misery of others is bad enough; attempting to profit from your own is just repugnant.
Robin
In that case you would be going after her money. It’s obvious that you would not be suing to repair a wrong done by her, you would be suing because that’s where the money is. Her money, not his. Morally suspect, indeed.
Hakuna Matata, I guess we have our answer (or the closest we can ever expect to get from him). This Year’s Model wants (and is comfortable with) a world where anyone can deadbeat their way out of debts by getting a divorce where the deadbeat takes on most of the liability, and all the assets go to the spouse. If the deadbeat is on his way to jail, he can tell all the creditors to go fuck themselves. If he is not going to jail, conceivably he can remarry is wife ASAP and all ‘his’ property will be protected because it is technically in her name.
Not only is this just and fair, but apparently you are morally suspect for thinking it’s unfair.
archmichael, how about you get off your high horse and read the divorce decree I linked to? Dennis didn’t file for divorce, Paula did. She filed on grounds of incompatibility and mental issues, and backed that up with a psychological examination of herself. And if you read the petition for divorce, you will see that she left the division of property up to the court, who took the law into consideration when divvying up the marital property. In fact, I not only linked to the relevant Kansas statute, I quoted that part in my post.
But, hey, if you want to take a position that is completely unsupported by the facts, that’s your prerogative.
Robin
I’m glad that you were able to find an illusion that fits your mindset.
I have a distaste for “one size fits all” rules. As I have stated many times, in this real case, I believe this is not justice. If you can show me any real cases instead of hypotheticals, I will offer you my opinion on them. All of your hypothetical examples do not remotely match or align with the actual facts of this case, and thus are meaningless.
Oh, and one more point. (Then I have to go to class, then work.)
According to this story, the BTK civil cases weren’t even heard until late August or early September, over a month after the judge gave Paula the house. So it’s not like a claim will hold up in court when it’s heard.
A claim is not a decision. All it says is “I think I deserve a piece of this, so don’t do anything.” The court can very well tell these people to shove off.
Robin
Well than we will have to see if other people in this thread agree with your assessment. IANAL, but the decree looks like he waived a lot of his rights, including counsel, notice, right to appeal. It also looks like the decree states that a settlement has been reached by the parties, not a judge, and is asking it be entered as a judgement. To my layman’s eyes, basically they came to an agreement where he would take most of the liabilities and she gets all the assets, and asked the court to rubber stamp it.
**I am asking others to chime in on what you thinks the decree says
**
Now whether he did it out of malice or a noble idea of making sure his wife was taken care of, I don’t know or really care. I only know the end result is he makes no attempt to make reparations to his vicitims, and ensured that they will never get any money. Which leads me to believe it was probably done out of malice
Yes you repeat you will not answer hypothetical, which is why I was confused that you answered my hypothetical addressed to Miller. ::shrugs::
You say you don’t like "one size fits all’ rules, and yet that is what you are advocating. In this instance you believe that the divorce judgments takes precedent over criminal judgments. In my hypotethical to Miller whether a divorce judgment trumps civil judgments, you volunteered that you thought it did. So why back away from your belief now? If I’m misinterpreting your stance, then please clarify
The divorce judgement took place first. In the absence of proof of fraud (as could happen in bankruptcy), the assets belong to Mrs. Rader.
Great! Now we’re making progress.
So is it purely chronology for you? Because it seems more than that.
If a family had got a judgment before divorce decree or if Judge Waller had moved the sentencing hearing earlier and sentenced him to jail and ordered the $42,000 restitution before the divorce decree, would you have a problem with that?
It didn’t happen that way. If it had, we’d be in the same situation, with people wrangling over what money belonged to which one of them.
And no, I’d still not be happy with it. The simple fact of their victimhood does not grant them holy ground to victimize other innocent people. I’d have to accept whatever the court decided, as I will however the case turns out anyway, but I’d not be happy with it.
This seems to me to be the key to your argument, which is that by victimizing the innocent Mrs. Rader, you score points against Mr. Rader. Nonsense.
That’s my thought as well. I’m of two minds on this. Money wouldn’t bring back my loved one. Taking $45,000 from his wife, then spliting again wouldn’t bring back my loved one or provide much compensation either. I suppose if it was millions of dollars, then maybe it might provide for the loss wages of my loved one…but that’s a matter of practicality, not justice.
The only realcomfort I would have would be to see Mr. Rader dead or hurt.
Here comes the bad part. If I knew that Rader values his family’s well being above all else, then (If I allowed myself to reach that point) I would have no problem in seeing his family on the street and making their life a misery…because I know I would be hurting HIM. It would give me pleasure to know that he was helpless ( like I was helpless) to do anything to help…when his family needed him the most.
However once I cross that line, and begin hurting innocent people, which Ms. Rader and her children are; I fail to see what moral highground I can claim.
Revenge sure, justice? Don’t think so.
This is why I find arguing with you exasperating. If you are against the idea of financial reparations, just say so. Then we can argue on the principal. But you put up smokescreens like the following:
Making it seem like the timing was the pivotal point in this argument, when it does matter to you at all. Why did we have to go down the path of ‘timing of judgments’ when it has nothing to do with your decision.
No, the sins of the father remain the sins of the father. Or in this case, the sins of the husband. I would never advocate anyone victimizing her to get back at Denis.
However I don’t believe that half the community property is morally hers. I believe he morally forfeited his property to the victims, when he commited those crime. So to me, taking away something that isn’t hers isnt victimizing her.
To allow her to keep money not morally hers would be to victimize the families again. Taking it away is balancing the scales of justice.
But my stance is consistent. I am against any person getting more than their moral share. For example, if there was a race to the courtroom, and that BTK survivor got a huge judgement AND wanted to keep all of it for himself, I would be here arguing that it is not morally his too keep all for himself.
So basically I can’t think of a single argument that would convince me why she would deserve all of it. To me, it is the same as trying to convince me that one victim deserves all the money while the other do not.
He had a blood debt to the victims familes, which has to be met first. He should have had the honor to divide up his assets and give it to the families, but he’s a fucking serial murderer. ::shrugs:: What can you do?
In my sense of justice, Mrs. Rader should get to keep all her assets and half the proceeds of the sale of any joint property. Denis Rader’s assets and his half of the joint property should be liquidated and divied up among among the victims including Mrs Rader. So in effect, if I was the Judge, Mrs Rader would get her half of the property plus 1/((# of victim familie)+Mrs Rader) of the sale of his assets. (1/11th if there were 10 victims)
Now why is this so unfair compared to what you are suggesting, which is Mrs Rader gets everything, the State and victims families get nothing?
I’m equally exasperated, and as a matter of fact, am about ready to call a halt to this conversation, as we seem to have an inherent inability to communicate. I am not against the idea of financial reparations in general. I am against them in this case in particular. I do not believe that financial reparations are always appropriate.
pulls out hair
BECAUSE IT IS HER MONEY AND SHE IS INNOCENT!!!
I’m done here.
No, I don’t think it’s my place to decide who is “more deserving” of this money. It was granted to Paula as part of her divorce settlement. It leaves the families with nothing to get from Denis, which is unfair. But taking it from Paula to pay them off is equally unfair. There is no good solution here, so hte only ethical thing is to do nothing. Shifting the money around is going to fix anything, it’s only going to create more grief and strife and anger.
We’ve given reams and reams of reasons, both ethical (it’s not his money, it’s hers), moral (it’s not right to hurt someone who didn’t hurt you) and legal (MsRobyn’s posting of the divorce decree, which pretty much guts your entire argument.) Frankly, if there’s nothing that could possibly convince you you’re wrong, I have to wonder what you’re even doing in this thread. Seems like you’re just wasting everyone’s time.
What argument did it gut. If anything the decree makes the earlier theory that this was a ploy to shelter his assets likely. A judge did not give all his property to her. They submitted a settlement agreement that was rubber stamped.
Do you decry drug forfeiture laws as well? I dont think that if Dennis Rader was a drug kingpin you guys would be arguing “it’s her money, she’s innocent” when they seize the house as drug proceeds.