The right to privacy while raping your property

This story just makes me sick. The District 4 Court of Appeals in Wisconsin has ruled unanimously that the police violated a man’s right to privacy when they installed hidden cameras in his wife’s nursing home room to prove that he raped her at least 3 times since she fell into a coma following a stroke. They pronounced that David W. Johnson had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” while visiting his incapacitated wife in a care facility, so videotapes of him “having sex” with the woman were inadmissible in court.

From WISN-ABC News:

The appeals court affirmed Taggart’s ruling. Johnson believed he could spend time alone with his wife in private, was lawfully on the premises and took precautions to seek privacy such as closing the door, the court said.

The court rejected the prosecution’s argument that Johnson forfeited his right to privacy when he illegally had sex with his wife, noting proof of the assault “has not been admitted.”

Even worse, the woman’s sister, now her legal guardian, backs him up.

“She believes her sister’s husband was merely expressing his love for his wife and was trying everything he could to bring her back to consciousness,” Kelly (Johnson’s attorney) said.

In my universe “expressing love” does not mean using the unconscious body of a woman for sexual gratification when she is unable to give or deny consent. We recognize that concept relating to alcohol. Surely a comatose state is even more helpless. At its worst that’s rape of the most vulnerable; at its best, assuming your beliefs dictate that her soul has fled its shell, it is all but technical necrophilia.

I wonder what the ruling would have been had the assailant been her brother, her friend, or her religious leader. Do husbands hold special privilege where consent is assumed in absence of active protest? It took hundreds of years for the courts to rule that a man could indeed be charged with rape for assaulting a woman to whom he is married. Why does that not apply in this case?

I hope prosecutors will appeal this and take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary. The rights of those unable to protest or protect themselves must be guarded. As well as being a gender issue, it is also vital that it be recognized as a disability issue as well.

Let me say it one more time:

LACK OF CONSENT IS RAPE.

It’s rape even when the victim has formed a legal/religious partnership with the perpetrator. It’s rape even when she isn’t able to say no. It’s rape even when the door is closed. It’s rape even under the guise of “love.”

And it sure as hell is rape even when the perpetrator claims it is a means of resuscitation.

The law needs to protect this woman. Obviously the ones who claim to love her won’t.