Man sent to prison for raping his wife

AP ^ | October 16 2005

[jmc1969]

STOCKTON – A 42-year-old man has been sentenced to nearly 65 years in prison for kidnapping and raping his wife.

San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Cinda Fox said Friday that Andrew Wright Gill gagged and hog-tied his wife before raping her after she asked him to leave during an hours-long incident last year. Gill was convicted July 27 of 10 charges.

The wife, who initially said she was raped but later said the incident was consensual, shook as she read a statement in court asking for leniency for her husband.

Gill said the trial amounted to the state's attempt to regulate the couple's sex life and promised he would appeal.

[A CA Guy]

Sounds like they might be breaking up this happy marriage.

[calrighty]

This is damn scary.

[starfish923]

Sixty-five years for rape? Recanted story by wife? Wife asks for leniency at sentencing?
Geez. The judge just hated the guy and decided to punish as hard as she could.

Or, we aren't getting the entire story.

[A CA Guy]

Well, you can't for sure know the truth here, but one thing we do know is that she brought the government into their bedroom over charges against the husband.

If the husband did some bad things to her, then she should do what she must to protect herself against him. There are really battered women and nobody wants that happening.

If the woman was using the law to get her husband out of anger and it was all false, then she deserves to perhaps go to jail for a while.

In any case, sounds like this is one volatile marriage.

[birbear]

Or, we aren't getting the entire story.

considering the media... I'll bet on that one.

[Time4Atlas2Shrug]

I suspect that when the police arrived she didn't appear to be having fun.

[calrighty]

Volitile granted. But If we are getting the aftermath of "a woman temporarily scorned" I repeat, it is scary!

[SealSeven]

No mention of physical evidence such as bruises, etc indicating violence. hmmm

[Time4Atlas2Shrug]

"Well, you can't for sure know the truth here, but one thing we do know is that she brought the government into their bedroom over charges against the husband."

....or he brought the government into their bedroom when he decided to hog-tie, gag, and rape her. He has a heck of a style to win her over if this is how he handles a fight and a request to leave. I doubt she was moaning "Please don't stop" when police arrived.

And just because she likes him again doesn't make him a good guy.

[Time4Atlas2Shrug]

"No mention of physical evidence such as bruises, etc indicating violence. hmmm"

It was a fairly short article and there was no mention of any evidence whatsoever. Do you think a conviction was based on absolutely no evidence or perhaps we just haven't read the case and it really does exist?

It sounds like you think another outcome would have been more desireable, but based on what? If he really did do it and she forgave him should he be sent to prison? Is he still a bad person?

[caryatid]

If the woman was using the law to get her husband out of anger and it was all false, then she deserves to perhaps go to jail for a while.

But, but .... the feminists did not tell her it would end up like this ...

Sordid story ... but, of the two of them, she is the one who brought the law into it.

Family is destroyed; husband cannot support her from prison; pathetic story. Let's just hope there are no children.

This one is not Bush's fault!

[latina4dubya]

Or, we aren't getting the entire story.

perhaps he really did rape her... but maybe she feels guilty for pressing charges because she still loves him... it's possible she still love him even though he may be abusing her... those types of relationships are sick all around...

[Triggerhippie]

Quagmire.

[caryatid]

Co-dependent enablers.

[Born in a Rage]

HE brought the "law" into "it" by raping her...and you're 'worried' about him not being able to pay child support from prison? No offense, but I think that train of thought is pretty "pathetic". You are blaming the victim and that's awful.

[A CA Guy]

Yes, I agree with you, a woman temporarily scorned or when dating one that makes charges over regrets is a dangerous issue.

I still remember that poor student in college a while back. The kid had a 4.0 average and never a criminal record. He had a girlfriend who he had consensual sex with, and in the middle of the sex she decided to say STOP. Well, the situation was he didn't hear her right away because he was into what he was doing. When he did hear stop, he stopped.
Later he was charged with rape for not stopping when he didn't hear it, was found guilty. Was taken out of college and put in prison and years from now when released he will have to register his whole life everywhere he goes as a sex offender with the neighborhood police. Total bullshit!

I'm not a big fan of the rape-shield law for the same reason.
By not being able to bring forth the whole truth of an issue because someone is a female is ridiculous. It also totally blackballs the guy in every case and puts the woman's word in court on the level of a god. It's stupid stuff.

[Time4Atlas2Shrug]

"Sordid story ... but, of the two of them, she is the one who brought the law into it."

Funny how so many of my fellow conservatives are sympathetic to the victims of crime while properly condemning the violators....except for cases of rape.

In this case, the automatic sympathy for a convicted criminal is very similar to a leftist's reaction to crime.

Did it ever occur to you that she brought the law into it because he raped her? A jury saw evidence and made a decision based on that evidence, yet FReepers are convicting HER based on a short article. Yikes!

[Born in a Rage]

Gill said the trial amounted to the state's attempt to regulate the couple's sex life...

It seems to me that he is admitting that he raped her and hog-tied her. He thinks he can rape her because she is he wife.

[Born in a Rage]

If the jury thought that 'story' was true, he wouldn't be in jail, would he?