The person you are replying to is saying marital sexual assault did not have its own laws. Rather, it was prosecuted general sexual assault laws.
You are saying marital sexual assault did not have its own laws and it was NOT prosecuted under general sexual assault laws. For example, because the sexual assault laws had an exception saying the law does not apply if the perpetrator is married to the victim.
So, which one is correct? Did the law before 70's or 90's specifically exclude marital sexual assault? Or was it neutral and used for all sexual assaults, both within and without marriage?
We sometimes see laws covering things that are already covered, not changing things, but merely making them more explicit. In more recent memory, once can remember the debate surrounding Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which essentially aimed to criminalize something that was already criminalized by the existing statutes.
I am saying this because it was a fact in the United States. Laws specifically and unambiguously stated that rape was not a crime if the women was married to the man (and yes, it was gendered in the law). Hence the need for the laws to be changed starting in the late 1970's.
Some background: https://nortontooby.com/node/13251
See, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.1990) (defining rape as the ‘act of sexual intercourse committed by a man with a woman not his wife and without her consent, committed when the woman’s resistance is overcome by force or fear, or under other prohibitive conditions’).”
Not sure it proves what the GP was saying, though. The second result is similar, and seems to be referencing an actual law.
Marital sexual assault was generally prosecuted under domestic violence laws (which themselves became broader and stricter over time) on an as-needed basis but the required fact pattern for prosecution in 1965 or so was a higher bar in general than the standard set by the laws by 1990 or so. Furthermore, plea bargains rose in popularity over the same time period and DV went from a non-issue misdemeanor to a serious problem on your record over the same time period so examining conviction stats for various crimes is difficult.
That's interesting. I assumed plea bargains were always this popular. Any idea why they rose in popularity during this specific period?
A variety of reasons but mandatory minimums and stiffer sentencing in general (both made popular by the war on drugs) are the bulk of the reason.
When your lawyer could say in confidence that based on the fact pattern you're all but assured sentence on the order of a lesser crime that more correctly fits the fact pattern you're more likely to go to court and try and clear your name. When you're guaranteed a minimum sentence should you lose taking the bargain seems more reasonable.