Marital Rape Exemption in Kenya: Some Lessons from International Law
There is no doubt that, despite arguments supporting marital rape exemption, it is necessary to abolish marital rape exemption in our modern society which is characterized by many sexually transmitted infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS. As Kenyan society is based on the principle of equality between men and woman, marital rape with impunity has no place. Kenya has to take some steps aimed at ending a conflict between the Sexual Offenses Act and the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act in order to achieve its goals of equality and freedom from discrimination. International law has shed some light on the subject by indicating that marital rape constitutes violence against women and that Kenya should follow suit and criminalize it. However, it must be noted that the criminalization of marital rape will not provide a complete solution to the problem but only a partial solution. The root of the problem is most likely situated in poverty and the social context. Further research and public education is thus necessary into the key factors relating to the behavior of marital rape.
Criminalizing Marital Rape: A Comparison of Judicial and Legislative Approaches
Even though many countries still permit husbands to rape their wives with little or no consequence, there is a growing trend that marital exemption is unjust and has no place in a civilized society. Recognition of the inappropriateness of marital exemption is, however, only the first step towards its elimination. To effectively equalize treatment of marital and non-marital rape, legislatures and judiciaries must take action. Several countries have already been host to the abolition of marital immunity, but their approaches may not be the most effective. This Note examines the experiences of England and Canada as examples of judicial and legislative abolition of marital exemption, respectively. The Author explores several factors that would lead to effective change, including timely alignment with societal morals, thorough and thoughtful consideration of the issues, and legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. After reviewing the effectiveness of approaches such as those employed in England and Canada, the Author argues that an even better method would rely on equal protection provisions found in state constitutions and international treaties.
Do Potential People Have Moral Rights?
By a potential person I shall mean an entity which is not now a person but which is capable of developing into a person, given certain biologically and/or technologically possible conditions. This is admittedly a narrower sense than some would attach to the term ‘potential'. After all, people of the twenty-fifth century, if such there will be, are in some sense potential people now, even though the specific biological entities from which they will develop, i.e. the particular gametes or concepti, do not yet exist. For there do exist, in the reproductive capacities of people now living and in the earth's resources, conditions adequate to produce these future people eventually, provided of course that various possible catastrophes are avoided. Indeed, in some sense of ‘potential’ there have been countless billions of potential people from the beginning of time. But I am concerned not with such remote potentialities but with currently existing entities that are capable of developing into people.