Court Rules Severely Disabled Woman Wasn't Raped Because She Didn't 'Bite, Kick or Scratch' Her

Court Rules Severely Disabled Woman Wasn't Raped Because She Didn't 'Bite, Kick or Scratch' Her Assailant

www.alternet.org

October 3, 2012 |

In a 4-3 ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who had sex with a woman who “has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate.” The Court held that, because Connecticut statutes define physical incapacity for the purpose of sexual assault as “unconscious or for any other reason. . . physical

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
thinkprogress.org
www.opposingvi ews.com
www.ctpost.com

I am just astounded at this ruling. A woman with cerebral palsy and a mental capacity of a three year old is raped and the state doesn't call it "rape" because she didn't fight him. What the hell is the court thinking? This woman doesn't even have the mental capacity to know she is being raped and what was actually going on. Here is the courts reasoning, "

In a 4-3 ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who had sex with a woman who “has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate.” The Court held that, because Connecticut statutes define physical incapacity for the purpose of sexual assault as “unconscious or for any other reason. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act,” the defendant could not be convicted if there was any chance that the victim could have communicated her lack of consent. Since the victim in this case was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” the Court ruled that that victim could have communicated lack of consent despite her serious mental deficiencies:"

This is the state supreme court ruling.

These are the guys one just wants to take out back and bury in a hole in the backyard never to be heard from again.

www.alternet.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

The ATS court is now convened and finds that court ruling guilty of the crimes of being as stupid as the year is long...

What a bunch of idiots must be related to Akin.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


Wow! Just WOW! Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the judges are giving sexual predators either very light sentences or no sentencing at all???? OR they get hired by the TSA!!!! Yet, someone who commits a NON violent crime gets the book thrown at them!

So, a woman has to communicate lack of consent? So, a man can have sex with any woman he wants and it's just assumed that she consents, unless she states otherwise? It's her responsibility to deny consent? Are they serious?

Ridiculous! I hope the advocates get all over this!

This makes me sick..I live in CT. and I am gonna contact my state reps. about this case!

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
This story hits home because I have a family member who was raped but because she is autistic, the authorities never really believed her even though evidence said the contrary. This story makes me boil to see justice was never served in this case.

Sell pot, go to prison.

Rape woman with cerebral palsy, you walk!

Can haz rill gud judishyary system!

Assange has sex with willing partisipents who bought him dinner afterwards and he's wanted for rape

She has the mental capacity of a three year old. Since when is a three year old allowed to give consent?

There is a special place in HELL for the Conn. Supreme Court members. I will sell tickets.

Almost, I would wish that each of those judges has a daughter, and said daughter get's raped, but the perp walks based on their ruling......

Almost, because I would never wish rape on anyone.

Instead I'll settle to have their very names smeared in the deepest, darkest mud.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE MAKING DECISIONS???

I don't think I could sleep at night knowing I didn't throw that guy in jail..

Seriously, it's like every smart/moral person is on ATS,
too genius to enter the real world and stop crap like this from happening.

We need to LIVE our ideas...

i'm starting to believe a lot more in forming an entirely new country everyday. NOT JOKING.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Instead I'll settle to have their very names smeared in the deepest, darkest mud.

Thats a good point.

What are the names of the judges?

I swear, there is something seriously wrong with people. These judges should be fired at once!
It's getting pretty scary when common sense is no longer used, when wrong becomes right...It's like we keep going further down the rabbit hole. This is not acceptable!!!!!

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

I am just astounded at this ruling. A woman with cerebral palsy and a mental capacity of a three year old is raped and the state doesn't call it "rape" because she didn't fight him. What the hell is the court thinking? This woman doesn't even have the mental capacity to know she is being raped and what was actually going on. Here is the courts reasoning, "

"In a 4-3 ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who had sex with a woman who “has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate.” The Court held that, because Connecticut statutes define physical incapacity for the purpose of sexual assault as “unconscious or for any other reason. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act,” the defendant could not be convicted if there was any chance that the victim could have communicated her lack of consent. Since the victim in this case was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” the Court ruled that that victim could have communicated lack of consent despite her serious mental deficiencies:"

This is the state supreme court ruling.

These are the guys one just wants to take out back and bury in a hole in the backyard never to be heard from again.

Presumably in Connecticut it is no longer rape if you have sex with infants as long as you "do it nice" so they do not cry????

Ugh!.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Assange has sex with willing partisipents who bought him dinner afterwards and he's wanted for rape

He should write a book on how to be that good in bed, if they brought him dinner afterwards. Damn!

But on topic, this is really surprising to anyone, anymore? This is why I have always been a fan of vigilante superheroes. Because you can never depend on the justice system for actual justice.

Ok, put the fuel in your flamethrowers.

It looks like, under the law, the Court made the right call. The law requires the woman to say "no" in some way, before the man can be convicted of rape, unless she's unconscious (which she wasn't) or was unable to say "no" in some way, through words or actions. The court found that she was able to indicate that she didn't want to do it, but she didn't so indicate.

There doesn't seem to be a requirement that the man determine a woman's mental age prior to having sex. Nor should there be.

Do we require that a woman say "yes" before each sexual move, or it's rape?

I may be missing the points you want to make, but I tried.

Dear AloysiusTheGaul, I just saw your post. No, anyone under the age of (whatever it is there) is protected by statutory rape laws.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

 

Wow! Just WOW! Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the judges are giving sexual predators either very light sentences or no sentencing at all???? OR they get hired by the TSA!!!! Yet, someone who commits a NON violent crime gets the book thrown at them!

The courts and corrections systems are just filled to the brim, maxed-out with mandatory sentencing for pot smokers. We are forced to go light on many crimes so as not to over-burden our system and keep a priority for the truly criminally dangerous to society substance abusers.

Me thinks this is what happens when you elect people who do not have critical thinking skills. A critical thinker would have realized the law needs to be detailed or worded to cover those of disabilities. I say sue the writers in civil court for their short sightedness.