It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by smyleegrl
She has the mental capacity of a three year old. Since when is a three year old allowed to give consent?
Originally posted by charles1952
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.edit on 3-10-2012 by charles1952 because: Add
Originally posted by charles1952
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.edit on 3-10-2012 by charles1952 because: Add
The woman, now 29, who in court only went by her initials, L.K., has severe cerebral palsy and cannot verbally communicate. She is so physically restricted that she is able to make motions only with her right index finger.
In order for the woman to testify during the trial, a small video camera was placed over her and a tray affixed to her chair. On the tray, the prosecutor placed a board printed with the letters of the alphabet along with the words "yes" and "no" on top.
Read more: www.ctpost.com...
Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
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.
edit on 3-10-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)
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:"
That had to hurt the case a lot. It may have been that she was actually capable of more expression than she displayed in court.
However, the defense argued that there was evidence the woman could communicate by biting, kicking, screaming and gesturing. They presented testimony at trial from a home health aide who said the woman would kick and groan if she didn't get food she wanted.
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by charles1952
UNDER THE LAW ?
REALLY ?
There are no laws that says you can't have sex with a dead body, does that make it ok ?
Think about that when a loved one dies and they are taking the body to the morgue.
www.jud.ct.gov...
Originally posted by nighthawk1954
This makes me sick..I live in CT. and I am gonna contact my state reps. about this case!
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
Dear fnpmitchreturns,
Thanks, I hadn't checked that link, my fault for not looking at them all.
The state had a difficult task. They were asking the Court to reverse an Appeals Court decision. It's doable, but a little trickier. Also from the link:That had to hurt the case a lot. It may have been that she was actually capable of more expression than she displayed in court.
However, the defense argued that there was evidence the woman could communicate by biting, kicking, screaming and gesturing. They presented testimony at trial from a home health aide who said the woman would kick and groan if she didn't get food she wanted.
With respect,
Charles1952
That meds idea is a great thought. Show that she had been medicated to the point of not being able to object, and it looks like it the charge would stick. Unfortunately, that evidence should have been brought up at trial, if it was available. It is really, really, hard to introduce new evidence after trial.
I wonder if there is a lesser charge he could be charged with? I know there are laws regarding the abuse of handicapped people. I guess it wasn't assault if I hit the guy and he didn't complain? I understand what you are saying but I believe it is wrong. Would it make any difference if she was under the influence of medication which made he not fight back? I don't know what meds she might have been on.
Someone who is under the calendar age described in each state's statutory rape law is still protected.
wow, just plain wow
so, sexually assaulting a 3yr old is no longer pedophilia eh ??
/sarcasm
Evidence was presented at trial showing that she could kick and scream if she didn't get the food she wanted. There is some evidence that she could do more than she actually did in court.
scary thought there folks.
and i've got to wonder, did the judges expect her to poke his eye out or what ?
if someone else has to assist with lifting her arms, just what protest could she have provided with a finger ??