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

How are you suppose to enjoy sex if you are burdened with Cerebral palsy and incapable of motor communication? All of your closest potentials would be shipped off to a state prison if they were to make love to you.

this ruling seems pretty fair to me.
stop giving emotional responses and give a logical reason to call this incident 'rape'.
a mentally three year old can't be perceived as a victim of 'sexual' assault.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles - I have not been kissed in a long time! I recall when I was an officer a very similar situation. There was a local female who was of very limited mental capacity and one day she made a comment in front of the Sergeant and myself. Well back at the station I watched the sergeant pace back and forth and finally he spoke to me. We both agreed that it would be hard to collect the necessary evidence - for any assault let alone sexual.

However we both agreed that to record what we could would be far better than to miss something. I did not sit in on the interview but the door was open and I could tell the sergeant was battling to get a coherent proper statement. As Police in a rural community you know who the vulnerable people are - and - you always have them on your radar. There is also instinct and you can tell when something is not quite right. Nothing eventuated but we did what we could. All victims make their mark on you but the vulnerable and animal cruelty always cut the deepest.

The victim in this incident deserves so much more protection than she got. The judge still had a Duty of Care and I still maintain that he/she could have called for a revision of the charge. The judge is wrong and did not utilise his station to protect an extremely vulnerable person and I will not stand down from my opinion - having absorbed this story and thus the pain of the victim - the least I can do is defend her - when those who could have done more chose the easy option of hiding behind the law instead of exercising it and making it right.

Much Peace...

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!

edit on 3-10-2012 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)

Just think, sentence the nonviolent offender to jail and you have a docile prison workforce. Whereas a violent criminal is harder to control in jail. The jailers don't want to work hard, that costs too much. I work for a state that uses jail population to build furniture, do print jobs, pick up trash ect. The Prison Industrial Complex wants a easy going work force.

Can i get a Jesus Faceplam!?

Wait a minute...I'm confused. I do understand that her mental capacity is that of a child, first of all, but I am extremely curious why, if she was able, she didn't do one of those things the court mentions. I think the answer may be that she didn't really understand what was going on, and was not under the impression that someone was trying to hurt her...That is the most likely reason, as it is the only one that makes any sense. Personally, how in the world can she even give consent for this type of act when her mental capacity is so low? That is an issue that I feel needs a valid explanation. For if she cannot give consent in the first place, because she is unable to fully understand the situation, how can they rule that this was not rape? It surely wasn't consensual.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

This really grates on me. If the woman in her cognizance had accepted the situation , then it becomes a different story . But if it is a male with no other thoughts than getting his rocks off, the he needs a stiff lesson about the rights of the individual.

statutory rape case maybe?? if you can argue she has the mind of a three year old.... even if a three year old does not fight back it is still considered rape.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


This physically makes me sick.

Rape is not like it is portrayed in low budget Lifetime movies. In many, many instances, the woman doesn't struggle, scream and try to get help. It is unfortunately quite common for women to remain quiet, sometimes too shocked to call for help or even respond to the situation. Sometimes it is simply a fear reaction, the mind quietly shutting down to prevent further trauma. Sometimes the victim feels that if they are still, less harm with come to them.

How dare anyone have the audacity to claim that if a woman doesn't struggle, especially a woman with cerebral palsy and the mental functioning of a three year old, then it shouldn't be defined as sexual assault.

This is an absurd, offensive ruling.

reply to post by deepankarm

this ruling seems pretty fair to me. stop giving emotional responses and give a logical reason to call this incident 'rape'. a mentally three year old can't be perceived as a victim of 'sexual' assault.

A logical reason to call this incident rape? It was rape.

She did not tell the man she wanted to have sex with him. She did not give him consent to have sex with her. She did not say "yes". She has the mental functioning of a three year old. A child cannot consent to sex, because they do not have the developmental capacity to understand sex, as an adult understands it.

Her having cerebral palsy, with admitted inability to speak and limited body movement in general, only adds to the ridiculousness of this ruling.

If a man had sex with a three year old, it would be rape. This is no different.

May I?

Based on the Supreme Court ruling it went kind of like this; the prosecutor could choose to argue physical incapacity, mental incapacity, or both. He picked physical incapacity alone and got his guilty verdict.

The Appelate court said no reasonable jury could reach that conclusion. Mr. Prosecutor, you even brought in witnessess to show that she could physically object. So, the conviction is gone.

The Supreme Court said "You know, those guys down n the Appelate Court know what they're talking about. You could have argued mental incapacity as well, but for some unknown reason you never even mentioned it. Sorry, Mr. Prosecutor, you screwed up and we're not sending this guy to jail if you can't put on a proper case."

Yes, it's a bad result. Yes, the Appelate and Supreme Courts handled it correctly.

reply to post by charles1952


If that's the case, then the prosecutor should loose his job. Society shouldn't have to pay to the ineptitude of a civil servant, hired to protect the vulnerable from scum bags like this obvious rapist!

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

Yeah, I understand and can largely agree. I don't know if he will lose his job. If he got his approach approved by the high mucky-mucks, they may be reluctant to punish him if their names are on it too.

If he ran this case all by his lonesome, some possible outcomes might include the loss of his job. Heaven knows there are a lot of attorneys looking for a job. I don't think he'll get censured by the bar association, because they usually look for unethical or seriously negligent behavior. (They might ding him with a letter of reprimand, but I don't think he'd lose his law license.) The victim can't sue him, because she wasn't hurt by his acts.

Yes, it's terrible, I agree.

With respect,
Charles1952

Some have wondered if the judge or the attorney was violating his oath in this case. Here are the oaths for Connecticut and you can decide.
www.cga.ct.gov...

FOR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS.
You do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the state of Connecticut, so long as you continue a citizen thereof; and that you will faithfully discharge, according to law, the duties of the office of .... to the best of your abilities; so help you God.

FOR ATTORNEYS.
You solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that you will do nothing dishonest, and will not knowingly allow anything dishonest to be done in court, and that you will inform the court of any dishonesty of which you have knowledge; that you will not knowingly maintain or assist in maintaining any cause of action that is false or unlawful; that you will not obstruct any cause of action for personal gain or malice; but that you will exercise the office of attorney, in any court in which you may practice, according to the best of your learning and judgment, faithfully, to both your client and the court; so help you God or upon penalty of perjury.

Yes, this case is nothing but bad news.

reply to post by charles1952


Yes that is rape. Look up the charges for that state.

reply to post by mythots

Dear mythots,

Thanks for being on the ball. Yes, 2nd degree assault is rape, but you'll notice he was never convicted of that. He was convicted of attempted 2nd degree assault. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but the fact the prosecutor didn't go for actual 2nd degree assault makes me wonder.

Anyway, his conviction is overturned, in the eyes of the law he is not guilty of anything.

With respect,
Charles1952