Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

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

Posted by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 8:57 PM
  • 50 Replies
Court Rules Severely Disabled Woman Wasn't Raped Because She Didn't 'Bite, Kick or Scratch' Her Assailant

Truly outrageous standard.

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:

When we consider this evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and in a manner that is consistent with the state’s theory of guilt at trial, we, like the Appellate Court, ‘are not persuaded that the state produced any credible evidence that the [victim] was either unconscious or so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable of manifesting to the defendant her lack of consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault.’

According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), lack of physical resistance is not evidence of consent , as “many victims make the good judgment that physical resistance would cause the attacker to become more violent.” RAINN also notes that lack of consent is implicit “if you were under the statutory age of consent, or if you had a mental defect” as the victim did in this case.

Anna Doroghazi, director of public policy and communication at Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, worried that the Court’s interpretation of the law ignored these concerns: “By implying that the victim in this case should have bitten or kicked her assailant, this ruling effectively holds people with disabilities to a higher standard than the rest of the population when it comes to proving lack of consent in sexual assault cases. Failing to bite an assailant is not the same thing as consenting to sexual activity.” An amicus brief filed by the Connecticut advocates for disabled persons argued that this higher standard “discourag[ed] the prosecution of crimes against persons with disabilities” even though “persons with a disability had an age-adjusted rate of rape or sexual assault that was more than twice the rate for persons without a disability.”



http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/court-rules-severely-disabled-woman-wasnt-raped-because-she-didnt-bite-kick-or
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 8:57 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
GotSomeKids
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 8:59 PM
3 moms liked this

BEEP, I can't believe this (BEEPing) ruling.  What the (BEEP) is wrong with our (BEEPING) justice system.


LaughingTattoo
by Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 8:59 PM
2 moms liked this

I'll be back for this one. I just cracked my jaw on the floor. SMH

lga1965
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 9:34 PM
How incredibly sick and sadistic.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Sekirei
by Nari Trickster on Oct. 3, 2012 at 9:35 PM

what the fucking fuck????

Aichia
by Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 9:36 PM
Fucking seriously?
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Devious333
by Bronze Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 9:36 PM
What. The. Fuck...that is horrible.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
GoddessNDaRuff
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 9:45 PM

DA FUCK!!!!!!! )!*!)(*$)(&@)$&#(*&#)*&)#(*)!&)#$(#*&$()*!*^@!*&#^@*&#$&)#$&)#*$(!^(*#!(^)*)$*)(&!(*&@)~(^#*&^*!^(&&@)*(*)&(@(&$(*#^(&$@(*#!@()&^#)(!@^$()^!@($^@!(&^$&(!^@$*&@!^($@^(&!&^*&&^#(^$#*&&^$(*!@

What sweets said too.

Euphoric
by Bazinga! on Oct. 3, 2012 at 9:47 PM
Disgusting
AlekD
by Gold Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 9:49 PM
2 moms liked this
...

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
canadianmom1974
by Gold Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 9:52 PM
I just have no words to express the fuckiness of the people who ruled this woman wasn't raped. Douchebaggery doesn't begin to cover it.

So, so very much wrong with this whole situation.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN