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   + Show Post
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
Replies (11-20):
Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 9:54 PM


katzmeow726
by Platinum Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Well yet another case of blame the victim...why I am I not surprised?  This is why people who have been raped never come forward.  

This disgusts me beyond belief....absolutely disgusts me.  I can NOT believe a HUMAN BEING would actually state that mentally and physically disabled woman, who had the cognitive abilities of a 3 year old, is not a victim.

SICK SICK SICK 

Stephanie329
by Platinum Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 9:57 PM
Me too. There are times I wished karma really did exist.

Quoting LaughingTattoo:

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

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
futureshock
by Ruby Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Quoting AlekD:

...

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Ditto
BBnME2
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:08 PM

 Its scary to think that these kind of people may be the ones to find me guilty or innocent if I was in the hot seat for whatever reason one day! There should be some kind of law that assures the American people that the jury of there peers will at least have a highschool education..... COME THE HELL ON! Someone had to be paid off. Discusting!!

Aslen
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:09 PM
2 moms liked this
I wonder if it's a Republican majority...
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Mrs.Pedro
by Bronze Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:13 PM
How the hell? If she has the IQ/maturity of a 3 year old then how are they not treating her as a 3 year old? And if she has cerebral palsy then its a no brainer that there would be little to no fight! Smdh!
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Goodwoman614
by Satan on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Quoting Aslen:

I wonder if it's a Republican majority...

Goodwoman614
by Satan on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:20 PM
2 moms liked this
Gee I wonder if me as this girl's mom putting a bullet in this asshole's dick would A) qualify as resistance (on her behalf), and B) rule me as 'not guilty' of any wrongdoing, since the asshole didn't say 'no' before I popped him a cap
?
?
?
Healthystart30
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:36 PM
;(
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