Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
_Kissy_
Court Rules Severely Disabled Woman Wasn't Raped Because She Didn't 'Bite, Kick or Scratch' Her Assailant
by _Kissy_
October 3, 2012 at 8:57 PM
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

Replies

  • rawrmommysaurus
    October 4, 2012 at 3:30 AM

    jaw drop I have no words...

  • 6AM
    by 6AM
    October 4, 2012 at 3:41 AM

    :|(

  • LaughingTattoo
    October 4, 2012 at 7:39 AM

    So heres my question, and maybe its already been asked. We recently had a sad case (in my city) where a moms boyfriend raped her 3 month old. He was found guilty. How did this poor woman not get justice? If we go by what the court states in this case, the moms boyfriend didnt "rape" the baby bc it didnt say "no" in the proper way.

  • kerryket
    October 4, 2012 at 8:04 AM

    Hope the outrage and coverage lead to new laws in Connecticut.

  • mikiemom
    October 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

    Here let me fix this for you.

    What the Fuck, I can't believe this fucking ruling what the fuck is wrong with our fucking justice system.


     

    Quoting GotSomeKids:

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



  • Aislinn
    by Aislinn
    October 4, 2012 at 8:38 AM

     DISGUSTING. We are reverting back to the days where women were worthless pieces of trash the men kick around. Horrifying.. Absolutely horrifying.

  • Aislinn
    by Aislinn
    October 4, 2012 at 8:38 AM


    Quoting mikiemom:

    Here let me fix this for you.

    What the Fuck, I can't believe this fucking ruling what the fuck is wrong with our fucking justice system.


     

    Quoting GotSomeKids:

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



     Much better... lol

  • heavenly1462
    October 4, 2012 at 8:40 AM

    That is freaking disgusting!
  • GotSomeKids
    October 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

    Thanks.  I was just so taken aback by this ruling.  I am really embarrassed/pissed off by our Supreme Court.  I just don't know that I have it in my vocabulary to explain how I feel.

    Quoting mikiemom:

    Here let me fix this for you.

    What the Fuck, I can't believe this fucking ruling what the fuck is wrong with our fucking justice system.


     

    Quoting GotSomeKids:

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




  • Woodbabe
    October 4, 2012 at 10:44 AM

    Good thing she wasn't having to prove her rape to get an abortion...

Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts