Court Requires Disabled Rape Victim To Prove She Resisted, Calls For Evidence Of ‘Biting, Kicking, S

[Habsburg]

[URL="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/03/947981/court-requires-disabled-rape-victim-to-prove-she-fought-back-calls-for-evidence-of-biting-kicking-scratching/"]Think Progress[/URL]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/k0q59.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE]In a 4-3 ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Connecticut State Supreme Court [URL="http://m.nbcconnecticut.com/nbcconnecticut/db_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=HWkD5gY8&full=true#display"]overturned[/URL] 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 [URL="http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR307/307CR83.pdf"]ruled[/URL] 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, [B]we[/B], like the Appellate Court, [B]‘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.’
[/B]
According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), lack of physical resistance [URL="http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape"]is not evidence of consent[/URL], 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, [URL="http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/State-Supreme-Court-Tosses-Sex-Assault-Conviction-172269281.html"]worried[/URL] 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 [URL="http://ctbriefsonline.com/Briefs/SC18523ac.pdf"]argued[/URL] 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.”
[/QUOTE]

[Ultra Violence]

“biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” -> lack of consent?

Have they never had good sex?

That bit of stupidity aside, she had the mental capacities of a toddler, no? And being helpless to communicate in a situation like that is terrifying. I doubt she had the state of mind to do anything but be frozen in fear.

And as RAINN says, trying to fight back (especially when you're clearly going to be incapable of escaping) can turn the assault into something much worse than it already is.

Honestly I can't believe that someone on the state's supreme court could be so ignorant.

[larrylumpy]

So i can drug a woman and have sex with her without legal repercussions??

I FUCKING LOVE AMERICA

[JLim]

Get out.

[Johnny on Flame]

[QUOTE=larrylumpy;37910877]So i can drug a woman and have sex with her without legal repercussions??

I FUCKING LOVE AMERICA[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] ‘are not persuaded that the state produced any credible evidence that the [victim] was either [I][B]unconscious or so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable of manifesting to the defendant her lack of consent[/B][/I] to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault.’[/QUOTE]

[MightyMax]

wow so if they don't say "no" it's not rape?

[Ryll]

So if I walk into a hospital and fuck a random mentally disabled person it's cool?

[Bobie]

legitimate rape returns

[Used Car Salesm]

This sounds more like a shortcoming in the law itself than anything else.

[Captain_Crazy]

i feel sick

[GarrettFox]

Wow, if you read the ruling it gets even more fucked up.

Apparently the defendant was in a relationship with the mother of the victim and frequently helped the mother take care of her. That adds an extra level of messed up.

Note that the cerebral palsy is not the cause of her retardation, they are both the result of a brain bleed after being born premature. The cause doesn't matter really, I was just curious because I didn't think that cerebral palsy caused retarded intelligence.

EDIT:

Link to the pdf describing the case in depth:

[url]http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR307/307CR83.pdf[/url]

[JohnnyMo]

Court Requires Disabled Ent To Prove Orcs are Destroyers and Usurpers, Calls For Evidence Of ‘Gnawing, Biting, Breaking, Hacking, Burning’

[Habsburg]

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;37911858]This sounds more like a shortcoming in the law itself than anything else.[/QUOTE]
Judges get a certain amount of leeway on how to interpret the law

[Naaz]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;37911961]Court Requires Disabled Ent To Prove Orcs are Destroyers and Usurpers, Calls For Evidence Of ‘Gnawing, Biting, Breaking, Hacking, Burning’[/QUOTE]Oh god, my sides