Intro: "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.'"
Feminist leaders and activists hold signs to protest sexual violence. (photo: NY Daily News)
Court Rules Disabled Woman Wasn't Raped Because She Didn't 'Bite, Kick or Scratch'
04 October 12
n 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.”
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 15 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Really?
A woman unable to communicate except by physical or verbal aggression is assumed to want to have sex with any clown that decides he wants to have sex with her? Unless, of course, she becomes aggresive. Pardon my ignorance, but was this woman even aware of sex?
This is way worse than Akin's unsubstantiated procreation theories. These are real people sitting in judgement of an individual's act of rape and willfully ignoring the intent of the law in order to allow a horrible crime to be ignored.
With Akin, there is a chance that faced with a real case and real people he would rule differently as a judge. These judges (that's plural, as in more than one!) have no concept of what laws are for and lack any sense of human decency.
"No child is safe now"
WELL SAID ! And this is Connecticut, people, NOT Alabama or Texas. Can this possibly be allowed to STAND ?
who see Women as property of men, to be done with what they will.... The kind of stupidity
this decision is confronts belief to the max!!! Pass the barf bags, please....
malfeasance?
Disgusting.
This so-called legal decision is enraging and continues to be shocking. It is also shocking which states keep coming up with these bogus decrees against women. We would all be gratified if the citizens of Connecticut rose up and shouted down this decision, no matter the method.
Mark my words. Women are going to fight back.
does anyone know if the assailant might not have also been disabled? i mean quite apart from being a rapist, which means you have a serious mental /moral disability, was this person also possibly a physically disabled person?
The very fact that the victim did not resist should reveal to the court that the victim did not understand the seriousness of the act nor does she understand what the sex act is at all.
The physical and mental symptomatology and functional limitations of severe cerebral palsy preclude the actions demanded of a rape victim in that state who has to disprove an apparent presumption of consent--by an individual with the mental acuity of a toddler.
Where are the ADA'ers? Was the state supreme kort on crack?
What bullshit. This is one of the most outrageous court decisions ever. Someone should rape the members of the Connecticut Supreme court just to see what sort of resistance they put up. I'm sure a jury of their peers would say, "you did not screech loud enough so you got what you wanted."
What kind of a man, what kind of a human being, has a desire to simply relieve their sexual tension just because there is a live vagina present?
What quality of person commits this kind of act? Only a bottom feeder that is completely unable to form a relationship with the opposite sex. What positive contribution has this guy made to our society?
And now the guy has just been informed by the court that this kind of conduct will go unpunished.
Who will be the next victim for this person? An autistic? A retarded amputee? How about a victim of thalidomide, a flipper baby, now mature?
The guy needs treatment plain and simple.
OUCH...not trying to disagree with your essential point, but what are you trying to say with these examples? Your terminology is archaic as is your assumption that all of these people would be intellectually disabled and thereby incapable of defending themselves. I personally have a friend who was affected by thalidomide and has four drastically shortened limbs but she is probably much more intelligent that you. Not to mention VERY capable of self defense.
RSS feed for comments to this post