HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ct. Requires Disabled Rap...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:16 AM

Ct. Requires Disabled Rape Victim To Prove She Resisted... (‘Biting, Kicking, Scratching’)

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

By Zack Beauchamp on Oct 3, 2012

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 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.


That's the 3-paragraph limit. I'm disenheartened that a court would do this. If anyone knows or has family members in this condition, resistance is not what is going to happen. It makes me too sick to say anymore, but you guys judge. More at link:


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/


36 replies, 2287 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ct. Requires Disabled Rape Victim To Prove She Resisted... (‘Biting, Kicking, Scratching’) (Original post)
freshwest Oct 2012 OP
Beaverhausen Oct 2012 #1
freshwest Oct 2012 #2
Oilwellian Oct 2012 #3
abelenkpe Oct 2012 #4
Canuckistanian Oct 2012 #5
fizzgig Oct 2012 #6
aquart Oct 2012 #26
boppers Oct 2012 #7
TheMadMonk Oct 2012 #13
boppers Oct 2012 #19
freshwest Oct 2012 #21
TheMadMonk Oct 2012 #8
jsr Oct 2012 #9
niyad Oct 2012 #10
NutmegYankee Oct 2012 #11
whathehell Oct 2012 #32
undergroundpanther Oct 2012 #12
freshwest Oct 2012 #18
boppers Oct 2012 #20
undergroundpanther Oct 2012 #25
tblue37 Oct 2012 #14
Odin2005 Oct 2012 #15
freshwest Oct 2012 #16
Scootaloo Oct 2012 #17
Generic Other Oct 2012 #22
Frustratedlady Oct 2012 #23
seabeyond Oct 2012 #24
undergroundpanther Oct 2012 #30
angrychair Oct 2012 #27
mick063 Oct 2012 #28
freshwest Oct 2012 #34
Kalidurga Oct 2012 #29
whathehell Oct 2012 #31
Comrade_McKenzie Oct 2012 #33
tsuki Oct 2012 #35
Solly Mack Oct 2012 #36

Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:24 AM

1. There are no words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:29 AM

2. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:31 AM

3. This is so sickening

Words fail me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:33 AM

4. So wrong! Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:36 AM

5. Connecticut?

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:38 AM

6. absolutely appalling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fizzgig (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:12 AM

26. Fizzgig!

Are you a wild, wanton, flirting girl as defined in the Warwickshire Word Book?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:51 AM

7. The law needs to change.

This is wrong on many levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:12 AM

13. No fucking kidding. This decision has established a legal precedent...

 

...which to all intents and purposes, legalises the rape of the physically and mentally dissabled.

Next test case just needs argue that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those suggested indicators of non-consent is also an involuntary muscular action of those with cerebral palsy, and thus you were unable to determine whether or not your victim was objecting and it's open season.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #13)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:42 AM

19. "She was kicking and biting because she liked it!"

"it's how she emotes!"

Sickening.

The idea that *anything less* than conscious consent is the problem...

If they can't say "yes", the answer is "no", and it's rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #13)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:45 AM

21. I hope not, but legally I think you have a good point.

There have been some terrible decisions affecting disabled, especially severely disabled people in the last decade or so. Our conscience is being shredded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:54 AM

8. You have got to be fucking kidding. /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:55 AM

9. Fucking barbaric

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:05 AM

10. what in the HELL is the matter with those people??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:07 AM

11. WTF?

In Connecticut!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #11)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:49 AM

32. My thoughts too...I thought CT was a rather "evolved" state...Guess not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:11 AM

12. The courts are infested

with sociopaths,too many assholes,misogynists too many cruel people,too much right wing influenced thoughts to get empathy..and true justice.

The courts fail the victim far too much to hold credibility in my eyes.

If sociopaths write the laws it will favor the "poor criminal".I say,rapists should get the death penalty because,simply ,because there would be 1 less rapist in this world. 1 less rapist to ruin other's lives.
Sad part is the courts are so insensitive callous and bigoted the victims would be blamed(like this case) and a lot of innocents killed.I don't trust the courts to have enough character,ethics and wisdom to make decisions of guilt or innocence anymore. It's so sick it's like they favor the monsters in the world so they blame victims and excuse perpetrators..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to undergroundpanther (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:42 AM

18. I cannot see any knowledge or empathy in this case. It was ignorant or callous, as you say.

There have been very disturbing cases out of CT and other courts in the last few years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to undergroundpanther (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:45 AM

20. They used to kill black men for rape.

They still do.

The monsters aren't just the criminals, it's also those who use the law to further their agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #20)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:04 AM

25. I agree

And if you noticed I said the courts are infested with people that are sociopaths.
If any of the black men you refer to WERE actually guilty of rape fine glad they are outta here. But.. (pay attention here)I think most of them weren't truly guilty because of the RACIST misogynist ,monsters in the court system,that still infest the court system as evidenced by the OP..wanted them to be put away or murdered by the state.

Justice needs to be done rape has to be stopped,sociopaths need to be stopped,but that can't happen in a just way until all the racists, sociopaths and rape sympathizers are removed from positions in the court system.

until people admit rape is chosen act,and skin color is not chosen,and learn to recognize a racist judge or a sociopath judge justice will be screwed up and victims and the innocent will be unjustly harmed.

I wish we had cherokee justice for rapists.A missing ear would mean a person raped and no woman or man would be alone around a rapist and they'd know whom not to trust..But that requires a smaller number of people living together as in a tribe where all members know each other. The counties and states are too big to stop rape without convicting innocents.That is another aspect of the problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:14 AM

14. Obviously those idiots subscribe to the Todd Akin definition of "legitimate rape." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:27 AM

15. What the fuck???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:30 AM

16. Disabled folks have feelings and so do their families. I have a hard time talking on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:35 AM

17. I guess some laws ARE based on the bible.

If she doesn't fight or cry out, it's not rape; it's marriage!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 02:39 AM

22. They like to see bruises even better

Sorry assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 02:54 AM

23. What are the political leanings of this SC?

I can't even begin to imagine this could happen in our state supreme courts. How much intelligence/compassion does it take to be a supreme court member? We know the capabilities (or lack of) for our Federal Supreme Court, but I would think the states would have more sense than to come up with a ruling like this. It reeks Republican attitudes/beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:57 AM

24. we are in a sick world today, and when told to "lighten up""quit being so angry" a huge

fuck that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #24)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:31 AM

30. I hate the lighten up bullshit too.

And out of the chaos, a voice spoke:

"Smile and be happy, for it can always be worse".

And I smiled, and I was happy, and it did get worse.

And worse,and worse,and worse....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:15 AM

27. This is SICK

I find it hard to even wrap my mind around. Very disappointed in CT.
their SC are a bunch of sick assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:22 AM

28. If this the new normal for America

 

You will find an ex patriot in me.

If this is the new norm, the country I proudly served in the military no longer exists.

We have been overcome by religious zealots that think this poor disabled women has less freedom than an undeveloped embryo.

The religious charlatans will eventually de-evolve our culture into that of burning witches and stoning the falsely accused. This is an example of how close we are.

The Tali-ban has arrived.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mick063 (Reply #28)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 03:08 AM

34. Thank you, mick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:26 AM

29. Stupid judges

I don't even want to know what they were thinking it's irrelevant, especially since the thinking is void of thought. I just want them to be defrocked or derobed or what ever it is you do when you take a judge off the bench. They probably have a history of horrible rulings behind them and if they are allowed to go on they will make more horrible rulings. They just let a predator out chances are he will rape again, this is on their heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:47 AM

31. What an outrage...unbelievable.


"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".

Exactly...Many victims do not even need to come to their own "good judgment" as the perpetrator will INFORM you of the damage he will inflict upon you should you resist. This is what happened to me decades ago...I was barely out of my teens, 3,000 miles from home in a strange house in a strange city. I DID resist the mofo by kicking him in the balls, whereupon he proceeded to threaten me with severe bodily harm if "you do that again". Being of sound, if distraught mind, I decided to continue to LIVE, but one couldn't exactly call that "consent" could one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:52 AM

33. What the fuck? Is every facet of our system broken except Medicare and Social Security? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 03:08 AM

35. Does anyone know the gender make up of the court?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 03:13 AM

36. Warped. Sick. Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread