Yeah, you heard that right. The Connecticut Supreme Court, by a 4 to 3 vote, overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who allegedly raped 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 Connecticut law the man could not be convicted if there was any chance that the victim could have communicated lack of consent.
The court ruled the state failed to adduce, "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."
It found that the victim was capable of kicking, scratching, biting or screeching to communicate lack of consent.
Bunch of dumb f*cks.
ReplyDeleteBeyond disgusting and totally idiotic. This from a country that thinks 'legal' rape is a form of birth control.
ReplyDeleteo.k. suggestion, lets take those judges, give them a wack of drugs so they are half asleep & see if they can communicate their opposition to much, like a good smack on the side of the head.
ReplyDeleteIn Vancouver, B. C. back in the late 70s a crown prosecuter argued & won a rape case because the woman, who suffered from downs sydrome could not give consent.
I wonder who the defendant was, must have been a friend of the judges. There is enough jurisprudence around which should get the decision overturned. Most states have laws regarding having sex with minors. Although the victum in this case may have been physically older, they were 3 mentally. Those judges are as sick as the rapist.
I cannot believe how any court could assume someone so intellectually impaired could consent to sexual assault. That's about as sick as it gets.
ReplyDeleteThis is the correct ruling. If the legal text being used to reach it was a literal reading of Old Testament law.
ReplyDeleteOh? We don't follow that code anymore? We haven't for years now? Infidel.
Seriously. When courts in Islamic countries reach condemnable verdicts on the basis of Islamic law, right-wing mayhem ensues in the blogosphere. I'm sure this will receive the same treatment.
Womens rights are being eroded...your a woman so bloody well put up with being raped. Castrate a few men who have raped and see if that curtails it.
ReplyDeleteYour title is misleading. The man was aquitted not because the victim couldn't scream, but because she was able to protest through means other than screaming ("biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing"). Furthermore, the court didn't say "the man didn't do it". It's simply saying that it couldn't prove that it was rape, nor could it disprove it. And since anyone is innocent until proven guilty, the man was aquitted.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand we have justice (send the guilty to jail), on the other hand we have human rights. "No crime goes unpunished" vs "no one wrongly charged", which is more important? Your ancestors chosed the latter.
In China where I'm from things are different. The court and the state prosecutors are in the same team: they work together to find the accused guilty. Our ancestors find it more important that "no crime goes unpunished". I am not saying which one is superior or which is inferior, it is all a matter of the people's choice.
She had the intellectual capacity of a 3-year old. That's an end of it. We can do all sorts of things to severely mentally impaired people. She may not even have been capable of appreciating she was being raped.
ReplyDeleteSorry but anyone that mentally impaired changes the dynamic at law. She was raped, no question. I don't know how they handle these things in China but I find your take disappointing.
You may be correct. My knowledge about CP is lacking. It remains true however that the title is misleading, the man wan't aquitted because the woman couldn't scream. In China there is a very good chance that the accused will be convicted and the process would be quick and painless for everybody. The Chinese people want the guilty punished; they care about human rights but they don't want it at the people's expense (lengthy procedure). Think about this the next time a US president lectures the Chinese government about human rights. Sometimes it isn't ideological or political, just cultural.
ReplyDelete