Rapist freed in Connecticut

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Allezfan

Player Valuation: 1p
Forum Supporter
The supreme court of Conneticut has released a man who raped a woman so disabled she couldn't speak, move and has a mental age of 3.

Because "We are not persuaded 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."

This was because when he mounted her, against her will, she didn't bite or kick him.

In short even though she couldn't speak or resist, the fact that she couldn't physically say no meant that consent should be assumed unless she actually attacked him.

And he can't be retried.
 

Another fine day for justice.

I hope the people who made that decision are able to sleep tonight knowing that he will rape someone else in the near future.
 

But... consent isn't assumed? That's a long held cornerstone of sex crime trials.

That's an appalling decision. So how about if you knock someone unconscious and then rape them - is it consensual sex because she hasn't actively refused it?

Bonkers. Absolutely bonkers. I'm glad that decision will have no influence over here. Poor woman.
 
Tubey said:
But... consent isn't assumed? That's a long held cornerstone of sex crime trials.

That's an appalling decision. So how about if you knock someone unconscious and then rape them - is it consensual sex because she hasn't actively refused it?

Bonkers. Absolutely bonkers. I'm glad that decision will have no influence over here. Poor woman.
Click to expand...

The point from their perspective is that her way of not granting consent was by either biting or kicking him, because she can't communicate via normal methods.

Even if they'd sent him down he probably would have appealed and got off anyway on that technicality.
 

Brennan91 said:
The point from their perspective is that her way of not granting consent was by either biting or kicking him, because she can't communicate via normal methods.
Click to expand...

But the point is surely that she shouldn't need to actively refuse consent but actively grant it. She didn't say yes and didn't want it (as proven by the questions they asked her where she had to point at yes or no boxes with the one finger she could move). I don't see how it's possibly not rape.
 
Sometimes common sense needs to prevail over the absolute letter of the law and it's a crying shame that in this case it hasn't.

What a sick, twisted human being.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top