Rape more Common than Smoking in the US

[freshwest]

60. The Obama administration changes were unable to stop a CT court from setting a rapist free, see:

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 [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.

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/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1002&thread=1474289

Think Progress UPDATE:

An astute reader pointed out that the prosecution appears to have made an egregious error in the trial. Instead of prosecuting the sexual assault on grounds that the victim was “mentally defective” (subsection 2 of this code), they charged that sexual assault took place because the victim was “physically helpless” (subsection 3). Without the subsection 2 evidence, the Court could not consider the mental capacity of the victim and hence ruled only on physical helplessness, perhaps wrongly. As noted above, disability rights advocates still have major concerns about the majority’s holding on subsection 3 grounds, as it appears to set a higher standard of proof of “physical helplessness” for disabled victims relative to able-bodied ones.

The Obama administration legal change made months before, and likely taken into account when he was convicted. But with double jeopardy, he can't be charged twice.

Anyone who knows people with CP knows they are physically helpless, and can be mentally defective or not. But she was no more able to resist than an unconscious person such as the Obama change specifies, as well.

From the OP and about the Obama change:

Physical resistance from the victim is not required to demonstrate lack of consent in the new definition, NBC reported.

I think it fits well within the law. Yet the CT Supreme Court still let him go free.

The thread has some very good comments.