tomcatadam: There's got to be something more to this. Did the state really fark up the case that bad?
Bathia_Mapes: The girl has the mental capacity of a 3-year old. It should be a given that she's incapable of consent.
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Bathia_Mapes: The girl has the mental capacity of a 3-year old. It should be a given that she's incapable of consent.Yes it should be. I would bet that it is. So maybe the prosecutor should have charged this guy with having sex with someone who lacked the mental capacity to consent.
ciberido: tomcatadam: There's got to be something more to this. Did the state really fark up the case that bad?That's a very healthy first reaction to a Daily Mail article.
Gordian Shoelaces: Sounds like Missouri GOP politicians have been coaching Connecticut on which rapes are legitimate.
robohobo: God-is-a-Taco: FirstNationalBastard:If it makes you feel better, I don't think they ever greenlit the articles submitted about the father who orally raped his newborn baby to death and left the used condom in the baby's mouth,Link?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/steven-deuman-oral-rape-murd e r-baby-daughter_n_1903283.html
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: So maybe the prosecutor should have charged this guy with having sex with someone who lacked the mental capacity to consent.Oh, hey, it's actually RIGHT THERE beside the section they used:"Sec. 53a-71. Sexual assault in the second degree: Class C or B felony. (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree when such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person and: (... (2) such other person is mentally defective to the extent that such other person is unable to consent to such sexual intercourse; or (3) such other person is physically helpless; "
thamike: How paranoid do you have to be to put on a condom before skullf*cking an infant? Is it 1993 again?
digitalrain: I fully expected this to have taken place in the UK
ShannonKW: ...I got the actual decision, linked by a helpful fellow in the HuffPo comments. The legalese notwithstanding, it's pretty interesting to see how a judgment that has been hyped in screaming headlines can actually make sense. They address your concern explicitly: ...
T-Boy: Dating the mom and thought he would get some action from the mute retarded kid. As a parent of a child with CP who communicates with gestures, this ruling is dead wrong. As an attorney who has seen judges do stupid things, this isma really stupid thing.
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: My concern? Did you mean to respond to someone else?
if_i_really_have_to: If you actually believe in justice and a fair and true the justice system is fair and true you should be cheering the decision, even if you are not happy about the effect of it in this case.
if_i_really_have_to: /Ask the NZ government how that's working out for them with Kim Dotcom
furterfan: [looks at headlines...............reckons this must be Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or, at least, Utah]Connecticut????seriously????/no, Seriously?????
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: I quoted that same portion of the decision in my earlier post.
liam76: Why wasn't he charged with rape?
ShannonKW: I do wonder if the law actually does take the mental age of a victim into account. The section you've quoted says, "mentally defective to the extent that such other person is unable to consent". Considering how unintuitive the legal definition of "helpless" is, perhaps "unable to consent" in this case means simply, "unable communicate willingness or unwillingness" rather than "unable to make an intelligent choice about it", in which case maybe the prosecutor did take his best swing at it.
Firethorn: namatad: why isnt it legal to kill appellate judges again?I am sure that if they didnt want you to shoot them in the head, they would just shout at the bullets or wink or something.Normally appellate judges are saner than the lower ones. In this case I'm hoping they didn't actually read about her condition. Hopefully it gets appealed to the supreme court and he ends up behind bars again.
namatad: why isnt it legal to kill appellate judges again?I am sure that if they didnt want you to shoot them in the head, they would just shout at the bullets or wink or something.
indylaw: General Statutes 53a-65(4): "Mentally defective" means that a person suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders such person incapable of appraising the nature of such person's conduct.That seems like a pretty high bar for the prosecutors. They'd have to prove that she's so mentally deficient that she had no idea what was going on... and I'm not entirely sure how you do that with a woman this disabled.Mental age sounds like a good idea, except that there's little way for a lay person to gauge it in more moderate cases. Say that you have sex with a woman who is 22 and appears to be normal (maybe a little slow and immature) and the prosecution trots out a psychologist who testifies that she has a "mental age" of 14.
indylaw: He was convicted of attempt to commit "sexual assault in the second degree" (which is rape by reason of inability of the victim to legally consent) and of "sexual assault in the fourth degree" (which is sexual touching where the victim is unable to legally consent, but not necessarily intercourse). Rape by physical coercion is called "sexual assault in the first degree."
OgreMagi: It's a good thing I don't have any superpowers. If I did, scum like this animal would be dying from "accidents" rather often. The idiot judges, too.
gadian: That can't possibly be *reads the article*....fark it. fark him. fark the state. fark the judges. fark this. I'm out. I'm going to bed. I hope they all get raped by the time I wake up.
Ilmarinen: indylaw: He was convicted of attempt to commit "sexual assault in the second degree" (which is rape by reason of inability of the victim to legally consent) and of "sexual assault in the fourth degree" (which is sexual touching where the victim is unable to legally consent, but not necessarily intercourse). Rape by physical coercion is called "sexual assault in the first degree."Is someone with a mental age of 3 legally able to consent to sex?If so, wow. If not, what the hell kind of charges are this that allowed him to walk away?
Toy_Cop: I hope that idiot Judge burns in a real fire.. not hell-fire because if hell was real that would mean there is a god and there certainly is no god here.
indylaw: In Connecticut, apparently, yes, as long as she is (physically 16 or older), consciously aware that she's having sex and she doesn't communicate resistance in some way. I'm as surprised as you and I live here. There's no "mental age" contingency in the rape laws.
OnlyM3: Would it be wrong to hope this predator meets up with the children of these judges prosecuters?
If you like these links, you'll love
More Farking, less working
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 24 2018 15:16:07
Runtime: 0.465 sec (464 ms)