If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Court rules that mentally retarded woman with cerebral palsy who can only communicate with one finger was asking for it because she didn't bite the man who was raping her, releases rapist from prison. Sounds legitimate   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 126
    More: Followup, Connecticut Post, court ruling, NBC Connecticut, Lawrence Krauss, religious fanaticism, Richard Fourtin, supreme courts, victims' rights  
•       •       •

14166 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2012 at 2:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-05 04:11:56 AM

Despair of the Cheese: He went full retard. You never go full retard.

/Was that wrong?
//Should I not have said that?


My gram was a super awesome racist, but heaven forbid you should say the word 'retard' or any or it form around her, she went ballistic. It was funny.
 
2012-10-05 04:20:24 AM

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.
 
2012-10-05 04:23:29 AM

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.
 
2012-10-05 04:35:09 AM

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.


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; "
 
2012-10-05 04:37:41 AM
It only takes my little finger to blow him away.
i759.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-05 04:38:29 AM
Dammit. It's time to nuke Connecticut.
 
2012-10-05 04:45:19 AM

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.


Here's the HuffPo link for those of us too proud to follow Daily Mail:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/richard-fourtin-case-supreme - court-accused-rapist-sexual-assault-handicapped-victim_n_1937528.html

Yes, I clicked a Daily Mail link so that you farkers wouldn't need to. One of us had to make the sacrifice. No, no, thank you, America, for making me strong.
 
2012-10-05 05:10:47 AM
www.slate.com

"HA HA."
 
2012-10-05 05:12:40 AM
Totally screwed up. if this can be appealed to federal courts it will and should be.
 
2012-10-05 05:32:03 AM
Can somebody please post where this man lives?
 
2012-10-05 05:57:44 AM

Gordian Shoelaces: Sounds like Missouri GOP politicians have been coaching Connecticut on which rapes are legitimate.


The northeast? Home of the Kennedy's? C'mon they invented and perfected non-legitimate rape.
 
2012-10-05 05:58:34 AM
www.blackbookmag.com
 
2012-10-05 06:02:25 AM

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


How paranoid do you have to be to put on a condom before skullf*cking an infant? Is it 1993 again?
 
2012-10-05 06:21:44 AM
Holy shiat! When I read the headline, I fully expected this to have taken place in the UK or in
one of the middle eastern countries.

But noooooooo. Right here in our own damn backyard. Makes me ill just thinking about it.
 
2012-10-05 06:22:36 AM

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; "


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:

[...] it bears emphasis that no one would dispute that the victim is physically helpless
in the ordinary sense of that term. Physical helplessness under § 53a-65 (6), however, has a highly particularized meaning that is unrelated to whether a person is physically able to resist unwanted sexual advances or mentally able to understand when to resist such advances. Rather, under § 53a-65 (6), a person is physically helpless if they are ''unconscious or for any other reason . . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.'' (Emphasis added.) Our case law, and the case law of other jurisdictions, makes clear that, under this definition, even total physical incapacity does not, by itself, render an individual physically helpless.


Now, the problem that's spinning up most of the farkers here is that the victim was too retarded to consent, but that's not what the prosecutor argued. The prosecutor tried to prove that the victim was too incapacitated to "communicate unwillingness" and then turned around and called witnesses that testified that she is in fact quite able to do so, and is in the habit of doing so regularly:

''All the . . . witnesses testified that, sometimes with the aid of a communication board and at other times, with appropriate gestures, the [victim] was able to make herself understood. Witnesses testified about the 'temper' of the [victim] and her concomitant ability to make her displeasure known through nonverbal means, using gestures, physical aggression and screeching and groaning sounds. Notably, the alleged sexual assault in this case came to light only because the [victim] was able to communicate her distress to Chervenak. His testimony squarely contradicts the state's assertion that the [victim] was unable to transmit a message to the intended recipient with sufficient clarity to be called 'communication.'

Emphasis mine, because I admire its unabashed evil. Beating a rape rap by using the bare fact that your victim was able to cry rape. "She was able to say that I raped her, therefore I couldn't have raped her. Q.E.D." The trial jury didn't buy it any more than Fark does, of course, which is why they convicted, but that didn't stop the appeals court from noticing that the prosecutor didn't prove that the victim was too retarded to show unwillingness. I don't know if a different approach would have kept the 'tard farker in jail (I'll let the Fark lawyers have that one) but this one is on the prosecutor, not the court.

tl;dr? You're barking up the wrong tree, guys.
 
2012-10-05 06:25:00 AM
[looks at headlines...............reckons this must be Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or, at least, Utah]

Connecticut????

seriously????

/no, Seriously?????
 
2012-10-05 06:25:28 AM

thamike: How paranoid do you have to be to put on a condom before skullf*cking an infant? Is it 1993 again?


I'd say paranoia is the least of that sub-human coont's mental issues.

digitalrain: I fully expected this to have taken place in the UK


You really need to stop reading the Daily Mail.
 
2012-10-05 06:32:17 AM
The judge's hands were tied, really. She was nodding "yes" the whole time.
 
2012-10-05 06:54:49 AM

Gordian Shoelaces: Sounds like Missouri GOP politicians have been coaching Connecticut on which rapes are legitimate.


It sounds like some Connecticut judge is banging a retard on the side and needs some precedent for acquittal when he gets caught.
 
2012-10-05 06:59:28 AM
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.
 
2012-10-05 07:10:23 AM

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: ...


My concern? Did you mean to respond to someone else?
I quoted that same portion of the decision in my earlier post.
 
2012-10-05 07:16:44 AM

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.


Nope, looks like the ruling is "right" (i.e. legally correct). Looks like the prosecution charged him with the wrong thing, and the jury wrongly convicted him of it. So blame the prosecution for an unabashed rapist walking free. I wonder if they'll go to the bother of retrying him for the correct crime or if they'll just go "meh, can't be bothered and he made us look like dicks so let's just walk away quietly."

If you actually believe in justice and a fair and true justice system you should be cheering the decision, even if you are not happy about the effect of it in this case.

As much as I hate it when criminals use them to wiggle out of a conviction, legal technicalities DO matter. You don't want people going "oh well he was clearly guilty, so who cares what legalities we got a little bit wrong." You allow that kind of thinking to apply to obvious scumbags and you're opening the door for innocent people to be screwed over.

/Ask the NZ government how that's working out for them with Kim Dotcom
 
2012-10-05 07:19:06 AM
Why wasn't he charged with rape?
 
2012-10-05 07:25:59 AM
And this is why THIS liberal will never be 100% against the death penalty... because some people just need killin'. Maybe someone should tweet this guy's address to Michael C. Hall.
 
2012-10-05 07:26:43 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: My concern? Did you mean to respond to someone else?


Maybe. There's a chain of replies there I edited out because the the thing is already stupid long, but that's legalese for you.
 
2012-10-05 07:32:46 AM
I'm... still scratching my head over this one.
 
2012-10-05 07:38:20 AM

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.


This is one of the cases showing it isn't fair or true.

if_i_really_have_to: /Ask the NZ government how that's working out for them with Kim Dotcom


Kin Dotcom did nothing morally or legally wrong in my book.
 
2012-10-05 07:49:34 AM

furterfan: [looks at headlines...............reckons this must be Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or, at least, Utah]

Connecticut????

seriously????

/no, Seriously?????


This isn't a case of "women shouldn't have any rights." This looks, if anything, like a prosecutorial farkup (charging under the wrong subsection - they should have gone with mental incapacity) and a bizarre definition of "physically helpless" that the legislature needs to correct.
 
2012-10-05 07:53:28 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: I quoted that same portion of the decision in my earlier post.


Yeah, you did. My bad. Point's the same. You can't blame the judge for springing the guilty when the prosecutor botches the job.

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.
 
2012-10-05 08:02:17 AM

liam76: Why wasn't he charged with rape?


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."

I guess the distinction is that the jury didn't find that he'd actually had sexual intercourse but was satisfied that he touched her. At any rate, rapes are sexual assaults (in Connecticut), but sexual assault includes things like sexual touching.
 
2012-10-05 08:08:54 AM
oh noes it's sex. and the women didn't have a stoopid conversation with the man b4hand, thus making it violent. even though it wasn't

RAAAAPE!!
 
2012-10-05 08:09:58 AM
AMERICA! AMERICA!

ah, the times there are -a- changin'
 
2012-10-05 08:10:37 AM

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.


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.

Hopefully the General Assembly closes some loopholes this coming session.
 
2012-10-05 08:12:45 AM

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.


Nope. That's it. Done deal - he walks.

That was the state supreme court. It's a state law. Federal courts have no jurisdiction.
 
2012-10-05 08:18:10 AM

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.


Because that's... murder? Same reason you can't just hunt down the man who raped your daughter and shoot him in the head.

Besides, the case is more complicated than you suppose it to be. Judges can only convict people for crimes that fit a written statute. If something SHOULD be a crime but doesn't fit neatly into a criminal category, the judge can't say "Oh, well, you're a bad person anyway, so away with you." That's what the court was dealing with here - the definition of physically helpless was deficient and explicitly spelled out by the legislature, and the judges didn't have the liberty to make up their own definition.
 
2012-10-05 08:25:49 AM
Yeah, this case is a clear example of the prosecutor's screwing up. The State put that actual victim on to testify, which waived any argument that they had tha tshe couldn't communicate. They also put witnesses on the statnd tha ttestified to how she could communicate, albeit in a non-verbal fashion. There was also testimony put on by the defense that showed that the victim was more than capable of displaying her displeasure when she was unhappy with a particular situation. Since the law at issue required the State to prove beyone a reasonable doubt that the victim was either unconscious or unable to communicate, and the State did NOTHING to address those essential elements, the conviction was overturned.

Like it or not, that's the way the system is supposed to and DOES work; when a prosecutor screws up, people go free. In Indiana, one of the things that trial prosecutors are required to do is create a checklist showing what the essential elements of the crime in question are, and make sure to ask the appropriate questions to cover those issues.

This case could easily have been won by asking the victim whether she struggled, made noise, or did anything that showed that she didn't want to be touched. While i realize that probably sounds offensive to some folks here, it's a necessary element of the law to show that she either communicated her lack of consent OR explain why she was incapable of communication at that time when there were other witnesses who testified to her ability to communicate. THe law, although clearly written to cover date rape, is not th eproblem her, per se. The problem is an either unprepared or lazy prosecutor.
 
2012-10-05 08:27:25 AM

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.


It always brings a tear to my eye to see the posts of someone who knows what he's talking about. You are the sunbeam gilded dew upon the manure strewn pasture that is Fark. I'd bro-hug you, but I'm due for an STD screen and it wouldn't be fair to put you at risk.
 
2012-10-05 08:33:05 AM

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?
 
2012-10-05 08:35:50 AM

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.


Fk accidents.Bring him to a public place, hand him by his feet from a pole, and after explaining what he did, give out bats, baseballs and let the public decide.

/how's that for being tried by your peers
 
2012-10-05 08:36:04 AM

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.


This.

Idontwanttoliveanymore.jpg
 
2012-10-05 08:38:34 AM

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?


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.

/where are you getting that she had a mental age of 3? The case says "mental retardation" but that could mean she has an IQ of 70.
 
2012-10-05 08:39:36 AM
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.
 
2012-10-05 08:43:07 AM

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.


Want to know how I know that you don't have any farking clue what you're talking about?
 
2012-10-05 08:46:36 AM
This is truly obscene.
 
2012-10-05 08:56:25 AM
Would it be wrong to hope this predator meets up with the children of these judges?
 
2012-10-05 08:57:07 AM

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.


I assume there's no such requirement in child abuse laws. That's what I find so surprising: I would expect this case to be comparable to child abuse. But here it probably shows I have little legal knowledge.

/where are you getting that she had a mental age of 3? The case says "mental retardation" but that could mean she has an IQ of 70.

FTFA: "NBC Connecticut reports that she has the 'intellectual functualy equivalent of a 3-year-old'."
 
2012-10-05 08:59:04 AM

OnlyM3: Would it be wrong to hope this predator meets up with the children of these judges prosecuters?


Apparently, after reading the thread. Never trust a Daily Fail headline.
 
2012-10-05 09:03:56 AM
Farkers ignorance of how appeals courts work sad. This is not on the judge, due process means this gut should be free. The state botched the case, the judge has to uphold the law and act within its bondries. Blame the prosecutee for failing at his job when he thought he had a slam.dunk.
 
2012-10-05 09:05:54 AM
Langdon_777: I expected this to be in some third world, religious, militant, patriarchal type society - WTF!!!!

Guess the USoA does fit the description these days.


You're an idiot.
 
2012-10-05 09:06:45 AM
It would be interesting to know which judges ruled on this and who appointed them.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report