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  
•       •       •

14174 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2012 at 2:39 AM (2 years 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 09:12:55 AM  
For everyone here pulling th einternet tough guy act about how this defendnat should be beaten down, shot, etc., I'll ask you the same question that was ignored in a Facebook thread about this case: why are you so sure that the defendant is guilty?

Is it because he was accused? That's an EXTREMELY low burden of proof you've got there.

Is it because a mentally handicapped individual did the accusing? I have a client in jail right now awaiting a competency evaluation with an IQ of approximately 62 (SEVERE Down's Syndrom) who accused another inmate of raping him. The problem is, there's no forensic evidence, and nothing that shows any interaction between my client and the accused inmate on any of the multiple cameras all over the jail. Now, I'm not dumb enough to beleive that thtere aren't dark areas where the cameras can't reach, but we're down to a he-said, she-said situation, just like in this case.

We have a rule of law to prevent mob mentality just like this. The Defendant received a fair trial, and was found to be not guilty on one of the three charges filed. While the jury DID find him guilty of the other two charges, the State failed to properly establish each of the essential elements as required by law, and the appellate courts overturned the conviction. The ONLY blame in this case should be placed on the prosecutor for not doing his job.
 
2012-10-05 09:18:58 AM  
We have a rule of law to prevent mob mentality just like this. The Defendant received a fair trial

what are you, sum kinda communist, boy?>
 
2012-10-05 09:37:08 AM  

EsteeFlwrPot: This, the experimental shunt and paralyzed woman articles remind me of thanksgiving dinner conversation with my family.


Yeah... a couple friends and I have decided we're starting our own holiday traditions this year, without the drama.
 
2012-10-05 09:44:13 AM  

Ilmarinen: 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.


Yeah. The statutes make no allowance for "mental age" (I'm not even sure there's a really scientific way to measure it past early developmental milestones). So when a law says that it's a crime to have sex with someone under sixteen years of age, they mean "someone who was born after October 5, 1996," and not "someone who lacks the mental capacity of the average 16-year-old."

As far as the definition of "mental defective," the language of the definition anticipates someone more like Terri Schiavo, who arguably has no perception or understanding of her surroundings. Even though it sounds like this woman is severely mentally disabled, she is able to communicate using special tools and she was able to indicate to a careworker that she was sexually abused, and so she probably doesn't fit into the very narrow definition of mental defective.
 
2012-10-05 09:46:09 AM  

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


Yes. These judges did their job. You may not agree with them, but for wishing harm to their children, you can go straight to hell.
 
2012-10-05 09:47:41 AM  

Brostorm: 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.


Exactly, it sounds like the state charged the wrong offense from other posts (and my gut / common sense reaction to the article).

Its like charging someone with Murder in the first degree (willful and premeditated) when there clearly was no premeditation (murder in the second degree) without also charging the lesser charges such as murder in the second and/or voluntary manslaughter. Did the person in this situation commit murder, yes, but since it was not premediated as required for the charged act they are not quilty. Also since the individual was already tried and aquitted jeapordy has been applied and can not then be tried under the correct charge.
 
2012-10-05 10:08:48 AM  

jackrazz: The problem is, there's no forensic evidence, and nothing that shows any interaction between my client and the accused inmate on any of the multiple cameras all over the jail.


Um...in this case, the sex did occur. That is established. What is contested is whether it was...er...contested. So, your own little anecdote has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
 
2012-10-05 10:25:47 AM  

IamAwake: jackrazz: The problem is, there's no forensic evidence, and nothing that shows any interaction between my client and the accused inmate on any of the multiple cameras all over the jail.

Um...in this case, the sex did occur. That is established. What is contested is whether it was...er...contested. So, your own little anecdote has absolutely nothing to do with this case.


Actually, no, it wasn't established that sex happened. There was evidence of vaginal bruising, which does not conclusively prove that sex happeni. It only means that an inference can be drawn that sex MAY have happened. That's a pretty important legal distinction.
 
2012-10-05 10:26:35 AM  

indylaw: /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.


From a strange and mysterious land called TFA.
 
2012-10-05 10:35:51 AM  

ComicBookGuy: 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.


Yeah a little bit, but not as far off as you might think (you guys are waaay off track.)
 
2012-10-05 10:47:24 AM  

indylaw: 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.


RTFA.
 
2012-10-05 11:08:02 AM  

jackrazz: For everyone here pulling th einternet tough guy act about how this defendnat should be beaten down, shot, etc., I'll ask you the same question that was ignored in a Facebook thread about this case: why are you so sure that the defendant is guilty?

Is it because he was accused? That's an EXTREMELY low burden of proof you've got there.

Is it because a mentally handicapped individual did the accusing? I have a client in jail right now awaiting a competency evaluation with an IQ of approximately 62 (SEVERE Down's Syndrom) who accused another inmate of raping him. The problem is, there's no forensic evidence, and nothing that shows any interaction between my client and the accused inmate on any of the multiple cameras all over the jail. Now, I'm not dumb enough to beleive that thtere aren't dark areas where the cameras can't reach, but we're down to a he-said, she-said situation, just like in this case.

We have a rule of law to prevent mob mentality just like this. The Defendant received a fair trial, and was found to be not guilty on one of the three charges filed. While the jury DID find him guilty of the other two charges, the State failed to properly establish each of the essential elements as required by law, and the appellate courts overturned the conviction. The ONLY blame in this case should be placed on the prosecutor for not doing his job.


Personally, I'm upset that the court had the audacity to say that it didn't qualify as rape because the defendant didn't fight back. Even if he didn't do it, for any court to say that rape doesn't occur when a victim doesn't put up enough of a fight is simply monstrous.
 
2012-10-05 11:19:00 AM  
Thank you liberals, Between your killing babies and letting rapists free your truly doing your work in destroying the world.
 
2012-10-05 11:22:26 AM  
But the court didn't say that it isn't rape because she didn't struggle. They're saying that the conviction is invalid because the prosecutor didn't establish that the victim was helpless as required by law. That's on the prosecutor for not doing his job.
 
2012-10-05 11:38:36 AM  
At least now we know for sure what Paul and Julio were doing down by the school yard.
 
2012-10-05 01:54:18 PM  

jackrazz: But the court didn't say that it isn't rape because she didn't struggle. They're saying that the conviction is invalid because the prosecutor didn't establish that the victim was helpless as required by law. That's on the prosecutor for not doing his job.


They established that she wasn't helpless by saying that she could have fought back, and didn't.
 
2012-10-05 01:55:13 PM  
This is how I know there is no god. If there was this piece of shiat rapist would have been struck by lightning or some shiat the moment he walked out free.

/pair of pliers and a blowtorch!
 
2012-10-05 02:21:50 PM  

indylaw: Ilmarinen: 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.

Yeah. The statutes make no allowance for "mental age" (I'm not even sure there's a really scientific way to measure it past early developmental milestones). So when a law says that it's a crime to have sex with someone under sixteen years of age, they mean "someone who was born after October 5, 1996," and not "someone who lacks the mental capacity of the average 16-year-old."

As far as the definition of "mental defective," the language of the definition anticipates someone more like Terri Schiavo, who arguably has no perception or understanding of her surroundings. Even though it sounds like this woman is severely mentally disabled, she is able to communicate using special tools and she was able to indicate to a careworker that she was sexually abused, and so she probably doesn't fit into the very narrow definition of mental defective.


Are you forgetting about the laws implemented that make it rape if you have sex with a woman too drunk to give consent? I think the wording in those laws would apply nicely to this kind of situation.
 
2012-10-05 02:46:01 PM  

OgreMagi: Are you forgetting about the laws implemented that make it rape if you have sex with a woman too drunk to give consent? I think the wording in those laws would apply nicely to this kind of situation.


The law is not the same in every state.

You can look at the laws in Connecticut (starting at 53a-65) and correct me if I'm wrong, but the definition of incapacity (which is the notion of not being able to consent while drunk) appears only to apply when the woman is drugged. If she intentionally drank or did drugs, that category doesn't apply.

There's nothing I've seen that suggests this victim was drugged or intoxicated in any way..
 
2012-10-05 03:02:21 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, for all the "think of the children! hysteria you hear about, in cases like this where someone has the mental capacity of a three-year-old, how is it even possible they could legally consent to sex?


This gets complicated. I'm not speaking of this specific case, but in general.
1. Mental retardation of the sort 'equivalent to a 3/6/9 year old' is rarely precise. There's generally specific quirks.
2. Depending on the cause, you can have a 15-18 year old retard who looks fairly normally developed, and has teen hormones(IE they're horny).
3. Dogs, deer, mice, all manage to figure sex out. Retards can too, though maybe all they know is that they want it and it feels good. Offspring, disease, never enter the picture.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: also have to prove that she was physically unable to communicate. But I don't know why they thought this was the right way to charge the guy under the circumstances.


From reading the stuff, it would be more 'physically unable to resist'.
 
2012-10-05 05:37:03 PM  

austerity101: jackrazz: But the court didn't say that it isn't rape because she didn't struggle. They're saying that the conviction is invalid because the prosecutor didn't establish that the victim was helpless as required by law. That's on the prosecutor for not doing his job.

They established that she wasn't helpless by saying that she could have fought back, and didn't.


Yes, that's correct. She wasn't helpless, and therefore the defendant was not guilty of the charged offense.
 
2012-10-05 08:55:27 PM  

Firethorn: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: also have to prove that she was physically unable to communicate. But I don't know why they thought this was the right way to charge the guy under the circumstances.

From reading the stuff, it would be more 'physically unable to resist'./i>

As I understand it, if she is capable of communicating unwillingness by physically resisting *or* verbally objecting then she is not "physically helpless" under that subsection (which seems intended to deal with unconscious/sleeping victims).

austerity101: Personally, I'm upset that the court had the audacity to say that it didn't qualify as rape because the defendant didn't fight back. Even if he didn't do it, for any court to say that rape doesn't occur when a victim doesn't put up enough of a fight is simply monstrous.

This is not "OMG it doesn't count as rape because she didn't resist." If it were shown that she HAD resisted, it would be even more clear that this defendant was convicted of something he didn't do (and, it would seem, not convicted of something that he did do).

Sex with someone who is not physically helpless can obviously still be rape, just like sex with a person who is over 18 can still be rape.

But if you charge someone with "sex with a minor," and the victim turns out to be 35 years old, then he's not guilty of THAT crime even if he raped her at gunpoint.

And if you charge someone with "sex with a physically helpless person," and it turns out the victim was able to communicate her objections, then he isn't guilty of THAT crime even if he raped her by taking advantage of a mental defect.

/if anyone has a link to the prosecutors explaining their decision to charge the guy like they did I'd be interested in reading it, because it looks like carelessness

 
2012-10-06 04:24:07 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: And if you charge someone with "sex with a physically helpless person," and it turns out the victim was able to communicate her objections, then he isn't guilty of THAT crime even if he raped her by taking advantage of a mental defect.


You're correct. It doesn't help that I'd expect the prosecutor to be, you know, competent in such a case, or at least do the usual and specify *ALL* applicable sections

"Your honor, we're charging the defendent with Rape in the first degree under sections A to Z for raping an unconscious, paraplegic, 12 year old, while threatening her with a gun".
IE you have: underage, unable to consent(besides underage), unable to resist, and threatening with a deadly weapon. Even if the deadly weapon part ends up being thrown out, he's still going to prison.
 
2012-10-06 06:59:49 PM  
Some lawyer jump in and help me here: Can those individuals who are, for reasons of incapacity, unable to gain majority and thus relegated to permanent dependency or ward status, be rationally considered to EVER be able to give sexual consent, outside of guardian supervision or consultation? What I'm getting at is, how can this be rationally different, in legal terms, from raping a minor?
 
2012-10-06 08:14:51 PM  

Unoriginal_Username: 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


I understand how you feel, but this is also how many of our fellow citizens have felt at times about queers, foreigners, people with darker skin than theirs, those with minority religions, and so on. Mob justice is no justice at all, for any of us. The law either governs our conduct as a people, or it means nothing. We don't get to pick and choose when and where it does. And before anyone brings it up, the fact that mistakes and crimes and miscarriages happen in real life does not excuse us from our duty to uphold the law when and where we can.
 
2012-10-06 09:03:55 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Some lawyer jump in and help me here: Can those individuals who are, for reasons of incapacity, unable to gain majority and thus relegated to permanent dependency or ward status, be rationally considered to EVER be able to give sexual consent, outside of guardian supervision or consultation? What I'm getting at is, how can this be rationally different, in legal terms, from raping a minor?


It would appear that CT recognizes that there are people too mentally defective to be able to consent to sex, and makes it a crime to have sex with those people. For whatever reason, these prosecutors chose not to charge this defendant with that crime.

(Incidentally, while it is common sense that there are some adults who can't meaningfully consent to sex, forbidding a class of people from breeding raises ethical concerns and historical spectres. So a state needs to be cautious about how it draws those lines. After all, states can't even agree where to draw the lines for minors.)
 
Displayed 26 of 126 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report