Supreme Court sets accused rapist free - Connecticut Post
A man convicted in 2008 of raping a disabled woman (cerebral palsy so severe she is limited to movement of right index finger and some kicking and non verbal save groans) was set free because the judges ruled that she had not effectively said no. She didn't fight off the attacker or bite at him.
My mind is boggling on this one. In other reports she is said to be intellectually disabled as well, having the working mentality of a three year old.
This creep is back on the streets, and free to do the same thing over on the same type of person. He also cannot be tried in the criminal system again for this particular crime against this woman.
Seriously Conn. Supreme court... WTF???!!!
Some quotes from the Huffington post (sorry, couldn't link to it without violating TOS)
Yet four of the 7 justices thought this:
I think this last quote sums up my worries and thoughts:
A man convicted in 2008 of raping a disabled woman (cerebral palsy so severe she is limited to movement of right index finger and some kicking and non verbal save groans) was set free because the judges ruled that she had not effectively said no. She didn't fight off the attacker or bite at him.
My mind is boggling on this one. In other reports she is said to be intellectually disabled as well, having the working mentality of a three year old.
This creep is back on the streets, and free to do the same thing over on the same type of person. He also cannot be tried in the criminal system again for this particular crime against this woman.
Seriously Conn. Supreme court... WTF???!!!
Some quotes from the Huffington post (sorry, couldn't link to it without violating TOS)
A Connecticut court has set an accused rapist free, saying there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that his severely disabled victim resisted the attack, reports say.
According to NBC, Richard Fourtin Jr. was found guilty in 2008 of sexually assaulting a woman who has severe cerebral palsy.
His victim, who was 26 at the time of the assault, reportedly cannot speak and has little body movement. The Connecticut Post notes the woman, known in court by her initials L.K., "is so physically restricted that she is able to make motions only with her right index finger."
She also is said to have the "intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old," NBC Connecticut notes.
Fourtin, 28, was convicted of attempted sexual assault and sentenced to six years in prison.
However, in a 4-3 ruling on Tuesday, the state Supreme Court overturned the conviction, saying there isn't enough evidence to prove victim resisted Fourtin's advances.
As Think Progress notes, 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.'"
Yet four of the 7 justices thought this:
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.'
I think this last quote sums up my worries and thoughts:
“We are incredibly disappointed with the State Supreme Court’s decision in the Fourtin case,” said Anna Doroghazi, director of public policy and communication at Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services said in a statement. “The court’s interpretation of what it means to be ‘physically helpless’ jeopardizes the safety of people with disabilities.”
“By implying that the victim in this case should have bitten or kicked her assailant, this ruling effectively holds people with disabilities to a higher standard than the rest of the population when it comes to proving lack of consent in sexual assault cases,” Doroghazi continued. “Failing to bite an assailant is not the same thing as consenting to sexual activity.”
Last edited: