[acb-hsp] Bite, Kick, or Scratch

[J.Rayl]

Wow!
And even if she did resist, she may well not have had enough strength to 
have left evidence that she did resist.  For example, unless her nails were 
long and sharp, she could not have left scratches.  Unless her hands were 
very strong, she may well not have been able to leave noticable bruises on 
very strong, tough male hands, arms or a body.  I'm a pretty strong, and not 
tiny, woman and can tell you, there are some big tough guys out there that 
I"d have one hell of a time leaving any real evidence of real resistance on, 
especially if they held my daggon hands--as most of the perverts do.
I'm sorry, this just truly is a crap law ruling ...against any woman, 
disabled or not.
It is past time women fight back, and not just the pervs.


Jessie Rayl
thedogmom63 at frontier.com
www.facebook.com/Eaglewings10
www.pathtogrowth.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jule Ann Lieberman" <juleann at ez2cfoundation.org>
To: "'Discussion list for ACB human service professionals'" 
<acb-hsp at acb.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [acb-hsp] Bite, Kick, or Scratch


This is so awful. It says to me that she is less a person and therefore she
"could have consented" and that her  assailant  assumed she was willing or
had no right to refuse by virtue  of her disability.
The court  clearly has the "disability" here in failing to recognize this as
an act of  violence and not an sexual act.

-----Original Message-----
From: acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org [mailto:acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org] On Behalf Of
peter altschul
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 11:11 PM
To: Acbhsp
Subject: [acb-hsp] Bite, Kick, or Scratch

Court Rules Severely Disabled Woman Wasn't Raped Because She Didn't 'Bite,
Kick or Scratch' Her Assailant
  Zack Beauchamp October 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 bunconscious or for any other reason. . .  physically
unable to communicate unwillingness to an acteab 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, bare 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 defectb as
the victim did in this case."
  Anna Doroghazi, director of public policy and communication at Connecticut
Sexual Assault Crisis Services, worried that the Court's interpretation of
the law ignored these concerns: "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.

Failing to bite an assailant is not the same thing as consenting to sexual
activity." An amicus brief filed by the Connecticut advocates for disabled
persons argued that this higher standard "discourag[ed] the prosecution of
crimes against persons with disabilities" even though bpersons with a
disability had an age-adjusted rate of rape or sexual assault that was more
than twice the rate for persons without a disability."
_______________________________________________
acb-hsp mailing list
acb-hsp at acb.org
http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-hsp

_______________________________________________
acb-hsp mailing list
acb-hsp at acb.org
http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-hsp