Once again the American justice system has revealed itself as the dysfunctional obscene circus of injustice it is in ignoring victims rights.
The Connecticut State Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a man found guilty of sexually assaulting an extremely handicapped woman who has severe Cerebral Palsy, .
In a 4-3 decision, the high court ruled that despite evidence the
26-year-old woman cannot speak, and has little body movement, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a
3-year-old, and cannot verbally communicate, that there was
no evidence she could not communicate her refusal to have sex with the
defendant, Richard Fourtin Jr. as a result of the ruling, Fourtin goes free and cannot be tried for the case again.
IN this 4-3 ruling (including amazingly a female Chief Justice among the 4), the Court held
that, because 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,” 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.
OK. Let's think about that again. See, back in 2008, Mr. Richard Fourtin Jr. from Bridgeport, Connecticut, he is the bad guy, was found guilty of sexually assaulting this 26-year old woman with cerebral palsy who can’t speak and has very little body movement.The woman had the mental capacity of a three-year old. She is supposed to be the victim, a defenseless disabled woman. She can’t verbally communicate, but if she didn't want to consent to being raped, according to the Judges, she should have had the presence of mind to grunt or screech if she didn't want to be raped.
Under normal physical circumstances, it is very difficult to have the presence of mind to not 'freeze" when you are being assaulted.
Common sense tells me that people with the mental capacity of a 3 year old ( and that includes 3 year old children) are NOT capable of giving consent.
Defendant Richard Fourtin Jr.
Fourtin's lawyer, Senior Assistant Public Defender Nicole Donzello, declined comment on the decision.
In January 2008, the 28-year-old Fourtin was convicted by a jury in Bridgeport of attempted second-degree and fourth-degree sexual assault and
sentenced to six years in prison for sexually assaulting the severely
handicapped woman in the Success Village housing complex in late 2005.
The woman, now 29, who in court only went by her initials, L.K., is so
physically restricted that she is able to make motions only with her
right index finger.
In order for the woman to testify during the trial, a small video
camera was placed over her and a tray affixed to her chair. On the tray,
the prosecutor placed a board printed with the letters of the alphabet
along with the words "yes" and "no" on top.
After each question, the woman's left hand would push her right hand,
index finger sticking out, across the board to either spell out a word
or answer yes or no. It was an exhausting process that lasted four days.
However, the defense argued that there was evidence the woman could
communicate by biting, kicking, screaming and gesturing. They presented
testimony at trial from a home health aide who said the woman would kick
and groan if she didn't get food she wanted.
The state Appellate Court later ruled she is not physically helpless under the state law in which
a jury convicted Fourtin.
The state then took an appeal to the
Supreme Court who ruled that "We are not persuaded 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".
The three dissenting justices accused the majority of acting as a
"13th juror," in the case and substituting their opinion for that of
the jury.
Apparently this is the new way of restoring faith in the legal system that is sweeping America. Judges have replaced the Jury system by placing themselves as the ones who know best how to hand out justice or deciding whether a victim is entitled to due process of the Law by a Jury of ones peers.
Why have a jury system in the first place if arrogant, self serving, politically connected Judges can do the entire thing themselves, and totally screw up in deciding that victims have no rights to Justice, but those who commit acts of depravity are instead given these rights.
So, genius Judges, it doesn’t count unless you fought back? Is this the companion rule to theTodd Akin RULE: described as "legitimate rape where woman rarely experience pregnancy from rape because the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down".
Was it LEGITIMATE
RAPE of this poor handicapped woman? Nope. No it was not, and the courageous learned Supreme Court of Connecticut overturned Mr. Fourtin's
conviction because she as the victim did not “scream,” nor did she “bite” or
“kick” her assailant. Nor was she considered legally unconscious, which
would have spared her the burden of managing to bite, kick, or scream in
spite of her substantial physical disabilities.
But there is a bright side, because this young lady will surely be relieved to discover that she was not legitimately raped!
But there is a bright side, because this young lady will surely be relieved to discover that she was not legitimately raped!
I am convinced that many Judge's are absolutely so
fucking insulated inside their law books, gated communities, and semantically constipated synapses, that they don't have a fucking
clue about the real jungle world inhabited by the rest of us.
Blind shit justice like this happens all the time. This is just another story of Justice not served and defenseless victims blamed for their being tortured.
Victims get literally fucked while the ARROGANCE of the LAW deems it as being legally acceptable.
Victims get literally fucked while the ARROGANCE of the LAW deems it as being legally acceptable.
