Here's a scenario for you - A handicapped man with the mind of a three year old and extremely limited range of movement is severely beaten by an individual who occasionally acts as a caretaker. Can you imagine any jury in this land who would accept the defense that the victim consented to the act? Neither could we.
Well, in Connecticut, a handicapped woman with the exact same limitations I described was raped by her mother's boyfriend and the state's Supreme Court claimed that because she was incapable to say no to the assault, that they had to assume that consent to sex had been given. The individual, Richard Fourtin Jr., was thus set free and will never be held accountable for forcing himself on the handicapped woman.
In the mind's of these, and I use this term loosely, justices, this was an act of sex, not violence and in their mind's, a woman's default is consent, that unless otherwise stated, if a man initiates sex, that as long as she doesn't say no, he's OK.
Rape is an act of violence and power, not an act of love or consensual sex. You do not have to say no before someone strikes you, kicks you or slashes you before it becomes a crime. If you are struck with a billy-club by a mugger, you do not have to prove that you said no before it constitutes an assault.
And since the victim in this case is understood to have the mind of a toddler, this was not a relationship between equals where consent could even be obtained. It's like saying that a three year old child could enter into an adult mature relationship and given consent to sexual intercourse. It's ridiculous and obscene.
Their 18th century attitudes about women, sex and rape have allowed justice to be denied and a rapist to walk the streets of Connecticut.
No comments:
Post a Comment