Just as I’m gearing up to watch Mitt make an ass of himself tonight…I come across an article that disgusts me. Apparently the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned a rapists conviction because the law in that state stipulates that incapacity is defined as “unconscious or for any other reason. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.” This means that the woman he raped, who has severe cerebral palsy and does not have the ability to verbally communicate, did not qualify as incapacitated. Since she wasn’t legally incapacitated and didn’t show lack of consent, he gets away with rape.
What really disgusts me here is the law. Why do people not understand that a lack of physical resistance does not justify rape? This is pathetic. What this ruling really says is that, if you can’t verbally communicate and are too scared to physically resist, you are consenting to the act.
I guess people like the victim in this case don’t have it hard enough. We have to make laws that hold them to such a higher standard than the rest of the world. Laws like this are why the incidents of rape and sexual assault are higher among those with disabilities. Our politicians have turned them into easy targets.