Today's story takes the award for the most horrifically sexist and outrageous news of the week -- possibly of all time? A Connecticut man by the name of Richard Fourtin, Jr. (remember that name, ladies) has had his conviction for raping a handicapped woman overturned by the state Supreme Court. Why, you say? Was it because they found DNA evidence that exonerated him? Did the woman recant her testimony that she was raped? Why, no. It was because the court decided that the woman didn't resist her attacker. Never mind that the woman has cerebral palsy so severe that she reportedly can only communicate with her index finger. Never mind that she is said to have the mind of a 3-year-old. Never mind all that. She didn't fight back, so the guy is free.
Fourtin was convicted in 2008 of sexually assaulting the 26-year-old woman, whose mother he was dating (!!!). He was sentenced to six years in prison. But the recent ruling said that it wasn't clear that the victim couldn't have resisted him.
Defense lawyers argued that the victim could have fought back by biting, scratching, or kicking Fourtin. The woman reportedly has very limited physical capabilities, and in court could only communicate by using one hand to push the other hand to 'yes' or 'no' written on a piece of paper.
Yet the court ruled that "no reasonable jury could have concluded that she was physically helpless as defined (by law)."
This woman has the reasoning abilities of a 3-year-old. One neighbor even said the woman is "like a child." Yet she was supposed to fight back more?? When did the definition of consent become that a woman didn't bite or kick or scratch?!
If you're a man and you're going to have sex with a woman who can't speak, who can't say yes or no, and who can barely move, how do you know she wants sex??? Simple answer: You don't. Obviously this disgusting "man" didn't care.
What do you think of this ruling?
Man Convicted of Raping Disabled Woman Goes Free Because She Didn't 'Fight Back' (VIDEO) | The Stir