Skip to comments.Bar blasts judge for calling prostitute's rape 'robbery'(FEMALE JUDGE!!!!)
Posted on 11/01/2007 5:07:20 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
In a rare rebuke, the city's bar association condemned a judge who dismissed rape charges in the alleged gang rape of a prostitute and instead called it a theft of services.
The prostitute admitted going to a home on Sept. 20 to have paid sex with a customer but said she was instead gang-raped by four men, including the customer, while he fixed a gun on her.
Municipal Judge Teresa Carr Deni dropped the rape and sexual-assault charges at an Oct. 4 preliminary hearing, but upheld robbery, false imprisonment and conspiracy charges against Dominique Gindraw.
Deni has since heightened the furor in defending her decision to a newspaper.
''She consented and she didn't get paid,'' Deni told the Philadelphia Daily News. ''I thought it was a robbery.''
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
Well, how about if she and her john agreed to $100, and he only paid $50? Can she sue him? She's gotten herself into a situation too goofy for anyone else to competently referee. After all, if the law gets involved, what principle is it defending? The sanctity of contracts? There is no enforceable contract here, because prostitution is (in America) illegal. How about protection against illicit sexual congress itself? She's in the business, and solicits violations against legally sanctioned boundaries so routinely, it's not feasible for the state to police each one.
Briefly, she's toying with the idea of law, and given the shortness of life and the fact that more reasonable people have matters that merit the courts' attention, I don't see the state as obligated to join her game. If someone shot her, that would be another matter. But in this case, she should just be arrested for prostitution, period. I don't even see the "theft" argument.
The woman legitimately has remedies in this situation, but they are those within herself, such as reforming her life.
The same principle applies though. She agreed to a certain deal, but upon arrival the deal was changed. She would be as much a victim as the tractor repairman.
A few personal attacks to go along with your venom.
I am not the only poster on FreeRepublic that disagrees with you n00b. Crawl back to DU where you came from.
You apparently don't care much for the legal definition of rape. So, what's your personal, preferred definition of rape?
She ASKED FOR gang-rape and at gunpoint?!?
Some supposedly religious folk truly do relish punishing others they see as "lesser". They're neither good Christians, nor good Americans. They love using their faith and voice/vote to injure others so they can continue to sanctimoniously feel superior.
I can only hope that those who so adore meting out pain to others do not get their come-uppance someday.
(I recall a few stories about Christ and prostitues... but I missed the verses where he advocated for their gang rape, and told them that they got what they asked for.)
I know this may be hard for you to believe, but hookers are people too. Not a sub-group to use and throw away and have a second set of laws which apply to them, all things you would do if you could.
Rape isn’t based on subjective “distastefulness.” It’s an objective legal thing centering on consent. Otherwise, I daresay, a whole LOT of innocent men would be in trouble.
I am not a legal eagle, nor do I play one on TV and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. However, there are people in prison for robbing dope dealers of their drugs and money. And if someone had a stash of marijuana in his house, and a guy broke in to steal it, he could go to prison for residential burglary.
Yeah, I’m from DU because I look at a GANG RAPE of a woman as being wrong. Give me a break.
At least many on DU have a heart, although their notions may be misplaced. I feel sorry for you, when you look at the GANG RAPE of a woman as nothing more than simple theft.
You simply don’t get it.
And probably never will.
Very well said.
“The same principle applies though.”
I don’t believe it does. The “deal” would not be something the repairman would ever conceive of offering up whereas the hooker would do so by definition.
Now if for example the prostitute would have been a “dancer” or “strip-o-gram” that do not routinely have sex with their clients in the course of their job and sex was “forced” it would indeed be rape as well.
PROTIP: It isn’t hard to tell when someone’s been gang raped.
Does that really matter?
Looking at the facts here, and if they are as the victim stated, she was the victim of a gang rape. There are other charges too. The involvement of a gun makes it an assault with a deadly weapon. There could be false imprisonment and kidnap also.
The principle here is that both would be victims of a sex crime, and it doesn’t matter what they were offering up for sale.
Yes, it would still in reality be rape. No question. In a legal context however, I believe it would be much easier for the defense to argue that only theft had occurred, since the victim voluntarily reduced the act of sex with her to a service to be purchased. The perpetrators then simply “stole the goods” without payment. Still wrong, still rape, but law and the courts don’t operate on a system of right and wrong. They only concern themselves with the law.
Th OP thought it mattered that the judge in the case was a woman. Did you read the headline?
But as is all too evident here, emotion and previously held ideas trump facts.
The fact that she is a prostitute means that she deserves what she got, or so goes the Stong Age thinking by many here.
“Rape isnt based on subjective distastefulness. Its an objective legal thing centering on consent.”
Agreed, but does anyone here honestly believe that consent would have been witheld if the money had been paid.
If a prostitute chooses to lower themselves to the level of selling sex as a commodity and the dispensation of it as a business endeavor then it should be legally treated as such.
Assault probably, armed robbery, likely, kidnapping, possibly,but rape NO.