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 ...
Not in the law she didn't. By way of analogy, she couldn't even make herself a commodity for purposes of chattel slavery. The law does not recognize the human entity as chattel. (Except, unfortunately, in the case of embryonic children, who can be bought, sold, donated, or destroyed at will.)
More importantly, the law doesn't look at her personal spiritual purity or psychosocial wholesomeness. It looks at consent. It holds that sexual intercourse without specific and explicit consent in each instance is rape.
Equal justice under law. It's an American thing.
I agree with you as far as legal definition goes. She can not “legally” make herself a commodity.
That would be a very jaded view, worthy of the Taliban. I could not associate with people who would excuse a group of thugs who rape a woman because she is a prostitute, or would rape a woman who is known to be "easy." It is a dreadful leap to sanction violent crimes against a class of individuals because one disagrees with the actions of the class that is assaulted.
I am not attacking you at all. I am merely stating an objective fact. You and your opinions would fit in very well in Saudi Arabia.
There are tons of businesses that have large “We may refuse service to anyone for any reason” signs.
The best summation so far!
LOL, we’re all impressed by how big of an internet bow-hunting badass you are.
Also, larn to google.
It is a dreadful leap to sanction violent crimes against a class of individuals because one disagrees with the actions of the class that is assaulted.
I do believe you missed my point entirely, and I'm not very motivated to restate it in easier words for you. But here goes; if the accusations are true, they are criminals guilty of rape, she needs boatloads of help, legalizing prostitution would inevitably lead to these types of crimes being charged as something other than rape, that would be bad. Let me know if that makes me an islamo-fascist.
Somehow, I don’t think the Nuge would smile upon your opinion in this thread.
Even if prostitution was legal, rape is still rape.
Makes absolutely no difference, except to a few on this thread.
Miles I wasn’t directing that comment at you. I was directing it at people who might believe that rape might not be all that bad.
This is what the feminists have said since the 1960s or so, and it still doesn't make sense. Feminists say it because they don't want to face all the implications of sex. They're in denial about the existence of a male nature that is capable of sex and violence in the same package, and about the fact that women nevertheless like men. In fact, women are attracted to men who are powerful enough to commit violence if necessaryand to men who would desire them uncontrollably if not for a more powerful urge toward honor and kindness.
Rape is by definition sex. It's also an act of theft, of desecration. And in the most flagrant cases, it deserves hanging, in my opinion. Cross-culturally, death is a very common penalty for it.
But it's still sex. According to criminologists, rapists are the most psychologically normal members of any prison population. They're morally deficient, obviously, but typically, they're not especially angry at women, or even their victims. They typically commit rape as a crime of opportunity, like stealing a carsometimes committing rape in the course of stealing a car. Violence is a means, for them, not the end. Most rape victims are young and relatively attractive. The horrifying thing is that rape is sexualfor the rapist.
Execute rapists, by all means. It will save souls and educate potential criminals about the dangers of overriding your moral sense. But we'll only bring confusion on ourselves by denying human nature.
A specious analogy, there was a crime committed here and that crime was robbery of a service just as the counterfeiter was robbed of a tangible.
Thats a pretty serious charge in itself and he could serve some very serious time.
This judge knows what she's doing...the truth is, rape carries less of a judicial penalty than robbery or conspiracy. They will be locked up for far longer on those, than if the plaintiff won on the rape charges. The judge is looking at what will keep them off the street longer. It is an odd, but just ruling.
Any way you want to analogize it, it was still a rape. A woman who sells sex can still be a victim of rape. It doesn’t get more simple than that.
So child rapists aren’t comming an act of violence either, according to your logic.
It’s just sex.
“McDonalds can refuse you serveice if you do not have shoes on.”
That is an advertised and posted policy. I don’t believe Prostitutes generally restrict their customers on much of anything and they most certainly don’t post it.
Her colleagues disagree with her. And if she doesn't comply with the law, she will not be a judge much longer.
Maybe he’d do a bit more time, but being convicted of robbery doesn’t have the same life-ruining flavor of being a convicted sex offender.
Half the value of a rape conviction is generated when this douchebag has to go explain to his 350 lb neighbor Big McLargehuge that he will be moving in shortly.
Probably a shoplifting charge would be more appropriate.
LOL, do you have experience with it or something?
Here's my point: Those who would argue that prostitution should be legalized, or would argue that sex is not the immense act that it is, and that it has been traditionally considered to be, must also be of the opinion that rape is not so large an offense, either.
I see we have two juvenile minds in here.
That is where I was trying to go with it too, but I missed it a little. If prostitution were legal, then some would consider a rape not to be such a bad thing. The victims would not only include prostitutes, and women who were “easy,” but also women who would prefer not to have sex forced on them. But to those who think this way, how about if the victims were infected with an incurable sexual disease? And what if the victims were male?
That's rape and assault in addition to robbery. If the judge can't see that, she shouldn't be a judge.
LOL, if the hall mark of being an adult is behaving like a callous ass, then yeah, I guess I’m being immature.
Here’s a tip: going against the current doesn’t always make you look cool. It sure as hell doesn’t automatically make you right. You aren’t just going against common sense, but decades (nay, centuries) of legal rulings, not to mention simple human decency.
Most prostitutes don’t choose that business, as if they were some greasy-haired, Hollister-shirt-wearing frat kid who chose to go to work at his dad’s car dealership once he got out of college. Most prostitutes become prostitutes because they were put through hell sometime in their early life, but don’t let that stand in the way of your “OMG look at me being an unemotional non-PC tough guy” nonsense.
I am duly rebuked and repent. I am going out now to pick up some ashes and sack cloth.
If she met the first man and agreed to have sex with him for money and then he subsequently didn't pay her, it was really a breach of contract. Certainly not rape.
If she agreed to have sex with the first two men for money and they subsequently didn't pay, it would be the same.
If she agreed to have sex with one or both of the first two men for money, but before the act occured they said they wouldn't be paying her and then had sex with her anyway against her will, it is rape.
If the 3rd and 4th man showed up and came to a financial agreement but subsequently didn't pay, again it's breach of contract.
If the 3rd and 4th man arrived and had sex with her against her will it's rape.
If any crimes occured then all the other men who were present and were aware of it are accomplices unless they attempted to stop it.
I basically break it down like this, if her issue is that she was not paid for something that was agreed to the crime is breach of contract (or perhaps theft if that's how the laws in her state are written). If there was sex that happened but was NOT agreed to it was rape. Each of the men should have his actions assessed individually and he can only be held accountable for his actions and any crime that he was aware of.
I would also suggest changing ur handle to one that doesn’t evoke Brian Jacques, lol.
The article stated:
“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.”
Sounds like robbery to me. Yep, perhaps an occupational hazard.
Congratulations on what could very well be the most moronic post of the year. You worked hard, but acheived greatness.
Now, the fact that you think the prostitute is to be held harmless, and I should be disparaged for disagreeing with you, paints YOU in a very unflattering light.
I never suggested the prostitute be held harmless, and I think (as you have repeatedly stated on this thread) that we are all entitled to our opinion. I expressed mine in fairly benign words. I don’t think I said anything disparaging to you personally, maybe you feel differently.
I can’t speak for Red, but my take on the “Female Judge” in the headline was more shock that another female would fail to see this as rape, not as a judgement on all other females.
You raise an interesting point. What you say may be true in most jurisdictions now, but it's a legal novelty unique to modern Western culture that bubbled up in recent decades. It's an absurdity when you think about it, because marriage is a continuous process both parties have agreed to in advance. The financial support and physical protection a husband is obligated to provide is not an individual event, but an ongoing privilege and responsibility. The same applies to the unique conjugal rightsthey have traditionally been regarded as rightsthat a man and wife have to each other's person. Talking about "rape" in this context is like bringing trespassing charges against you for trying to move into an apartment you've rented.
If you read the tomes from the 1960s and thereafter on the then-new idea of "marital rape," you quickly discover that, as legal theory, it was designed to undercut the privacy, unique legal privileges, and binding nature of the marriage bond. Your example is a classic case of the hard case that makes bad law. The benefits of marriage are inseparable from its irrevocable, total nature, of two people who own each other. Those intent on the destruction of marriage realized this, and designed their doctirne accordingly.
If ANYONE agrees to ANYTHING, and that contract is changed or breached, the original contract DOES NOT APPLY!
This is GANG RAPE no matter how you try to change that fact.
That was also my take on the judge; sorry if that was not clear.
PROTIP: If you like your wife, never suggest this to her.
If FR has most moronic post of the year, I would like to second your nomination.
Re: The same applies to the unique conjugal rightsthey have traditionally been regarded as rightsthat a man and wife have to each other’s person. Talking about “rape” in this context is like bringing trespassing charges against you for trying to move into an apartment you’ve rented.
So IOW spousal rape is not possible in your opinion?
So many moronic posts.....so little time.
Yes, let’s look at this rationally.
If she is forced to have sex, it is rape.
Correct. Note, we're not talking about exotic threats or battery here. But just the marital act. And of course it's a given that husbands and wives accomodate each other from day to day as a matter of practicality and good-will. But underlying it all is that a real obligation has been conferred that binds in both directions. This was what the Leftist legal theorists have targeted. They want to dissociate sex from any unique connection to marriage. In the Catholic Church, on the other hand, if a marriage hasn't been consummated, it's not a valid marriage.
If you don't see sex as an exclusive right that married people have to each other, then, with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, you might be a Leftistwithout actually intending all the chaos that follows from that.
The way I was raised (born in the 1950’s, not some whippersnapper) sex is a consensual act between 2 people. Take away the consent, and you do not have sex, you have something else, namely, rape.
I wonder if you could provide any links to the criminologists you have read suggesting that rapists are the most psychologically normal in the prison population. By whose definition of psychologically normal?
If a man must use violence (as you say) as a means to get his rocks off, I’m just not seeing a psychologically normal human being. But that’s just me. Psychologically normal men ask a woman out for a date, and maybe that night, maybe down the road, they together choose to have sex. Again. that’s just me.
LOL, you aren’t married, are you.