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 ...
I would argue that if you look at marriage as the possession of a woman by a man, the Stone Ages suited you more than our current time.
Spousal rape is real....not a “leftist theory”.
I have to say that posts such as yours are some of the most bizarre I have ever read on FR. Haloween ghouls have nothing on the scary world which would happen if your ideas woere put into practice.
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.
How do you get from consensual sex (with or without money) somehow being equivalent to rape. There’s so much connective tissue missing there that I just can’t get from A to B.
No, that’s not just you. That is what is right, and thankfully that is also the law.
Strange to see people here take an almost Taliban-like view to rape and marriage. Bizarre.
Sixteen happy years so far, and a number of adorable children, thanks. And you?
I am assuming, notice, that marriage has a nature ---that it is a something, and a something definite --- and is not simply an arbitrary or malleable creation of positive law.
My own Natural Law take on this (colored by Catholicism) is that sex is a Big Thing and (literally) embodies two Big Powers: the power to unite the sexes by means of certaiin affinities or attachments created by physical pair-bonding, and the power to procreate offspring and thereby extend human society into another generation.
Both of these powers are essential to society (that is, their significance, while intimately important to individuals and couples, goes beyond couples to society's physical and cultural survival itself) --- and are quite vulnerable to being weakened, subverted, or perverted. Therefore society has a legitimate interest in strengthening and supporting these powers in their most constructive form.
Catholicism also sees marriage as the "sincere gift of self" of the husband to the wife, and of the wife to the husband. This is another way of saying that reciprocal rights and duties exist; based, however, on "gift" and not primarily on barter or exchange. (Marriage is a contract, it is never less than a contract; but it is also more than a contract.)
Th gift of the bodies of the married to one another is rightly assumed to be irrevocable, but it is not unlimited.
The Catholic Church, for instance, says that the marriage partners, being rational persons, have a right to intercourse within reason.
Most moralists, traditionally, would say that a spouse has a right to refuse a sexual advance which is patently irrational. Examples would be: irrational by reason of perversion, drunkenness, profound mental incompetence, insanity, threat or likelihood of bodily harm. The list is illustrative, but not necessarily comprehensive.
Most moralists, traditionally, would also say that either spouse has a reasonable right to expect sexual intercourse, and offspring.
I would say that an irrational imposition of intercourse, even in marriage, constitutes rape morally. Legally, it would have to be an objective and provable irrationality. IMHO.
Like, America in the 1950s?
To put it another way, I pity any wife who can't get her husband to do, or not do, anything she wants without calling the cops.
I reiterate, don’t repeat what you said here, or you’ll encounter frequent headaches, if you know what I mean.
IOW the wife must march in lock-step.
This is, in essence, what you are saying.
If an act involves sexual intercourse within marriage, it can be a lot of things I wouldn't endorse, some of which may be illegal, such as mean, sinful, spiteful, violent, dangerous, crazy, and so on. But it's not rape. Below is a quote on the definition of rape on Lectric Law. The understanding they cite is ancient. The re-invention of the term to include husbands is indeed of leftist, anti-marriage origin.
"The matrimonial consent of the wife cannot be retracted, and, therefore, her hushand cannot be guilty of a rape on her as his act is not unlawful." (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q097.htm)
If sex is such an unimportant act that it should be legally bought and sold as easily as milk, then why should we be any more concerned when it is “taken” without consent than any other product?
LOL. For once, colorcountry, I’m in full agreement with you. In fact, I have said exactly what the judge said on FR threads.
Per Merriam-Webster rape is:
unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will
If a spouse is forced against her will to have sex, this certainly qualifies by definition as rape.
No other way of looking at it.
This thread is so full of fail it boggles the mind.
I pray Bill ORLY doesn’t get a hold of it.
“No, this is rape.”
Yes, it is. It doesn’t matter how many times and/or ways she’s been around the block, forcing her to have sex against her will is rape.
I’ve gotten a lot of flack on this thread. I’m starting to grow a thick skin. LOL
If “fail” is crap I agree with you.
People here want the law enforced, unless of course it applies to people who have made mistakes in their lives.
The question is: are you getting any smarter?
Another person of common sense!
Elitism is alive and well. The left holds no monopoly on it nor do Islamo-fascists.
Sure seems like it doesn’t it?
Wow, I didn’t know there were so many people on FR that subscribed to the self-serving, self-righteous, self-ISH philosophy of “Well, the victim shouldn’t have put him/herself in that situation”.
Actually, this reminds me of one of the things that bugged me (and still does) about FR when I first signed on almost 6 years ago: Far too many apparently rational people seem to think that, in certain situations, victims of crime “deserve it” or “get what they asked for”, as if that somehow mitigates the responsibility that squarely rests on the shoulders of the offender.
So much for “personal responsibility”. I guess it takes a “village to make a criminal”? Myself, I don’t care what someone does for a living, or where they walked at night, or what kind of clothes they wear: If one is a victim of crime, one is a victim, period. The time of day, place, or profession of the victim doesn’t mitigate the responsibility of the offender one iota.
To say otherwise is, at least, unsympathetic and at worst, evil in its cruelty. Disagree? Post away, but I have no desire to debate the merits of something that should be clear to anyone with compassion.
If I was on the jury, I would have voted guilty on all charges (including the rape). Too bad this girl didn't live in Nevada where prostitution is legal...these guys would be dead by now.
It’s not selfish or neanderthal to think she put herself in this position. She is engaging in criminal activities with other criminals. Doesn’t mean she deserved to be raped, but yes, she is responsible for putting herself into a very bad situation. Should the guys that raped her be punished? Hell, string em’ up. Hopefully this incident will serve as a lesson to young women who are thinking of following in her footsteps. Rape is of course a very touchy situation with many people, as some have been affected by it personally. I am of the mind that we execute violent rapists and put women who falsely and maliciously accuse men of rape into prison for many years (no means no, but no in the middle or after doesn’t mean you’ve been raped)...
If any woman is forced to have sex, then that is rape period. Anyone who disagrees with that or thinks it is ok to force a woman needs to be removed from this earth by force.
People who disagree with you or think differently should be killed? Really?
If you think rape is ok depending on the person, absolutely.
That is the general ‘you’ btw.
So by your logic, a prostitute can’t be a victim of rape.
Right now, I'm thinking you're an idiot.
You are inferior. I could not possibly care less what you think. Rapists and their defenders should be executed!
I’m done here. Last post.
Sure she can.
If a spouse is forced against her will to have sex, this certainly qualifies by definition as rape.
The dictionary definition you cite contradicts what you wrote below it. "Unlawful" intercourse means sex outside of marriage. It has no other meaning. If it's both forcible and unlawful, it's rape.
Denounce evil husbands by all means, and with all kinds of names. Just don't call sex within marriage rape. It doesn't fit the definition.
I mean, I wouldn’t want to be have somebody knock my front teeth out with a hammer and thrown me down a flight of stairs so I spend 3 months in the hospital, but in Ohio, if someone did that he’s be out of jail before I’m out of the hospital. On the other hand, a guy who wants a twofer with a whore could conceivably get life in prison. Just something about that relative punishment doesn’t seem quite right.
This wasn't consensual sex, paid or otherwise, with the three who showed up outside her agreement with her customer. She was raped, pure and simple.
What about married couples who are legally separated, living apart, or awaiting their divorce to become final? Does the husband have to right to demand or force sex right up until the marriage is dissolved?
There were no charges against any of the other men, only the initial John. Now what?
From the article:
“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.”
“Gindraw, 19, also took her cell phone and a purse containing pepper spray, she said. The other men have not been identified or charged.”
Impeach the judge, appeal the decision, and initiate charges against the others.
Did you miss the part where it said the other men HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED! Sheesh!
Then initiate actions to identify them. I am sure they left some sperm and other traces of their presence behind. They must have know the customer because they came to his house. Perhaps some immunity could be offered in return for the information.
Very well said.
I am amazed at the lack of compassion by those very people who profess to practise this daily.
''He said that I'm going to do this for free and I'm not going nowhere and I better cooperate or he was going to kill me,'' the woman testified at the preliminary hearing. ''I didn't know if I was going [to] make it out of there alive because I seen everyone's face.
Gindraw, 19, also took her cell phone and a purse containing pepper spray, she said. The other men have not been identified or charged.
Not identified to whom? The media or can't be identified? The police may very well have not released their names because they have not been charged with a crime.
I know this will be hard for you, but let’s imagine that the girl didn’t get paid and made up a story about three other men and a gun.
We here on FR, simply do not have the full story, nor the complete testimony. There are no other suspects. The police have not identified any. And for this you want the Judge’s hide (and mine). Okay, whatever. But if we are going to talk about the “rule of law,” the rule hasn’t necessarily proven a rape occured, at least in the mind of a legally appointed judge.
It is utterly amazing to me that on FR there are defenders of rapists.
Nonsense with the “full story”......you thought she deserved it from the get-go.
Maybe, but that is not the issue in this case. And we don't know if the police and hospital authorities treated her as a rape victim when it came to collecting evidence.
We here on FR, simply do not have the full story, nor the complete testimony. There are no other suspects. The police have not identified any. And for this you want the Judges hide (and mine). Okay, whatever. But if we are going to talk about the rule of law, the rule hasnt necessarily proven a rape occured, at least in the mind of a legally appointed judge.
Judges and prosecuters are not immune from being corrupt or incompetent. Yes, we need to know more about the case, but the judge dropped the rape and sexual-assault charges at an Oct. 4 preliminary hearing, but upheld robbery, false imprisonment and conspiracy charges against Dominique Gindraw.
The question is whether even a prostitute can get raped. It is also worth noting that, "The chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association issued a statement Tuesday that questioned Deni's [judge] understanding of the state's rape law."