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 ...
Of course. Let’s just back slowly out of this. Her mind is warped and closed. We aren’t going to talk her into normalcy.
“Gang rape is boo hoo PC crap?
I might just give up on FR if this is the only type of ratiocination here.”
no, but changing what was actually posted like you did is..
You are spot-on. Determining each person's accountability in this situation includes this question: "In whose care, and under whose authority are you willingly placing yourself, and to whom are you granting access to the body God gave you?"
Protecting an individual woman against an individual man's intentions is a huge undertaking for the rest of society, and doing justice is complicated by subtleties, mixed motives, changes of heart, dishonesty, betrayal, and all the other vagaries of the human spirit. That is why, until the 1970s (if I recall correctly), a man could not be prosecuted in any state for "raping" a woman whom he had legally married. She consented to be his wife, and enjoys a legally enforceable right of support from himtherefore, she knew sex was part of the bargain.
And claims of rape in other circumstances were looked at in light of whether the woman had taken reasonable measures to protect her virtue. In far less serious matters, the logic of this is understood: Your insurance company, if you want them to pay for a stereo stolen from your house, demands two things: 1) proof that the stereo was not the property of the "thief," through sale or gift; and 2) some sign of forced entry.
A woman is accountable for the company she keeps because, even though she is the weaker party, in the larger sense, she is not. We are all therethe rest of society, with armed policeto intervene, through measures we would extend to protect a grown man. Her side of the compact is that she will not call on our aid for capricious reasons, and that she treat the gift of life-creation God gave her as something worthy of respect and protection. A prostitute is taking this gift, which has the power of changing history itself, and selling it cheaply. That is why society at large is disinclined to value it more highly than she herself is wiling to do.
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that in earlier decades, the woman in this case would have no standing to file a criminal complaint in this situation at all. This does not mean I endorse what was done to her. The men are thieves, brutes, and fornicators. But if an adult refuses to protect herself, it is impossible to protect her.
Interesting. I think you make some good points. Thanks.
Ooops. I meant, "through measures we would NEVER extend to protect a grown man."
So if they shot her between the eyes, no crime?
I am curious how this case could be affected if prostitution were legal. The act would then be reduced (elevated?) to simply a service being provided. As I see it, it would be much easier to argue the "theft of services" defense if the prostitute is, at least in a legal sense, simply providing a service.
If you offer to let someone punch for you a $5, and then 4 people show up and beat the crap out of you, they can't get off the hook for assault and battery because one punch at $5 was already agreed upon.
While it is true that the prostitute has degraded sex into a commercial transaction, the law still does not regard it as a mere commercial transaction. Sex without explicit and particular consent is still sexual violation, each and every time.
Another analogy: say she had offered to sell one of her children for $200, and men showed up and kidnapped 4 of her children. She was gravely wrong to offer the sale, but still abducting children is not mere theft of property in the eyes of the law: it's kidnapping.
It sounds right to me.
Re: A prostitute is taking this gift, which has the power of changing history itself, and selling it cheaply. That is why society at large is disinclined to value it more highly than she herself is wiling to do.
That is why YOU are disinclined to value her.
There. Fixed it.
I don’t know why... but I like it.
she consented to perform services, but was not paid.
She should be arrested for prostitution
They should be arrested for (whatever crime it is called to solicit a prostitute)
AND they should alsobe charged with theft of services, armed robery with a gun.. etc etc
EVERYONE goes to jail here (all the people that should!!)
Send her to jail for being GANG RAPED.
How nice of you.
“If you offer to let someone punch for you a $5, and then 4 people show up and beat the crap out of you, they can’t get off the hook for assault and battery because one punch at $5 was already agreed upon.”
Lousy analogy as you don’t let people beat the crap out of you for a living.
The key question here is would she have likely consented to the act or acts had the “price” been to her liking. I think we all know the answer to that question.
I see the point you are making, and I agree with you- YES THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH GANG RAPE TOO!!
But... lets just say they all had paid her each the $100 afterwards... what would we be calling this now?
But she didn’t consent.
What part of that don’t you undersdtand?
Amazing that because of what she does, people here are unwilling to treat her equally under the law.
And appalling too.
She may have consented to the acts if the price was right. However, if after she arrived and told there would no money paid, and she said she changed her mind, it would still be rape.
If she agreed to take the money and didn't call the police, we wouldn't be talking about it. However, if she agreed to take the 100 dollars because she was afraid they would kill her if she didn't take it, we would still be talking about this, and it would still be rape.
There were 4, and these 2 participated in the rape perpetrated by the other 2. An analogy would be legitimate customers in a bank that decided to join in on a bank robbery that began after they had done some transaction. They can't claim they were not a part of it if they participated in the robbery, and took off with with some of the cash.
I didn’t say she consented for the “4” but she did for two and would have likely for the “4” had the money been right.
Please don’t talk down to me, I understand completely, my rational is just different than your’s.
If prostitution were legal and she showed up for her "date" and was told she wouldn't be paid and she was forced to have sex, it would still be rape.
“However, if after she arrived and told there would no money paid, and she said she changed her mind, it would still be rape.”
That’s where we differ. The crime was in the “not being paid” not the sex act and is therefor armed robbery not rape.
Not my point and you know it. Jesus, Buddha, Suze Orman. I don't care. Just get her stupid life in order and get straight.
Many here are taking a moral offense and refusing to acknowledge that this is a legal offense. Ok, so she’s lower than an egg sucking dog. Does that mean that no crime is too great to visit upon her?
These people would have stoned Mary Magdalene when she was caught in the act. Jesus said he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone. These pharisees would have been grabbing some stones.
See post #70
And no offense, I don’t think you understand at all.
Even if she is offered money, should she decide NOT to have sex and it is forced upon her, it is still rape.
She can opt out should she wish according to the law, as she should be able to.
And why are YOU disinclined to value the judge?
You say in your headling: FEMALE JUDGE!!!!
Would you say: BLACK JUDGE!!!!
Do you feel women as a group lack judgement?
Re: Do you feel women as a group lack judgement?
If this is an indication of how women feel, then yes I would.
Thankfully, I do not believe the world is populated with loony women such as have appeared on this thread to justify a GANG RAPE.
And make no mistake about it, because of her background, that is exactly what this judge and many here are doing.
It’s like 2 people come into a lawn and garden center and negotiate a price to fix their mowers. Then two friends show up and demand at gunpoint that the proprietor fix their tractors too.
That’s armed robbery and additionally assault if he was brutalized. Is there any doubt that the proprietor would have fixed all 4 tractors if the price was to his liking? Of course not.
If a prostitute chooses to offer a service like sex for money just like any service provider does they need to be held to the same standards of ordinary business practice.
Well, she sort of did consent, pending payment. IMHO, the judge should've gone with rape charges against all four, then added the theft of services charges against the two who said they'd pay. That way, if a jury bought the consent argument, those two guys would still be on the hook for the lesser charge.
Perhaps one of our FR legal eagles can explain whether *illegal* services can, in fact, be stolen.
Stupid post. You obviously don’t know what rape is. Rape is a brutal crime of violence, not of lust. These guys are animals.
Ive said enough.
Yes, yes you have. Enough to paint yourself in a very unflattering light.
We have had this kind of discussion on FR before. You are certainly not alone in believing that a prostitute cannot be raped. Comparing this to someone refusing to pay the guy for cleaning your rain gutters (theft of services) is just ice cold, IMO.
you are not looking at this in context.
It seems like it was a VERY VERY weak rape case. Pathetically so. In fact it is still a weak robbery case because “theft” does not apply to illegal deeds. (like trying to collect in court on loansharking or illegal gambling)
Remember folks Nifong is NOT the exception he is the rule.
The forcible insertion of a penis or foreign object into another person’s vagina, mouth, or anus for sexual gratification, accomplished against the will of the person is RAPE! It is not theft of services.
Thank you. Someone with common sense!
The key question here is, did she consent. And the answer is "no."
Re: you are not looking at this in context.
So I need to look at a GANG RAPE with a gun held to her head in context?
Re: Nifong is NOT the exception he is the rule.
You have hard evidence to back this up?
Didn’t think so.
“The forcible insertion of a penis or foreign object into another persons vagina, mouth, or anus for sexual gratification, accomplished against the will of the person is RAPE! It is not theft of services.”
How about if it had been agreed upon, bought and paid for and halfway into it the hooker changes her mind....rape also?
NO, it's rape. It's an extremely physical act where one is usually punched in the face multiple times, and physically restrained using force. You're bloodied, bruised and traumatized when you are raped. Whore or not, just because it "happens all the time" doens't make it any less wrong.
Everyone involved in this sordid despicable affair should be prosecuted and sent to jail. Although I do feel sorry for her lack of income, and the fear and humiliation she suffered, I believe she placed herself in that position and should be held culpable.
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.
Well then, why limit your view to prostitutes? Let's say that the tractor repairman offers to repair a tractor, and the four men pull a gun on him and sodomize him instead. It's just theft of services because he was offering something for sale, it just wasn't sex though.
No, I am not sure of your point. Many Church going people inflict much greater harm than a street walking prostitute.
“The key question here is, did she consent. And the answer is “no.”
Ok, so if she had consented to the four at 150.00/apiece and then they pulled the gun and had sex for free then it would have been robbery?
Certain amount of exactitude needed her. Placed herself in what position?
No because the lawn mower repairman does not routinely offer up “sodomy” on his bill-o-fair.
No, you are still one of the bottom-of-the-barrel posters here.
Thankfully most recognize your Stone Age thinking for what it is.
You should be embarassed, but IMO are not intelligent enough to be so.
I don't know.
Based on your personal knowledge of how many hookers?
“Based on your personal knowledge of how many hookers?”