View Full Version : Woman Gang-Raped by 5 Men, Judge Says "Not Rape"
This is definitely a weird one, but I think it will generate discussion, so I'm posting it outside the News of the Weird.
The scenario goes down like this: (http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/jill_porter/20071012_Jill_Porter___Hooker_raped_and_robbed_-_by_justice_system_.html) Woman hired by a man for sex, arrives at what turns out to be an abandoned house, held at gunpoint, forced to have sex with five men. Takes the guy to trial, where a female judge rules that since the woman was intending to have paid sex anyway, it doesn't constitute rape, but rather "theft of services."
This boggles my tiny lemur mind. Is this judge saying that prostitutes, by definition, cannot be raped while working? So it's open season on the working girls? Nice one, judge.
The sickest part is that the man committed the exact same crime two days later, and now prosecutors don't want to bring charges, because of how badly the first case turned out. So we have a two-time gang-rape leader walking around free.
What does the judge have to say?
She said she has to "sleep at night with what I decide."
And on the night of Oct. 4, when she ruled in the preliminary hearing of this case?
"I slept well."
I think this is a supremely messed-up decision. Opinions?
I think this is a supremely messed-up decision. Opinions?
About sums up my opinion on this.
Yes.
She went there to have sex with one guy, not five and not to be forced to do anything with a gun.
CountArach
10-21-2007, 22:03
This is just horrible! What sort of :daisy: would rule something like that?
That's horrible.
Sad to see that Sweden isn't the only country with a strange definition of rape.
No means no and this applies to prostitues as well(as long as they give a refund).
KukriKhan
10-21-2007, 22:35
Judge's thumbnail bio (http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2214889_1?channel=LP) indicates she's a highly-qualified lawyer and Judge. She sure got this ruling wrong, on its face.
Those Philadelphia Muni Judges get elected for 10-year terms, and she is apparently nearing the end of her latest term. At age 60, she'll probably just 'pension-out'.
While the blogosphere is chattering loud and long on this case, I couldn't find a "hard" news story on it within the first 4 pages of search results, so I have questions - rather, I wonder what would move a long-tenured judge with impeccable credentials to make such a counter-intuitive ruling? Was the prosecution's case so flimsy, or poorly presented? Or does she really hold that a sex-worker, by definition, cannot be raped?
In my amatuer opinion, both rape and armed robbery 'happened' the moment the firearm was displayed, rendering the previously agreed-to 'business deal' moot and invalid.
Spetulhu
10-22-2007, 00:22
I have questions - rather, I wonder what would move a long-tenured judge with impeccable credentials to make such a counter-intuitive ruling?
The judge does seem to hold sex workers in contempt, but that shouldn't be a reason for this. I'm sure a judge with such a long career has handled a few rapes before, right?
What kind of punishment are we looking at if this is armed robbery instead of rape at gunpoint?
Theft of services? From what I have read about this case so far, am I correct in saying that because it regards "theft of services" she rules out rape as if one excludes the other? If so, illogical. (Yes, I know you like that word I use.)
From what it looks like, it is BOTH theft of services and rape BUT more importantly RAPE, IF it is true she did not want any of it.
It seems the "judge" is incapable of good "judgment". This judge should be punished and the case should be redone if y'ask me.
Had she had sex with the 2 men that were previously agreed on and then had the men refuse to pay- I might be able to see where the judge could argue it'd be more theft of services than rape.
Clearly, the judge doesn't think much of prostitutes and believes it "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped.". But I still think she should stick to the letter of the law regardless of her personal views. Let the defense attorney make arguments like that. If the victim really did go on to turn other tricks that night before reporting the attack, the defense would've probably had a field day with it...
Theft of Services? She never agreed to have sex with the three other men in the first place. She was also forced to have sex by gunpoint. Yes, I'd definitely consider that gang rape. I'd like to put my foot up the judge's ### for such a ridiculous ruling.
Marshal Murat
10-22-2007, 04:01
Maybe it's just a 'fetish' or something....
The Wizard
10-22-2007, 12:25
Does this have anything to do with feminism and that ideology's dislike for prostitutes, who sell their bodies?
Does this have anything to do with feminism and that ideology's dislike for prostitutes, who sell their bodies?
Wouldn't be surprised.
Always found feminism hatred of prostitutes very odd considering they are suppose to strive to improve the life and rights of all women and yet they seem to wanna screw over prostitutes every chance they get.
Goofball
10-22-2007, 18:05
Wouldn't be surprised.
Always found feminism hatred of prostitutes very odd considering they are suppose to strive to improve the life and rights of all women and yet they seem to wanna screw over prostitutes every chance they get.
Erm...
Sorry, but where are all of these prostitute-hating feminists you guys are talking about? My experience with feminists has shown me that they have quite the opposite attitude, and in fact try to champion the rights of sex trade workers. If feminists have contempt for anybody, it's for housewives, not hookers.
The Wizard
10-22-2007, 18:17
It depends on the feminist, really. Early second wave feminists (the radical ones, remember) had quite a bit of contempt for prostitution, if memory serves. Then again, I could be wrong. Knowledge of feminism is not my forté.
Kralizec
10-22-2007, 18:22
It depends on the feminist, really. Early second wave feminists (the radical ones, remember) had quite a bit of contempt for prostitution, if memory serves. Then again, I could be wrong. Knowledge of feminism is not my forté.
I think they despised prostitution, not prostitutes. They see the trade as an exploitation of women by men, and it sorta is.
Erm...
Sorry, but where are all of these prostitute-hating feminists you guys are talking about?
Well in my case it has been the majority of the feminists(that I have known).
Also the swedish prostitution laws was created by feminists.
Despite of warnings of what it would do to the actual prostitutes they still declared it as a victory for women(and a major blow for prostitutes who's life got even worse).
The Wizard
10-22-2007, 20:24
I think they despised prostitution, not prostitutes. They see the trade as an exploitation of women by men, and it sorta is.Which by extension is also despising prostitutes.
Goofball
10-22-2007, 21:32
Which by extension is also despising prostitutes.
Actually, no. It's just a variation on the Christian doctrine of "Love the sinner; hate the sin."
Especially when you consider that many (if not all) feminists consider prostitutes to be victims rather than criminals.
Especially when you consider that many (if not all) feminists consider prostitutes to be victims rather than criminals.
Indeed they do however(once again in Sweden's case) have no intention on helping these poor victims.
My theory why they don't wanna help prostitutes is that it would require prostitution to be legal which would in the end serve men. And they can't have that so the women must suffer.
It's the same in other areas as well where feminists refuse to help women if it would mean help the men.
Spetulhu
10-23-2007, 05:37
To clarify the Sweden-angle, they have this totally mental law that makes it illegal to buy sex - but selling is perfectly legal. No one is going to buy in a place where he'll get caught, right? Those unfortunate enough to need the money will have to sell in some out-of-the-way location where they'll have even less protection from violent customers than before. Protecting women, indeed.
Hmm interesting
We know sentence of judgement. Could anyone post explanation (full not short) here?
I know that there were interesting case into England too.
Man made leaflet and put on some walls. It was something like "I'm preparing to run public house and I'm looking for girls to work there. Please call...." Every girl that called there heard that she looks well and will be given that job but... she must past last test - show "boss" how good she is into bed.
After that "boss" declined her aplication because "she was too weak". This funny way he got sex with 200 women.
Jodge decided that it wasn't rape because these girls would be prostitutes without any supprort and sentenced that guy on.... fine.
Banquo's Ghost
10-23-2007, 13:27
Man made leaflet and put on some walls. It was something like "I'm preparing to run public house and I'm looking for girls to work there. Please call...." Every girl that called there heard that she looks well and will be given that job but... she must past last test - show "boss" how good she is into bed.
After that "boss" declined her aplication because "she was too weak". This funny way he got sex with 200 women.
Jodge decided that it wasn't rape because these girls would be prostitutes without any supprort and sentenced that guy on.... fine.
From the information in your anecdote, it may be presumed that the girls consented to being "tested". Whilst the offer of work may have been fraudulent, it's not hugely different from "Yes, I promise we'll get married..." followed by a scarper. Maybe the fine was for "breach of promise" - which I believe is still on the statute book in the UK.
However, if the fellow had introduced the girl to his friend after having his wicked way, and when she refused the second "interview" he had threatened her with a gun, the resulting sex would have been rape. As it was in the original report - or most certainly should have been.
English assassin
10-23-2007, 21:27
Very simple. Was there sex? Yes. Did she consent? No. Did the rapist know or was he reckless as to whether or not she was not consenting? Yes.
That's rape, or it was when I went through law school.
Duke of Gloucester
10-24-2007, 08:31
From the information in your anecdote, it may be presumed that the girls consented to being "tested". Whilst the offer of work may have been fraudulent, it's not hugely different from "Yes, I promise we'll get married..." followed by a scarper. Maybe the fine was for "breach of promise" - which I believe is still on the statute book in the UK.
However, if the fellow had introduced the girl to his friend after having his wicked way, and when she refused the second "interview" he had threatened her with a gun, the resulting sex would have been rape. As it was in the original report - or most certainly should have been.
In English law the issue is consent, not violence, so if you do or say anything that undermines consent then that is rape. This is also why sex with a girl under sixteen is always rape in the eyes of the law - she is under the age of consent. If the offer of work was fraudulent, then the man was lucky to get away with it. Of course it probably is not a true story. Under sex discrimination laws you can't advertise for "girls" to work in your bar. (I wonder how Peppermint Rhino get round that one.)
Very simple. Was there sex? Yes. Did she consent? No. Did the rapist know or was he reckless as to whether or not she was not consenting? Yes.
That's rape, or it was when I went through law school.
Exactly. And in England women have the right to change their minds too. We are also not that keen on individual judges making the law up as they go along. Surely this decsion can be challenged in a higher court. It would be here.
PanzerJaeger
10-24-2007, 09:22
I have little respect for whores, especially in a prosperous country like the United States. You know you're going to get into some nasty situations when you go down that path...
On another note.. talk about sloppy seconds.. omg... who wants to be that 5th guy?
English assassin
10-24-2007, 19:19
I have little respect for whores, especially in a prosperous country like the United States. You know you're going to get into some nasty situations when you go down that path...
I don't have a huge amount of respect for estate agents, tele-marketers or vegans, but fortunately that doesn't make it legal to gang rape them.
Rule of law, PJ. It means the laws apply to everyone. Not just "nice" people. Its actually one of the things that makes law law, and not just mob rule with latin tags.
Louis VI the Fat
10-24-2007, 20:02
Very simple. Was there sex? Yes. Did she consent? No. Did the rapist know or was he reckless as to whether or not she was not consenting? Yes.
That's rape, or it was when I went through law school.
I don't have a huge amount of respect for estate agents, tele-marketers or vegans, but fortunately that doesn't make it legal to gang rape them.
Rule of law, PJ. It means the laws apply to everyone. Not just "nice" people. Its actually one of the things that makes law law, and not just mob rule with latin tags.Lawyers ftw!! :jumping:
Furious Mental
10-25-2007, 11:37
What piss weak prosecutors. They should have appealed such a nonsensical decision.
PanzerJaeger
10-25-2007, 13:09
I don't have a huge amount of respect for estate agents, tele-marketers or vegans, but fortunately that doesn't make it legal to gang rape them.
Rule of law, PJ. It means the laws apply to everyone. Not just "nice" people. Its actually one of the things that makes law law, and not just mob rule with latin tags.
I agree.. i just don't have much pity for this particular whore.
rory_20_uk
10-25-2007, 14:45
Everyone sells something to their employer. I don't really get why there is such a massive difference between people that sell sex and people that sell other things.
At work I act in a certain way. I think in a certain way. I treat in a certain way. I utterly alter who I am for the money.
In fact, prostitutes have more latitude in their jobs that most other people. I get no say in who I treat bar extreme cases, and the same is true of most jobs.
Prostitutes give their body for a bit of time and a reasonable amount of money. Others in many ways give far more of themselves for longer for less money.
So, is it partly jealously that drives us to such extremes of emotion?
~:smoking:
Everyone sells something to their employer. I don't really get why there is such a massive difference between people that sell sex and people that sell other things.
exactly....I never understood how it can be illegal do sell something that is perfectly legal to give away for free.
I wonder what exactly were judges arguments. It would be very interesting...
Kralizec
10-25-2007, 22:43
The term "theft of services" seems like pretty nonsensical, anyway. It is over here, where you can only "steal" physical objects*
*generally
Crazed Rabbit
10-26-2007, 00:39
Well what if you go in for a haircut and then after getting it, run away instead of paying the bill?
CR
Furious Mental
10-27-2007, 05:34
Theoretically anything capable of ownership can be stolen. If prostitution were legal, a contractual right to have sex with a prostitute could be stolen.
Spetulhu
10-27-2007, 06:59
Theoretically anything capable of ownership can be stolen. If prostitution were legal, a contractual right to have sex with a prostitute could be stolen.
Huh? Wouldn't a stolen contract be null and void if the thief tried to use it?
Furious Mental
10-27-2007, 13:25
Yes, but, for instance, if you could somehow get a bank to cash a cheque for someone else in your favour you would be stealing their contractual right to payment; you have no contractual right to payment but the bank isn't to know that. In practice, however, it is more likely to be treated as fraud.
ICantSpellDawg
10-27-2007, 17:17
I really don't have much sympathy for the woman. Someone can really only be "raped" if they value their sexuality beyond its financial potential. I think the guy with the gun should be charged with armed robbery and the others with being complicit. I always hate the people who break the law , get screwed and then try to bring charges against other criminals for making their working environment hostile.
Guess what? If this is the supreme court's decision and it doesn't get overturned, it is now a PRECEDENT. Now it does make sense according to the law.
ICantSpellDawg
10-27-2007, 17:34
Also, rape kit results would be inconclusive. She probably had backed up pipes at that point and no test could prove or even assume that a rape had occurred. Couldn't a prostitute theoretically bring anyone to court on rape charges?
In addition, why couldn't the prosecution even find the other tree men? Without the 3 men, who raped her? the one guy paid and the other stole services. She even said that she agreed to sex with them. It couldn't be proven that they raped her.
It sounds like a joke of a prosecution to me as there was no legitimate case for rape that could be proven.
AntiochusIII
10-27-2007, 21:08
I really don't have much sympathy for the woman. Someone can really only be "raped" if they value their sexuality beyond its financial potential.LOL, prostitutes?
*sighs* :no:
Strike For The South
10-27-2007, 23:54
wow look at these bad asses taking a hard line agianst prostitutes! Yall are so hardcore!!!!!!1111
Furious Mental
10-29-2007, 03:19
"Someone can really only be "raped" if they value their sexuality beyond its financial potential."
What kind of bs definition is that? Rape is sexual penetration without consent. She didn't consent, therefore she was raped.
"It sounds like a joke of a prosecution to me as there was no legitimate case for rape that could be proven."
She was :daisy: at gunpoint. There could hardly be a stronger case.
"In addition, why couldn't the prosecution even find the other tree men? "
You may find this amazing but police aren't psychic.
"It couldn't be proven that they raped her. "
You don't consider it at all relevant that the same man was charged for exactly the same offence in exactly the same circumstances four days later?
"the one guy paid and the other stole services. "
Interesting; you harp on that prostitutes "don't value their sexuality beyond its financial potential", then you totally condone the law doing the same thing and treating the violation of someone's body as the same as skipping out on a car wash bill?
It's a disgraceful decision. Prostitutes are by far the most likely women to be raped, for obvious reasons, to refuse them protection of the law because they are prostitutes is positively medieval.
rory_20_uk
10-29-2007, 15:38
That a crime was committed 4 days later is neither here nor there.
That she had sex prior to the event does cloud issues probably beyond the score of the criminal justice system. Sufficient doubt can be placed in the evidence to fail to convict.
There would be far less problems if prostitution was made legal and placed on the same footing as lawyers - who are IMO far worse.
~:smoking:
ICantSpellDawg
10-29-2007, 15:50
If he paid for sex and they couldn't find the gun or anyone else to say there was a gun, I hardly believe that the fact of the rape could be proven to any degree. You may be able to come to a conclusion that he aided in a rape, but he bought his ticket.
Lets say that a woman is raped. Nobody can find the people who forced her to have sex without some agreement. How can you charge anyone with the specific crime?
TuffStuff is right in that, had the case moved forward, there would've been virtually no way for the prosecution to get a conviction. No rape kit, no witnesses- just the victim's word against his.
In a sense, I can understand that judge's desire to have the case tossed out so as to save the court's time for other, prosecutable crimes- but I still think she took too much latitude doing so. :shrug:
Geoffrey S
10-29-2007, 15:59
It's an interesting question raised, whether the case is about the woman being forced to have sex (having sex clearly isn't an issue for her) or that the men didn't stick to an agreement and didn't pay. That a gun was used implies to me that at least this could be defined as 'assault' or something similar.
ICantSpellDawg
10-29-2007, 16:12
I'm a total :daisy:, but I'm pretty sure that the decision was reasonable, from the little details that we've been given.
Louis VI the Fat
10-29-2007, 16:54
(having sex clearly isn't an issue for her) I'm going to pick out this quote. There have been a quite a few of these in this thread - the age old idea that 'whores can't be raped'.
That is misogynist rubbish. If I force, at gunpoint, a lettuce picker to pick lettuce, is that simply theft of his services? Well he does pick lettuce for a living, right? He shouldn't mind, no?
If I hire a professional boxer for a boxing match, and I then turn up with four guys who beat him up while I point a gun at his head, would anybody claim this is can not be assault because he, well, 'he is a pro-boxer so he obviously doesn't mind getting beaten up, eh'?
I guess not.
Geoffrey S
10-29-2007, 17:23
I'm going to pick out this quote. There have been a quite a few of these in this thread - the age old idea that 'whores can't be raped'.
And how do you go from 'having sex clearly isn't an issue for her' to 'whores can't be raped'? I thought my view on this case was made quite clear by the last line of my post, namely 'That a gun was used implies to me that at least this could be defined as 'assault' or something similar'.
English assassin
10-29-2007, 22:45
There would be far less problems if prostitution was made legal and placed on the same footing as lawyers - who are IMO far worse.
Just got another clin neg case through the post, did you Rory? :beam:
Furious Mental
10-30-2007, 05:23
"If he paid for sex and they couldn't find the gun or anyone else to say there was a gun, I hardly believe that the fact of the rape could be proven to any degree. You may be able to come to a conclusion that he aided in a rape, but he bought his ticket."
What you ignore is the fact that the defendant was found not guilty not because the prosecution had insufficient evidence, but because the judge, based quite clearly on her personal views of the victim, decided to characterise it as a different offence. I have had read plenty of court cases and I can tell you right now that if she had been able to conceal her motivation by pointing to some problem with the evidence she would have done so.
"That a crime was committed 4 days later is neither here nor there."
Actually although someone's criminal record can't normally be admitted as evidence it is relevant that the accused is caught committing exactly the same offence merely days later. It would also result in him getting a higher sentence because he may have a personality disorder which makes him violent and dangerous.
rory_20_uk
10-30-2007, 12:49
Just got another clin neg case through the post, did you Rory? :beam:
Not caught yet... :evilgrin:
I pay £500 a year for insurance though... And it goes up a lot more in a couple of years. Almost worth getting used to get value for money.
~:smoking:
ICantSpellDawg
10-30-2007, 21:48
"If he paid for sex and they couldn't find the gun or anyone else to say there was a gun, I hardly believe that the fact of the rape could be proven to any degree. You may be able to come to a conclusion that he aided in a rape, but he bought his ticket."
What you ignore is the fact that the defendant was found not guilty not because the prosecution had insufficient evidence, but because the judge, based quite clearly on her personal views of the victim, decided to characterise it as a different offence. I have had read plenty of court cases and I can tell you right now that if she had been able to conceal her motivation by pointing to some problem with the evidence she would have done so.
That is what the article wants the reader to believe. I would bet, if we could read the trial report, that the evidence went against the prosecution (as the Judge said that the prosecution failed to present a responsible case).
I think people claiming that the trial is a sham are being more emotional than the judge that they are deriding.
I think people claiming that the trial is a sham are being more emotional than the judge that they are deriding.
Should the woman in question have the right to a jury trial? Or do you feel that would be wasting time?
ICantSpellDawg
10-30-2007, 22:15
Should the woman in question have the right to a jury trial? Or do you feel that would be wasting time?
Sure. Why didn't she have a Jury trial? Does anyone know?
"A bench trial in U.S. law is a trial before a judge alone in which the right to a jury trial has been waived by the necessary parties (or there was no right to a jury trial. In the case of a criminal trial, in most states the criminal defendant alone has the ability to waive the right to a jury. In a U.S. civil trial, one of the parties must request a jury trial (and pay a small fee), otherwise a bench trial will result." -WIKI
Trail by Jury is for the use of a defendant for the most part. I'm sure that this defendant is happy with his decision to waive, if it was his to make. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
None of the sources I have read described it as a bench trial. Rather, it's described as a preliminary hearing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_hearing). I believe there is a difference, although IANAL.
The judge's constituents aren't nearly as mellow (http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/columnists/20071024_Jill_Porter___Move_afoot_to_unseat_judge_in_rape_ruling.html) about the judge's reasoning and ruling as you seem to be.
Move afoot to unseat judge in rape ruling
WHEN a Philadelphia judge made a controversial ruling two weeks ago in the alleged rape of a prostitute, "I knew I was in trouble," she later told me.
Was she ever right.
Municipal Judge Teresa Carr Deni dropped all rape and sexual-assault charges against the key defendant at a preliminary hearing three weeks ago; instead she held 19-year-old Dominique Gindraw on armed-robbery charges for "theft of services."
That ruling, and inflammatory comments Deni made about the victim in a column I wrote, has prompted a grass-roots "Deny Deni" movement to unseat her from the bench and has ignited censure from all over the country.
Dozens of activists were to meet last night to plan an Election Day operation to lobby voters at the polls, urging them to defeat Deni's bid for another six-year term.
"It was so obviously a rape; it was horrifying that anyone would find it otherwise," said organizer Matilda O'Neill.
The incident also gained traction on the Internet.
"We've gotten e-mails from all over the country and Canada," said Philadelphia Bar Association Executive Director Ken Shear.
The uproar has prompted bar Chancellor Jane Dalton to get the transcript of the Oct. 4 hearing to determine whether Deni's ruling was based on "the rule of law or upon her own whim or opinion."
The bar's judicial selection commission already has voted to recommend Deni for retention, and there's not enough time for the commission to officially reconsider its vote. But Dalton said she could at least alert voters if she decides Deni acted improperly.
Meanwhile, Deni took her own action after the column appeared on Oct. 12.
She filed a formal complaint with the state disciplinary committee charging Assistant District Attorney Rich DeSipio, who handled the case, with ethics violations for initiating press coverage.
Which isn't even true. I contacted him after getting a tip.
"Even if I called - which I didn't - why would she object to the press knowing about her decision?" DeSipio said yesterday.
"My view is that she apparently thinks there's a kingdom in her courtroom where she makes her own law and therefore doesn't want the public and press to know her decisions."
Deni didn't return my call yesterday.
The sex worker, a 20-year-old single mother, negotiated sex with the defendant over the phone. When she arrived, she agreed to have sex with his friend for an additional charge.
Instead, the friend arrived and pulled a gun. Two other men also arrived, and the four forced her to have sex at gunpoint.
But Deni dropped the rape charges stemming from the Sept. 20 incident because she believed that the prostitute had "consented and she didn't get paid."
"I thought it was a robbery," she told me.
Deni also told me the case "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped" - which seemed to confirm DeSipio's claim that her ruling was based on moral contempt rather than the law.
And it spurred irate activists to speak out, including the local chapter of the National Organization for Women, and Women Organized Against Rape.
"Judge Deni's premature dismissal of the case, if allowed to stand, will forever prevent relevant facts from being discovered and may well result in a criminal's remaining unpunished," NOW's president, Karen Bojar, wrote to the bar association.
WOAR asked Municipal Court President Judge Louis Presenza to take "appropriate action," such as "reassignment."
"Not only are Judge Deni's comments insulting and disrespectful to the victim, they reinforce negative stereotypes that make it difficult for a wide range of sexual-assault victims to report the crimes committed against them," wrote WOAR Executive Director Carole Johnson and Legal Services coordinator Kathryn Fidler.
DeSipio said he'll seek to have the charges reinstated at a hearing next month. He's also seeking a preliminary hearing on a second case against the defendant involving another prostitute that DeSipio refused to present to Deni after her ruling on the first case.
The three other alleged rapists have yet to be identified.
I think it's unlikely that Deni will be defeated at the polls.
But she knew she was asking for trouble by her insensitive and injudicious ruling. And she got it.
ICantSpellDawg
10-30-2007, 23:38
The fact is that she was bringing a charge of rape against a man who didn't pull the gun (that wasn't found), and paid to have sex with her, not the men who actually supposedly raped her. There was no case against him to prosecute effectively on the grounds of the charges filed.
If she had allowed the trial to go ahead the defendant would have most likely not wanted a jury and the case would have been put in front of the same judge for thousands of tax dollars. The ADA can bring charges against the man who pulled the gun in the future (which your article says will occur), but not the man who paid for the services.
Strike For The South
10-31-2007, 01:16
I'm going to pick out this quote. There have been a quite a few of these in this thread - the age old idea that 'whores can't be raped'.
That is misogynist rubbish. If I force, at gunpoint, a lettuce picker to pick lettuce, is that simply theft of his services? Well he does pick lettuce for a living, right? He shouldn't mind, no?
If I hire a professional boxer for a boxing match, and I then turn up with four guys who beat him up while I point a gun at his head, would anybody claim this is can not be assault because he, well, 'he is a pro-boxer so he obviously doesn't mind getting beaten up, eh'?
I guess not.
HERE HERE!!!
Furious Mental
11-01-2007, 03:26
"
That is what the article wants the reader to believe. I would bet, if we could read the trial report, that the evidence went against the prosecution (as the Judge said that the prosecution failed to present a responsible case).
You would bet that, eh? On what basis? First of all, even though the decision in the case was that the accused was not guilty of rape, he was still found guilty of "theft of services". In other words, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused sexually penetrated the victim without her consent. The judge, however, decided that in the circumstances that was only "theft of services" because the victim was a prostitute who had agreed to have sex under different conditions. If the evidence had been insufficient to prove that the victim was sexually penetrated without consent, as you claim, the accused would not have been found guilty of anything. The comments which the judge is quoted as making make it fairly clear that the basis for her judgment was the circumstance that the victim was a prostitute and her personal views thereof, not that the evidence was insufficient to establish sexual penetration without consent. Any judge who makes those sorts of statements has clearly run out of excuses for making the judgment they do.
"The fact is that she was bringing a charge of rape against a man who didn't pull the gun (that wasn't found), and paid to have sex with her, not the men who actually supposedly raped her. There was no case against him to prosecute effectively on the grounds of the charges filed."
Wrong. The accused does not have to have been one of the persons literally raping the victim after the gun was pulled on her; it is called accessory liability. As I have said above, if it were not established that the woman was sexually penetrated without consent, then no one would have been found guilty of anything. If the accused could only be guilty as an accessory, the prosecution must have proven the elements of accessory liability beyond reasonable doubt, or, once again, he would not have been found guilty of anything. He was found guilty of "theft of services" , or as an accessory to it; it was merely the fact that the victim was a prostitute that led to that finding rather a verdict of guilty of rape or as an accessory to rape.
On top of that, merely one month after it had recommended her for re-election, the Philadelphia Bar Association has called for her to be booted out based solely on that decision, stating that she does not understand "what constitutes rape in Pennsylvania." The PBA, presumably, is in a position to make these sorts of comments because it is, after all, an association of practising lawyers and its Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention has read the judgment in question. Notably, also, the judge in question has made no attempt to counter the accusations either of the news media or the criticism of the PBA, which is amazing if, as you claim, they are mischaracterising all of this; if it is all false it is obviously defamation and will probably ruin her career.
"I think people claiming that the trial is a sham are being more emotional than the judge that they are deriding."
Pardon me if I and some others have a problem with a serial gang rapist being set free.
Assuming this is not a begrudged prostitute not getting enough paid and hence reported a false rape claim.
This has really nothing to do with whether the woman was a prostitute or not. She got gang-raped with a gun to her head. And the perpetrators did it again. Obviously the focus should be on the men that found it ok to take a woman in turns having a gun to her head. There is obviously something wrong with them and they should not walk the streets. The fact (see the assumption) that they did it again with another woman, shows that this was not a spontaneous thing. They enjoy the power trip this despicable act gives them.
Our daughters are not safe as long as men like this walks free. What happens when they tire of prostitutes? Should we wait for this to evolve to virtuous girls or teenage school girls?
The only reason I can see for this judge to rule like she did is because she did not believe the claimed rape. There was no gang-rape and there was no gun to her head.
ICantSpellDawg
11-01-2007, 14:34
"
On top of that, merely one month after it had recommended her for re-election, the Philadelphia Bar Association has called for her to be booted out based solely on that decision, stating that she does not understand "what constitutes rape in Pennsylvania." The PBA, presumably, is in a position to make these sorts of comments because it is, after all, an association of practising lawyers and its Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention has read the judgment in question. Notably, also, the judge in question has made no attempt to counter the accusations either of the news media or the criticism of the PBA, which is amazing if, as you claim, they are mischaracterising all of this; if it is all false it is obviously defamation and will probably ruin her career.
Bah, I just read that. It was worth a shot.
"
That is what the article wants the reader to believe. I would bet, if we could read the trial report, that the evidence went against the prosecution (as the Judge said that the prosecution failed to present a responsible case).
You would bet that, eh? On what basis?
I can bet anything I'd like. On the basis that the judge made an appropriate decision on the basis that she was the judge presiding. I thought that a presiding judge who had the support of the PBA in her upcoming election would have a better view of a case than the people accusing her of bias in an internet chatroom. As it turns out, I would have lost the bet.
I like to defend people who I feel are being attacked. Sometimes the attack is justified, but I don't like mob mentality based on a few articles. Plus, I don't like prostitutes very much and don't trust them to seek real justice, just quick financial fixes.
Furious Mental
11-01-2007, 16:24
Well, this was not a civil suit in which the victim sought compensation, this was a prosecution by the state, and a conviction usually secures absolutely nothing for the victim save some piece of mind. One can't tell from the particular facts of this case, but in general trying to secure compensation from a criminal is pointless because they have no money and no assets. Aside from that, to reveal that one has been the victim of rape attracts a dire stigma (yes, even for a prostitute). Next time you are weighing up the chances that the claims of the victim of an offence are false, you may wish to consider the fact that a huge number of sex offences are not even reported solely because the victim prefers not to reveal their experience to others. And this is partly because people will accuse them of falsifying their story, or of being partly or wholly responsible for what was done (e.g. that she was a slut, she was aksing for it, etc).
ICantSpellDawg
11-01-2007, 16:35
Well, this was not a civil suit in which the victim sought compensation, this was a prosecution by the state, and a conviction usually secures absolutely nothing for the victim save some piece of mind. One can't tell from the particular facts of this case, but in general trying to secure compensation from a criminal is pointless because they have no money and no assets. Aside from that, to reveal that one has been the victim of rape attracts a dire stigma (yes, even for a prostitute). Next time you are weighing up the chances that the claims of the victim of an offence are false, you may wish to consider the fact that a huge number of sex offences are not even reported solely because the victim prefers not to reveal their experience to others. And this is partly because people will accuse them of falsifying their story, or of being partly or wholly responsible for what was done (e.g. that she was a slut, she was aksing for it, etc).
True, but criminals winning cases against criminals makes me sick. If the justice system is going to fail someone, I'd rather it be someone who has no respect for it in the first place.
Furious Mental
11-01-2007, 16:47
Well frankly I really don't care if a woman is a prostitute- it is against a law, but should it be? We outlaw prostitution because it offends our propriety, but every attempt to actually eradicate it fails utterly unless disproportionate and draconian measures are taken (e.g. executing prostitutes). What it comes down to is that a prostitute provides a service that is in demand in order to make a living. It is a victimless crime except insofar as the prostitutes themselves are the victims; of sexual assault, of debt slavery, of human trafficking, etc. A rapist, however, is another matter entirely; they assault and invade someone in the most degrading way possible and demonstrate total disrespect not merely for the law but for human dignity generally.
First of all, even though the decision in the case was that the accused was not guilty of rape, he was still found guilty of "theft of services". In other words, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused sexually penetrated the victim without her consent.I don't see where it says the defendant was found guilty of anything in the article. Where are you getting that from?
Furious Mental
11-01-2007, 17:03
I believe it does. He was found not guilty of rape, but guilty of a lesser offence, "theft of services" (apparently some variation on robbery). The prosecution responded by spitting the dummy and not pursuing the matter any further, at least before that judge.
It says the charge was reduced from rape to theft of services. Again, I don't see anything about a finding of guilt. If I'm missing it, someone please quote it out for me. :shrug:
ICantSpellDawg
11-01-2007, 18:21
I didn't think so either. It says that she reduced the charges to theft of services, but it doesn't say anything about a verdict or whether "reduced" meant the legal term (as in "reduced the charges") or the general verb ("she was reduced to a quivering mass").
Did she reduce the charges only to dismiss them?
Not quite sure.
Spetulhu
11-02-2007, 11:29
It says the charge was reduced from rape to theft of services. Again, I don't see anything about a finding of guilt. If I'm missing it, someone please quote it out for me. :shrug:
Nothing about guilt in that original article, but the judge saw fit to change the classification of the alleged crime. She didn't throw the case out on the basis of insufficient proof or some technicality.
Nothing about guilt in that original article, but the judge saw fit to change the classification of the alleged crime. She didn't throw the case out on the basis of insufficient proof or some technicality.
Which I'm guessing is why she's (the judge) in trouble right now. :yes:
Even had she determined there was enough evidence for a trial, it's still a far cry from a guilty verdict- which, based on the article, there would have been little chance of. The judge made her opinion clear- that it was a waste of time and insulting to "real" rape victims. Where she went wrong, imo, was when she let those personal views influence her decision-making.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.