Woman Gang-Raped by 5 Men, Judge Says "Not Rape"

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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...

The term "theft of services" seems like pretty nonsensical, anyway. It is over here, where you can only "steal" physical objects*

*generally

Well what if you go in for a haircut and then after getting it, run away instead of paying the bill?

CR

Theoretically anything capable of ownership can be stolen. If prostitution were legal, a contractual right to have sex with a prostitute could be stolen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

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?

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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:

wow look at these bad asses taking a hard line agianst prostitutes! Yall are so hardcore!!!!!!1111

"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.

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:

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:

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.

I'm a total :daisy:, but I'm pretty sure that the decision was reasonable, from the little details that we've been given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

(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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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'.

Quote:

---

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:

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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. I believe there is a difference, although IANAL.

The judge's constituents aren't nearly as mellow 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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!!!

"
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.