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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

"
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

"
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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

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?

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

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.