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

**Lemur** · 10-21-2007, 21:45

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: 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?

**Redleg** · 10-21-2007, 21:48

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think this is a supremely messed-up decision. Opinions?

About sums up my opinion on this.

**Husar** · 10-21-2007, 22:02

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

would rule something like that?

**TB666** · 10-21-2007, 22:31

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 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

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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?