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

[Lemur]

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]

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

About sums up my opinion on this.

[Husar]

Yes.

She went there to have sex with one guy, not five and not to be forced to do anything with a gun.

[CountArach]

This is just horrible! What sort of would rule something like that?

[TB666]

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]

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]

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?

[Bijo]

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.

[Xiahou]

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...

[Ice]

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]

Maybe it's just a 'fetish' or something....

[The Wizard]

Does this have anything to do with feminism and that ideology's dislike for prostitutes, who sell their bodies?

[TB666]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[TB666]

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]

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]

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.

[TB666]

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]

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.

[KrooK]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!

[Furious Mental]

What piss weak prosecutors. They should have appealed such a nonsensical decision.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.