I think the judge was right on....and I’m a woman. The prostitute showed up already consenting to sex, she didn’t get her money....robbery, possible armed robbery. But I understand that “props” such as ropes, knives and handuffs are used during the act of prostituting, so even the gun probably isn’t that unusual.
I don’t know what to say.
The woman consented to sex with one person. And even then it can still be rape if that one person starts pulling out toys she doesn’t want used and says “no”.
I am not a lawyer but can see this much.
Amazing how people here seem to love the rule of law, but not for certain people such as prostitutes.
And sad too.
there ya go, this should be called what it is, quit the boo hoo hoo PC crap
So a woman does not have the right to say 'no.' A lot of convicted rapists like your reasoning.
She consented with sex for money with 1 man.. she was gang raped at gun point.... sorry, but that’s far more than theft of services.
I hate to tell you this but such "props" are used not just by prostitutes. You would be surprised by the things "normal" people are into.
I think the judge was out of line & NO those kind of props aren't in my home. The woman was gang raped & she did not agree to that. She may be a prostitute but she still has rights.
An earlier report of the incident hadn’t made clear there were multiple attackers. Had there been only the customer, depending very much on the niceties of the laws defining rape, prostitution, theft of services and precedents in PA concerning sexual consent, it was just barely conceivable that the judge might have been right as a point of law.
As it is, I agree with calls for her disbarrment: the legal reasoning applied here would make all rapes of prostitutes into theft of services cases, since the other attackers in this incident plainly did not have any agreement explicit or implied from the victim to have sex. Were the precedent allowed to stand, any rapist who attacked a prostitute could advance the defense against the rape charge that he was just stealing her services.
It sounds right to me.
Stupid post. You obviously don’t know what rape is. Rape is a brutal crime of violence, not of lust. These guys are animals.
The article stated:
“The prostitute admitted going to a home on Sept. 20 to have paid sex with a customer but said she was instead gang-raped by four men, including the customer, while he fixed a gun on her.”
Sounds like robbery to me. Yep, perhaps an occupational hazard.
Congratulations on what could very well be the most moronic post of the year. You worked hard, but acheived greatness.
LOL. For once, colorcountry, I’m in full agreement with you. In fact, I have said exactly what the judge said on FR threads.
So by your logic, a prostitute can’t be a victim of rape.
So "she was asking for it." She went to the john's house, so she deserves anything that happened to her.
Consent can be withdrawn at any time. It's not a contract. The corollary to "no means no" is that "stop means stop."
From the git-go, I don't buy the premise that she consented to the act, didn't get paid, and then cried rape, for one simple reason -- working girls generally insist on the money up front so johns don't try that.
>>I think the judge was right on....and I’m a woman. The prostitute showed up already consenting to sex, she didn’t get her money....robbery, possible armed robbery. But I understand that “props” such as ropes, knives and handuffs are used during the act of prostituting, so even the gun probably isn’t that unusual.<<
You don’t believe a woman should be able to withdraw consent for sex?
Say for example a woman agrees to have sex but her husband decides to include another man (or another woman)?
Or the man hurts her or for whatever reason, consent is revocable.
And for a judge to not know this implies she should not be a judge.