man-o-man there are a LOT of people missing the point here- she was THERE TO HAVE PAID SEX with those men.
If they had paid he afterwareds, would this be still called rape? or a completed transaction?
you said: “If she was raped she was not prostituting herslef”- did you miss the ENTIRE POINT of this articel? She IS a prostitute who agreed to have sex with at least 2 of these men for money.
Do you at least agree with me so far?
AFTER that- the men committed a crime (forced rape) and should receive the maximum sentence (life? thats OK with me)because it was planned.
...but...
she was still there in the first place to commit prostitution (and actually DID~!!! - she just was not paid by pervert #1)
No. You are missing the point. Only a sick bastard like you thinksit’s OK to rape anyone, even hookers. I cannot believe you think rape is OK. How many hookers have you raped?
Also, the woman was the victim of rape, but the crime is against the state. It does not matter if the victim was a hooker. Non-consensual sex is a crime. If a hooker withdraws her consent, then it’s rape and the perpetrators have committed a crime against the state. If people want to get stupid enough to follow this ‘theft of service arguement’, then the hooker needs to go to civil court for damages. But the criminal offense is against the state, not the woman. The judge, like most of the sick, vile posters on this thread, was off her rocker and should be disbarred.