Posted on 11/01/2007 5:07:20 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
In a rare rebuke, the city's bar association condemned a judge who dismissed rape charges in the alleged gang rape of a prostitute and instead called it a theft of services.
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.
Municipal Judge Teresa Carr Deni dropped the rape and sexual-assault charges at an Oct. 4 preliminary hearing, but upheld robbery, false imprisonment and conspiracy charges against Dominique Gindraw.
Deni has since heightened the furor in defending her decision to a newspaper.
''She consented and she didn't get paid,'' Deni told the Philadelphia Daily News. ''I thought it was a robbery.''
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
Anyone who thinks rape is OK is at best a sociopath. Rapists are despicable, and deserve long jail sentences. Some deserve life sentences.
No problem. I’ve been less than clear at times myself.
Thanks for the cite. It shows the laws were changed even later than I thought, and as I said, by Leftists for their own purposes. Hard case, bad law. Passed in the 1970s—the decade of Row vs. Wade, with no precedent in the history of civilization. No a promising pedigree for starters.
Where the feminists really want to go with it—and you can hear it in the colleges today—is to prove that marriage is in itself rape. That's what lesbians like Susan Brownmiller were saying in the early 1970s. Feminists are about envy: trying to tempt and harrass married couples into disunity from a hundred different angles.
The bond of marriage, where two become one flesh, does involve giving up one's own self, and keeping outsiders out of your disputes. It requires charity, manners, and self-sacrifice, and is risky, like all good things. You can be betrayed or mistreated. Bad husbands and bad wives are always there—but people once had the assumption that it was up to them to work things out, rather than looking for Control + Z. It's really about sex being private. If the option of calling the cops, the social workers, or the divorce lawyers is in the back of your mind as an option—in short, if you're always trying to avoid falling down—you'll never ascend the heights.
Maritial unity was common sense in the 1950s. To the modern mind, among people who haven't read history, even good conservatives, it's a scandal.
Re: Hard case, bad law
Please be specific.
Exactly what is bad law which defines rape as any case (marriage or not) when a woman is violently forced to have sex against her will?
I could not disagree with you more. And FWIW, I am not a feminist.
The story gives little facts, however... I am convinced beyond a resonable doubt that the woman did not make up the story, because no one would have anticipated the judge's bizarre ruling. There may also be a rape kit analysis that shows 4. The fact that she's been in the business for awhile, takes the money up front, and has no similar complaints shows she did not give her consent.
Prostitution is legal in NV. If a perp refuses to pay, and jumps a woman at a ranch, they'll be charged with rape. That is if one of the staff doesn't blow his worthless head off during the attack.
WHy do you have such strong feelings for a prostitute?
Wow, way to keep saying the same thing over and over again. GOOD JOB
A few notes: the 1950's weren't perfect, marital rape isn't an evil liberal plot (something which is pretty kooky to believe even for the internet, lol), and you're thinking of control-c. Control-z just suspends processes on most systems. Really, what a bloody weird thing to get tied up in knots over.
**************
Correct. Unfortunately, not everyone is aware of this, certainly, those born after 1980 are probably unfamiliar with it.
The words of a certain someone known to hang out with tax collectors and prostitutes:
______________________________
Matthew 22:37-40 — Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
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.
Could be that the other three have struck plea deals to testify against the ringleader. They wouldn't enter the plea and receive a sentence until they'd held up their end of the bargain and testified.
Before she is a prostitute, she is a woman. And before that, she is human.
Something here many seem to have forgotten.
Using your tortured logic, disease is an occupational hazard of those who work with chemicals in a chemical plant. So the next time someone falls ill and dies from working in a plant with chemicals, I’ll just say they had it coming. No need to attend the funeral.
Cannot miss with that logic/extreme sarc
Is there any laws that require "violent force" to establish rape?
As is the attitude it reflects. There have always been a majority of good, loving husbands who would never force sex on their wives, but the law up until a century or two ago looked upon marriage as a matter of ownership, not partnership. The wedding ceremony was a transfer of title from the father to the husband.
Modern (Western) law presupposes that women are rational creatures, capable of owning property, signing contracts, driving a car and voting. They are full human beings as citizens -- autonomous beings complete in themselves and sovereign over their own person. "I do" doesn't trump a later "no."
If the difference of opinion is on the question of whether it is acceptable to commit a brutal, dehumanizing assault on fellow human beings, I can see the argument. I'm not big on capital punishment, though; I'd just put those folks together on an island.
have not been identified to the cops, or have not been identified by the cops?
Its usually safest to assume that the investigators have at least a little information the newspapers don't.
How about this analogy, since you seem to like them...
A CRIMINAL(wich is what a prostitute is) holds up a bank with a gun and gets shot in the back of the head by a pi$$ed off customer...OR here’s a better one. The CRIMINAL holds up the bank, gets away with the loot, and his getaway driver then shoots him in the head and steals his loot. THat’s even better since it is a CRIMINAL that is a victim of another CRIMINAL! Kinda like a rapist raping a prostitute.
Am I getting through your thick prostitute loving skull yet?/extreme mild sarc that is fast approaching nonsarc.
THAT is an occupational hazard.
As far as a prostitute being a woman...well, there are some real women that would strongly object to you even calling a prostitute a human much less a woman.
Just how the he11 do you justify comparing a $%&*$ prostitute with a legitimate tax paying worker in a chemical plant anyway? I think your blue state residence has infected your barely red brain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.