SRSLY, you've got issues, man.
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 ...
Partly true, but overly simplistic. Rape, or at least violent rape, is the product of a pathology that can't separate the two. It's the dominance they get off on.
At the same time, we're told it should be treated in a special way. Perhaps it's time to make up our minds, and require the same standards for prosecution and conviction that we do for other crimes.
The same standards apply. Probable cause for an arrest, beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction. The one major difference -- and this is a matter of ethics, not of law -- is that rape victims are generally not identified unless they choose to come forward. That is a holdover from the "she must have been asking for it" days, and now that being a rape victim carries less of a stigm, some folks are starting to question it.
No. This case is about a criminal and a victim. The courts exist to punish crimes, not sins.
ONe is a prostitute. The other is a prostitute’s customer that raped said prostitute.
Why should I condemn the rapist and not the prostitute?
If you really don't see a distinction between selling one's own body and assaulting the body of another person at gunpoint, there's no helping you.
And now we have a public that is outraged over prostitutes being raped and demand that prostitutes get protection and justice under the law. GOOD LORD, WHAT IS HAPPENING TO PEOPLE! The world had gone completely mad.
Completely insane. I mean, it's almost like we believe prostitutes are people or something.
Show me one.
We've had a few societies where folks took it upon themselves to decide which members of species Homo Sapiens are human and which are not. Those societies do not tend to end well.
I can’t put it any more plainly than it was already done so by another in post 212. Go read it. If that doesn’t make it clear to you then there’s no helping you.
SRSLY, you've got issues, man.
“And now we have a public that is outraged over prostitutes being raped and demand that prostitutes get protection and justice under the law. GOOD LORD, WHAT IS HAPPENING TO PEOPLE! The world had gone completely mad.”
OH NOEZ THE HORROR!
Speaking of completely mad, what Payday truck did you fall from?
What a nutbar. O_o
If sex could be "stolen" without assaulting a human being, comparing sex to "any other product" might have some validity. But it can't, so it isn't.
Regardless of your disdain for prostitutes, they remain human beings, with the same rights protected by law as you and I.
I'm experienced enough to recognize when I'm in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. So here's cultural history in one easy lesson:
The concept of "marital rape" is the classic Critical Legal Studies gambit—a draconian solution to a non-problem in order to advance an ideological agenda. Sure, the idea of brutal husbands forcing sex on their wives would be horrible. That is, if it were a real, widespread phenomenon. But it's not, and it never was. It certainly wasn't in the 1970s, when feminists like Susan Brownmiller and Kate Millett were selling the concept to the academic set.
A small example: It's in unmarried couples (and same-sex couples), not to mention prostitution rings, where physical abuse of women typically occurs. But it was marriage that the Left targeted instead. The idea of state intervention within the "sick institution" of marriage was their key concept, for which "marital rape" theory was the foundation. Using their men-are-evil template, first codified into law in cities and states with large social-worker populations, interventions were used to encourage poor women to get their husbands arrested during domestic arguments. Unlike normal criminal investigations, there are no rules of evidence for "domestic-violence" complaints. The cops' orders in most jurisdictions now are: If she calls in a complaint that mentions touching her or scaring her, they must arrest him and put him in jail for the night. Even if the complaint appears fake; even if she recants it by the time they arrive.
This family palace coup was developing at the same time as welfare budgets were ballooning. For the first time, because of the Left's animus, marriage was no longer formally considered a positive factor in being considered fit to raise or adopt children. Aid for Dependent Children was used to subsidize the living expenses of unmarried women, making poor men's contribution to marriage redundant or irrelevant, which had the effect of postponing marriage indefinitely for some welfare mothers, and encouraging divorce for others. The net result was a lot of fatherless boys who became criminals, cutting the heart out of most of our major cities for decades.
The key to this social holocaust was the attack on the privacy and primacy of marriage by bureaucrats who made up problems within the institution. Surrounded by a genuine epidemic of stranger-rape, they invested untold millions addressing a non-existent crisis of marital "rape," destroying the morality of the lower classes while they were at it. Do today's conservatives remember all this, and understand the effect of the ideas they throw around? Perhaps not.
So where do you draw the line of "marital unity?" Is it okay for spouses to beat each other? To kill each other? Should the cops and courts stay out of that, too?
Rape is a physical assault of an especially degrading and humiliating nature. No one is entitled to inflict that on another, married or not.
Also, nice copying-and-pasting from your previous posts.
You'll never overthrow the conventional wisdom by doing that though. Other people have thrown out kooky ideas in ways that are much more creative.
I swear, this thread is more craptacular than the one about how the Bell Curve is the best thing ever.
Anyway, what does your little jihad about marital rape (or the lack of it, rofl) have to do with the topic of the thread?
I'm done. Thanks for asking the questions, even the stupid ones, they do bring out the ideas. For now, you've got more zeal than education, but give it a few years. Vote for a conservative and God bless.
SS
Re: 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.
Please show me evidence of just one.
I mean, besides your twisted mind.
Very Well said.
Kudos, Mrs. Don-o, for an eloquent and well-reasoned post.
Thank you, Larry.
but ALL the crimes committed here should be prosecuted too- including prostitution and solicitation of prostitutes.
I also love the judges idea- theft of services- thats kinda funny...
I can't believe you didn't read the posts before you started typing. I didn't say what you attribute to me above. I said at great length that it was stupid and unnecessary for the state to try to settle domestic disputes. Until the 1970s, it never did. The otherwise nutty 1962 Griswold vs. Connecticut decision legalizing contraception even mentioned this fact.
As an issue, "marital rape" was, and is, a red herring. Husbands, statistically, are not the ones who abuse and rape women. It's easy to understand why not. Who wants his wife mad at him? (Not me!)
So the state never tried to go there, and police historically have avoided intervening in domestic quarrels, because: 1) It's too hard to figure out what actually happened; and 2) people tend to work things out on their own. But what happened in the 1960s and 1970s is that the Left invented sob stories and statistics about countless abusive husbands as a pretext for sending in feminist social workers to alienate women from their husbands and children—in addition to passing a boatload of other weird policies. Inventing a crisis in order to invade and destroy an enemy institution is socialist SOP. "Marital rape" was the Reichstag Fire of the feminists. Conservatives should know this stuff, so, crack a book.
By the way, aren't ad-hominem remarks like yours about me and my family against posting rules? I'd watch that, if I were you.
>>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.
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.