NationStates Jolt Archive

Get this: a prostitute was gang raped, and what were her assailants charged with? Not assault with a deadly weapon, not sexual assault or rape, but theft of services. WTF! Read the story below for details.

Philadelphia: Sex Worker's Rapist Charged with "Theft of Services"

Tuesday, October 16 2007 @ 02:04 PM PDT
Jill Porter

A DEFENDANT accused of forcing a prostitute at gunpoint to have sex with him and three other men got lucky, so to speak, last week.
A Philadelphia judge dropped all sex and assault charges at his preliminary hearing.

Municipal Judge Teresa Carr Deni instead held the defendant on the bizarre charge of armed robbery for - get this - "theft of services."

Unbelievable.

Deni told me she based her decision on the fact that the prostitute consented to have sex with the defendant.

"She consented and she didn't get paid . . . I thought it was a robbery."

The prostitute, a 20-year-old single mother, agreed to $150 for an hour of oral and vaginal sex on Sept. 20, according to assistant district attorney Rich DeSipio. The arrangements were made through her posting on Craigslist.

She met the defendant, Dominique Gindraw, 19, at what she thought was his house, but which turned out to be an abandoned property in North Philadelphia.

He asked if she'd have sex with his friend, too, and she agreed for another $100.

The friend showed up without money, the gun was pulled and more men arrived.

When a fifth man arrived and was invited to join, DeSipio said, he asked why the girl was crying - and declined. He helped her get dressed so she could leave.

It's true the prostitute negotiated sex with the defendant - but not unprotected gang sex at gunpoint.

"The Legislature has defined sex by force as rape," said DeSipio, accusing the judge of "rewriting her own laws."

DeSipio said Judge Deni's ruling was based, not on the law, but on moral contempt.

"Certainly if a jury wants to make that judgment, they're entitled to. But for a judge to make a judgment on a human being - I've never seen that before."

Deni did seem contemptuous of the victim:

"Did she tell you she had another client before she went to report it?" Deni asked me yesterday when we met at a coffee shop.

"I thought rape was a terrible trauma."

A case like this, she said - to my astonishment - "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped."

The defendant was charged in an identical incident involving a 23-year-old woman four days later, DeSipio said.

Neither woman knew the other and both told identical stories. The other men involved in the attack couldn't be identified.

DeSipio was so stunned by Deni's ruling in the first case that he refused to present the second one.

"I wouldn't demean her that way," he said of the second victim, calling the proceedings "a farce."

Judge Deni then threw out the second case for failure to prosecute.

Police Detective Jack Ryan, who investigated the incidents, said the victims in the two cases "were in fear for their lives. Since they saw one of the doers really well, it crossed both of their minds that they'd be killed."

Deni's decision to drop the sex charges is " frankly, appalling," he said.

Deni acknowledged that her ruling and remarks would be controversial.

"I know I'm going to get killed on this."

But 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."

Certainly the victims don't inspire much sympathy.

Why waste taxpayers' money for what some people consider an occupational hazard?

There are enough sympathetic victims without wasting time on prostitutes who ask for trouble, right?

But crimes are prosecuted not out of sympathy for victims, but to maintain the rule of law in a civilized society, to punish a criminal and prevent further crime.

I like Deni, but reducing rape to theft of services?

It's an insult. And it's more evidence of the skepticism and contempt most rape victims - prostitutes or not - confront when they seek justice in court.

DeSipio said he'll file to reinstate the charges in both cases right away - before a different judge, of course.

Hopefully, the next judge will be better able to differentiate between a violated business agreement and a violent attack.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20071012_Jill_Porter___Hooker_raped_and_robbed_-_by_justice_system_.html

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://www.infoshop.org/inews/trackback.php?id=20071016140458997

I guess we are nothing more than commodities now.

From a legal standpoint, I can understand and this makes sense...of a sort.

From pretty much every other standpoint this is pretty much a perversion of justice and that judge needs to be removed from the legal system with extreme prejudice.

Wow, so you can't rape a hooker in Philly eh?

I know a guy who paid a hooker with a check then stopped payment on it. Now that was theft of services!

The kicker being it was a county check he was commissioner at the time.

I'd say that judge should get gang raped at gunpoint by her husband and several of his friends after she agrees to have sex with her husband but I would never suggest something like that.

Wow, so you can't rape a hooker in Philly eh?

I know a guy who paid a hooker with a check then stopped payment on it. Now that was theft of services!

The kicker being it was a county check he was commissioner at the time.

perhaps the judge should have thought it through a little bit more and wondered what she would have been willing to convict the man of if he forced a plumber to snake a drain at gunpoint.

i doubt it would be theft of services.

or to turn a phrase, yes you can rape the willing.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was incredibly insensitive, but completely necessary. (The laughter, not the ruling)

Had i been in charge, i would have gotten the bastard on rape, sexual assault, and armed robbery and theft of services. More bang for you buck (pun very much intended)

I'd say that judge should get gang raped at gunpoint by her husband and several of his friends after she agrees to have sex with her husband but I would never suggest something like that.

oh my god. that was one of the funniest things i've read in a long time.

:D:D

I'd say that judge should get gang raped at gunpoint by her husband and several of his friends after she agrees to have sex with her husband but I would never suggest something like that.

At least they didn't have AIDS.

That's really horrible, prostitutes can't be victims of rape now?

I feel like vomiting now.

Is this what our justice system has come to?

this is an urban legend which has popped up periodically since the beginning of prostitution. the first documented tale of it was during the mid roman empire when prostitution was popular in the bathhouses. Seriously people, do some research.

this is an urban legend which has popped up periodically since the beginning of prostitution. the first documented tale of it was during the mid roman empire when prostitution was popular in the bathhouses. Seriously people, do some research.



Except it actually happened? Check the news sources.

this is an urban legend which has popped up periodically since the beginning of prostitution. the first documented tale of it was during the mid roman empire when prostitution was popular in the bathhouses. Seriously people, do some research.

so jill porter of the philly daily news decided to make up a lie about Teresa Carr Deni who is an actual municipal court judge just to revive an old wives tale?

Wouldn't theft still be theft even if the stolen item is for sale? Shouldn't that apply here?

Wouldn't theft still be theft even if the stolen item is for sale? Shouldn't that apply here?

I'd say that judge should get gang raped at gunpoint by her husband and several of his friends after she agrees to have sex with her husband

Basically, she didn't consent to the gun point or the gang rape part, she did not consent, she was forced, it was rape.

Disgusting.

Disgusting.

that is right

if someone so disgusting to prostitute then it is punish when she gets prostitute

that is right

if someone so disgusting to prostitute then it is punish when she gets prostitute

Did that make sense to anyone?

that is right

if someone so disgusting to prostitute then it is punish when she gets prostitute

What, because you dislike her job she doesn't recieve basic human rights? Yeah, that makes sense.

I feel like vomiting now.

Is this what our justice system has come to?

Apparently. How absolutely horrid.

Yes, she consented to sex, but what she consented to was sex with two men, and for a sum of money. Not only did she not receive her money, she was forced into sex with three other men. Clearly it is assault and rape AS WELL AS theft of services.

That case has a big old case of complete "BULLSHIT".

Did that make sense to anyone?

Yes.

Clearly more than a scapula was stolen.

What the fuck.
That's retarded.. Perhaps the stupidest thing I've read or seen or heard about in a very, very long time. Judge needs to be shot.

It seems the judge has used her biased opinion in handing down this case and, to some extent, she should be reprimanded for this - I can understand any judge has a certain bias but for it to be so open should lead to serious questions being asked as to her impartiality.

This is not far from the idea that wearing a short skirt is an invitation to rape.

Again, this shows that prostitutes, if not most women in sexual cases, do not, and will not, gain protection from the law - here's a case of one going for justice and being smacked in the face for it.

This is not far from the idea that wearing a short skirt is an invitation to rape.


Dang.. I have been misinterpreting the signs..:(

It was rape at the moment she said "no," and a gun was introduced.
It was also theft of services at the moment her first two negotiated clients declined to pay and used her at gunpoint.

Those who say she got what she deserved are sick, sick puppies. NO ONE deserves it -- not even insensitive "people" who would suggest that another human deserves it.

It was rape at the moment she said "no," and a gun was introduced.
It was also theft of services at the moment her first two negotiated clients declined to pay and used her at gunpoint.

Those who say she got what she deserved are sick, sick puppies. NO ONE deserves it -- not even insensitive "people" who would suggest that another human deserves it.

QFTSOTITAAFA.

I'd say that judge should get gang raped at gunpoint by her husband and several of his friends after she agrees to have sex with her husband but I would never suggest something like that.I imagine anyone could get away with it by using a line like "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars".

Whores should be locked up, selling sex is the worst business a woman can condescent. And don´t blaim the society, life is cruel and will always be, there are other ways to get money than prostitution. Get a real job!

Whores should be locked up, selling sex is the worst business a woman can condescent. And don´t blaim the society, life is cruel and will always be, there are other ways to get money than prostitution. Get a real job!
Oh, absolutely. The world would be so much better off if women finally stopped forcing innocent men to have sex with them for money. For shame!

If they were charged with rape AND theft of services, this judge would be awesome. As it is, the judge fails at life.

Get this: a prostitute was gang raped, and what were her assailants charged with? Not assault with a deadly weapon, not sexual assault or rape, but theft of services. WTF! Read the story below for details.



I guess we are nothing more than commodities now.
It works like this:

If a woman consents to have sex with one man under a certain set of conditions, she loses the right to ever decline sex again. If that man starts doing something she doesn't want, tough shit. If that man invites a friend, tough shit. If she is hurting and wants to stop, tough shit. She agreed to give up her virtue, and that makes her public property in perpetuity.

And yes, it's as deeply fucked up as it sounds.

This is horrendous, i'm ... flabbergasted. that judge should have some unspeakable retribution coming her way.

I'd say that judge should get gang raped at gunpoint by her husband and several of his friends after she agrees to have sex with her husband but I would never suggest something like that.
Do you think maybe we could come up with some solutions that don't involve raping women?

Do you think maybe we could come up with some solutions that don't involve raping women?

I'm sorry, are you new to NSG? :p

Do you think maybe we could come up with some solutions that don't involve raping women?

Agreed, but let's not rule out spanking.

Forgive me for not finding this funny. I don't really see what's humorous about rape.

Forgive me for not finding this funny. I don't really see what's humorous about rape.

I forgive you.

Forgive me for not finding this funny. I don't really see what's humorous about rape.

it's not humourous in itelf. the humour in jokes about rape and dead babies and the like comes from them being just so inappropriate that you can't believe you've just heard them and also from the offense taken by people who overhear who were not included or are easily offended.

Do you think maybe we could come up with some solutions that don't involve raping women?

I don't know Bottle. You're a woman. A woman was the judge in this case. What would you do to convince a stubborn spiteful woman of the error of her ways?

I had some ideas, but they mostly involved destroying everything precious to her. By her hands. I think I spent too long a time studying how to break minds though.

Forgive me for not finding this funny. I don't really see what's humorous about rape.

It's not that rape is funny, but that you actually have to ask that we try to find a solution without it is.

It's true the prostitute negotiated sex with the defendant - but not unprotected gang sex at gunpoint.


Also, I think that a person has the right to quit any sexual act that isn't welcome anymore. If s/he was paid for that, maybe s/he should just give the money back.

I don't know Bottle. You're a woman. A woman was the judge in this case. What would you do to convince a stubborn spiteful woman of the error of her ways?

I'd start by trying to figure out what the hell would lead a woman to make a ruling that essentially says a woman's consent doesn't matter. Why would a female judge make such a ruling? Figure out what led her to it, and you'll be much better able to address it.

it's not humourous in itelf. the humour in jokes about rape and dead babies and the like comes from them being just so inappropriate that you can't believe you've just heard them and also from the offense taken by people who overhear who were not included or are easily offended.
Well, that explains it then: I don't find anything humorous just because it has shock value. Something has to also, you know, be funny.

Dead baby jokes aren't automatically funny because they have dead babies in them. They have to be funny jokes that ALSO have dead babies in them.

Rape humor usually isn't even trying to be humor. It's not an actual joke at all, it's people sniggering about rape itself. Sorry, but it's not funny to me, and it's not even really shocking either. Remember, it's not novel or shocking or creative to act like rape isn't serious. It's actually one of the oldest and most tired attitudes around.

Saying something offensive just so you can laugh when people are offended isn't witty. It's on par with shoving somebody and laughing when they fall down.

It's not that rape is funny, but that you actually have to ask that we try to find a solution without it is.
Fair enough. I can understand dark humor.

I'd start by trying to figure out what the hell would lead a woman to make a ruling that essentially says a woman's consent doesn't matter. Why would a female judge make such a ruling? Figure out what led her to it, and you'll be much better able to address it.

From the article, it would appear that the judge was simply predisposed against prostitutes to begin with. Or just hated them on a personal level. Although that could be bias on the author's part I suppose.

From the article, it would appear that the judge was simply predisposed against prostitutes to begin with. Or just hated them on a personal level. Although that could be bias on the author's part I suppose.
I don't have any more information than what's in that article, but here's one speculative tangent to try out:

This is something that comes into play more often than you might think. Women, who already face being treated in sexist and unjust ways, turn around and sell out other women. Why would they do this? Because those women are bad women. They're sluts. They're not good, obedient Nice Girls(tm) who play by the rules.

The illusion here is that if a woman plays by an extremely sexist and unfair set of rules, she can win herself the status of Nice Girl. If a Nice Girl is raped, people will care, if only because people have a vested interest in making sure there's still incentive for women to buy into the Nice Girl concept. Now, Nice Girl is still lower on the totem pole than real humans (read: men), but at least she's better off than the dirty, sinful, rape-deserving sluts on the very bottom of the totem pole.

This can be a matter of pure selfishness, a desire to get the best deal one can get even if it hurts others, but it also can be about the fear that if you don't sufficiently oppress the snot out of the designated "bad women" then maybe the men will take away your Nice Girl badge and you won't be allowed in the clubhouse any more.

Why would a female judge make such a ruling?

Because neither X nor Y chromosomes offer any protection from pathological stupidity.

Well, that explains it then: I don't find anything humorous just because it has shock value. Something has to also, you know, be funny.

Dead baby jokes aren't automatically funny because they have dead babies in them. They have to be funny jokes that ALSO have dead babies in them.

Rape humor usually isn't even trying to be humor. It's not an actual joke at all, it's people sniggering about rape itself. Sorry, but it's not funny to me, and it's not even really shocking either. Remember, it's not novel or shocking or creative to act like rape isn't serious. It's actually one of the oldest and most tired attitudes around.

Saying something offensive just so you can laugh when people are offended isn't witty. It's on par with shoving somebody and laughing when they fall down.

well naturally something has to be witty first to be funny. that was to be taken as given in my previous post. my point was that the seriousness of rape is what adds another facet to such jokes and makes for the 'cringe factor', if you will, that seems to be a part of most modern humour.

also, i mentioned dead babies because i seem to remember vaguely you saying that you can find dead baby jokes funny (obviously assuming they are witty). now, i would say that rape and messing around with the baby corpses are about equally disgusting. so i was going to ask, what makes rape jokes inherently unfunny that isn't present in dead baby jokes? well, you've answered that in a way by saying "it's actually one of the oldest and most tired attitudes around". is it? is it older than disregard for the value of human life? is it older than disrespect for the faceless dead? i'm not sure, but i doubt it.

Because neither X nor Y chromosomes offer any protection from pathological stupidity.
I don't think pure stupidity is enough answer. Plenty of stupid people oppose rape, and plenty of very smart people are prepared to make arguments for allowing or even encouraging rape. It usually boils down to individual motivation.

I don't have any more information than what's in that article, but here's one speculative tangent to try out:

This is something that comes into play more often than you might think. Women, who already face being treated in sexist and unjust ways, turn around and sell out other women. Why would they do this? Because those women are bad women. They're sluts. They're not good, obedient Nice Girls(tm) who play by the rules.

The illusion here is that if a woman plays by an extremely sexist and unfair set of rules, she can win herself the status of Nice Girl. If a Nice Girl is raped, people will care, if only because people have a vested interest in making sure there's still incentive for women to buy into the Nice Girl concept. Now, Nice Girl is still lower on the totem pole than real humans (read: men), but at least she's better off than the dirty, sinful, rape-deserving sluts on the very bottom of the totem pole.

This can be a matter of pure selfishness, a desire to get the best deal one can get even if it hurts others, but it also can be about the fear that if you don't sufficiently oppress the snot out of the designated "bad women" then maybe the men will take away your Nice Girl badge and you won't be allowed in the clubhouse any more.

Well the sell out theory works. Short term, self serving and utterly unfitting of a judge. But it works.

Or she could be like one of those nutcakes who came on this thread a page or two ago who just have that much hate in them.

Either way, it's utterly unacceptable behavior in a judge.

Still, that reasoning isn't really much of an argument against making her a victim of her own ruling either. One thing I've noted about these sort of stances is how quickly they're quick to drop them once they're made victims of them.

Well the sell out theory works. Short term, self serving and utterly unfitting of a judge. But it works.

Or she could be like one of those nutcakes who came on this thread a page or two ago who just have that much hate in them.

Either way, it's utterly unacceptable behavior in a judge.

I absolutely agree, and I want to be very clear about something:

I am not, in any way, trying to justify what that judge did. Her ruling was profoundly fucked up.

The only reason I'm interested in understanding the motivation behind such decisions is because I sincerely believe that understanding it is the only way to really deal with it.


Still, that reasoning isn't really much of an argument against making her a victim of her own ruling either. One thing I've noted about these sort of stances is how quickly they're quick to drop them once they're made victims of them.
Oh, to be sure. Inevitably, even the Nice Girls end up getting treated like shit by the very people they've sold out to. Sometimes it brings them around and they realize that their mistake was in thinking that by groveling and accepting sub-human status they could get ahead. Other times it just makes them more angry and frustrated and fixated on lashing out at anybody lower down than they are.

Nice justice system we have... :eek::(

Plenty of stupid people oppose rape, and plenty of very smart people are prepared to make arguments for allowing or even encouraging rape.

I cannot think of a person who arguments in favour of rape as intelligent, since s/he's carrying argument in favour of a behaviour that could be dangerous for him/herself.

Well, if that just doesnt take the cake for being the stupidest judicial disicion ever. This *judge* should be disbarred and sentenced to an eternity of burgerflipping.

Also, I think that a person has the right to quit any sexual act that isn't welcome anymore. If s/he was paid for that, maybe s/he should just give the money back.

She wasn't even paid in the first place.

The only reason I'm interested in understanding the motivation behind such decisions is because I sincerely believe that understanding it is the only way to really deal with it.


Know thy enemy. *nods*


Oh, to be sure. Inevitably, even the Nice Girls end up getting treated like shit by the very people they've sold out to. Sometimes it brings them around and they realize that their mistake was in thinking that by groveling and accepting sub-human status they could get ahead.

You really should start trademarking that Nice Girls thingy. I think sooner or later, someone's going to turn it into one I bet.


Other times it just makes them more angry and frustrated and fixated on lashing out at anybody lower down than they are.

Not if the ones who are now selling her out are the ones she sold out. I find that brings them to that "Uh oh" moment really fast.

I cannot think of a person who arguments in favour of rape as intelligent, since s/he's carrying argument in favour of a behaviour that could be dangerous for him/herself.
Ahh, but that's just it. A whole lot of people who argue for justifications of rape are doing so primarily because they belong to the class of people that they perceive as being the ones who should get to do the raping, and they most certainly are not part of the proposed rape class.

Think about all the assholes who argue that if a girl agrees to make out with a guy then she doesn't get to say "stop" if he tries to go farther because the guy is all worked up and who can blame him? Or the assholes who insist that if a woman doesn't want to get raped then she shouldn't wear skimpy clothes and go to the bar? Or the assholes who insist that it's not rape if he bought dinner and then she invited him up for coffee? Or the assholes who believe that it's not rape if she was too drunk to protest? Or the assholes who think it's not rape if she's a prostitute? Or the assholes who say it's not rape because she was sexually promiscuous?

All of these assholes are arguing that certain people deserve to be raped, and certain other people deserve the right to rape them. Guess which group of people they fit into?

Also, remember that I'm not saying the ARGUMENTS are smart, just that plenty of intelligent people make these arguments. Intelligence doesn't magically prevent a person from being an asshole.

Ahh, but that's just it. A whole lot of people who argue for justifications of rape are doing so primarily because they belong to the class of people that they perceive as being the ones who should get to do the raping, and they most certainly are not part of the proposed rape class.

It's funny, I always say the same thing about fascists. Fascism is great, if you're Stalin. Problem is there only gets to be one Stalin. Everyone who perceives that they'd be part of the ruling elite are more likely to end up dead in a ditch somewhere.

Ahh, but that's just it. A whole lot of people who argue for justifications of rape are doing so primarily because they belong to the class of people that they perceive as being the ones who should get to do the raping, and they most certainly are not part of the proposed rape class.

Think about all the assholes who argue that if a girl agrees to make out with a guy then she doesn't get to say "stop" if he tries to go farther because the guy is all worked up and who can blame him? Or the assholes who insist that if a woman doesn't want to get raped then she shouldn't wear skimpy clothes and go to the bar? Or the assholes who insist that it's not rape if he bought dinner and then she invited him up for coffee? Or the assholes who believe that it's not rape if she was too drunk to protest? Or the assholes who think it's not rape if she's a prostitute? Or the assholes who say it's not rape because she was sexually promiscuous?

All of these assholes are arguing that certain people deserve to be raped, and certain other people deserve the right to rape them. Guess which group of people they fit into?

Also, remember that I'm not saying the ARGUMENTS are smart, just that plenty of intelligent people make these arguments. Intelligence doesn't magically prevent a person from being an asshole.

Not to be argumentative, or in disagreement in the least from your post, but I'd like to point out that it is possible for men to be raped by women as well. It's not exactly a one-way street here, and unfortunately far to many people are under the impression that a woman cannot rape a man, and that a man always wants sex, thus no rape occurred. Just saying that rape isn't a woman-only thing. There does seem to be a massive double-standard in regards to this issue.

That said, no argument justifies rape, ever. Period, end of story, fin. Doesn't matter who, under what circumstances, or any other detail, it is never justified.

Not to be argumentative, or in disagreement in the least from your post, but I'd like to point out that it is possible for men to be raped by women as well. It's not exactly a one-way street here, and unfortunately far to many people are under the impression that a woman cannot rape a man, and that a man always wants sex, thus no rape occurred. Just saying that rape isn't a woman-only thing. There does seem to be a massive double-standard in regards to this issue.

That said, no argument justifies rape, ever. Period, end of story, fin. Doesn't matter who, under what circumstances, or any other detail, it is never justified.

Actually, unless I'm mistaken, my state's law specifically specifies that only women can be raped. Men can only be "sexually assaulted."

"theft of services." That's funny. Legally it makes a bit of sense, but the fact that it is being used instead of any sexual assault charges just plain shows the judge was making a condescending, snarky little bit of gallows humor. At the expense of justice.

She should be fired. Or something.

I don't have a problem with calling prostitute rape "theft of services," but that would only be in ADDITION to a charge of rape. Hell that's a good idea actually. Makes raping prostitutes a more serious offense than it currently is, maybe tack on more years. But I guess in Philly anyway, raping prostitutes is just boys getting into a bit of mischief.

Teresa? I think she made an error of judgment... and if she drives like that, No way I am going to park my car anywhere near hers. :D

My unclesays Judges should be elected by the people.. that way if they make mistakes we can fire them. (not re-elect them)

A whole lot of people who argue for justifications of rape are doing so primarily because they belong to the class of people that they perceive as being the ones who should get to do the raping, and they most certainly are not part of the proposed rape class.huh??
proposed rape class?
who? what? where?


Or the assholes who believe that it's not rape if she was too drunk to protest? I assume you mean to say she was sleeping.

Whores should be locked up, selling sex is the worst business a woman can condescent. And don´t blaim the society, life is cruel and will always be, there are other ways to get money than prostitution. Get a real job!
I think it's so nice that jolt encourages the mentally handicapped to join in debate.

Rape of a prostitute couldn't possibly be just theft - it's not like you could have sex without her noticing the same way people shoplift - someone could only rape her by using violence, drugs, etc. Even if they didn't count it as rape (which they should), it would have to be assault and theft, not just theft.

selling sex is the worst business a woman can condescent. You have never sold you body?

you should try it sometimes.. its like the Discovery channel.. live!!.

Do you think maybe we could come up with some solutions that don't involve raping women?

Of course I do, that's why I said I would never suggest something like that. It was more like a "How would you like it if...?" kinda statement. I also never claimed to be top notch comedian. I don't even think I am a notch. The belt doesn't fit and the pants are falling off.

I think it's so nice that jolt encourages the mentally handicapped to join in debate.

:D

*hands Bitchkitten the keys to the thread*

It's all yours baby.

Nice justice system we have... :eek::(
We have a great system of justice. In general, everyone gets their fair chance at it. It's the exceptions, like this, that suck.

From a legal standpoint, I can understand and this makes sense...of a sort.

From pretty much every other standpoint this is pretty much a perversion of justice and that judge needs to be removed from the legal system with extreme prejudice.

Wait does this not make sense to me. is not the judge supposed to operate
"in the legal sense"? if so you are saying they should be removed with extreme prejudice for doing their job?

Now don't get me wrong I think this is a horrible decision I am just confused as to the thrust of this argument.

Wait does this not make sense to me. is not the judge supposed to operate
"in the legal sense"? if so you are saying they should be removed with extreme prejudice for doing their job?

Now don't get me wrong I think this is a horrible decision I am just confused as to the thrust of this argument.

I think what he's getting at is that he can see how the logic can be twisted(To the point of near snapping it half) into theft of services, although he doesn't agree with that particular way of logic, and reasoning of the decision.

You really should start trademarking that Nice Girls thingy. I think sooner or later, someone's going to turn it into one I bet.

Nancy Friday, author of My Secret Garden and other books on women, their sexuality and their sexual fantasies, has been using Nice Girl since the 60s. Sorry.

QFTSOTITAAFA.

Translation please?

I got the Quoted for Truth part... the rest is what left me saying "huh?"

There has been a lot of indignation, but very little discussion about the validity of the term "theft of services". Granted, this was hideous that this woman was forced to have sex with several individuals at gunpoint, but what if it was just the original man, what if the sex occurred and no payment was made?

I understand that there is a very basic revulsion to rape, but what separates a prostitute who is forced to have sex from any other person who is forcefully to provide their professional wares?

There has been a lot of indignation, but very little discussion about the validity of the term "theft of services". Granted, this was hideous that this woman was forced to have sex with several individuals at gunpoint, but what if it was just the original man, what if the sex occurred and no payment was made?

If she withdrew consent and he held her at gunpoint, it was rape. It wouldn't matter how many men were there.

*If* they agreed upon a price, had sex without incident, and then he refused to pay, "theft of services" might be an accurate charge. Of course, as I understand it, it couldn't be brought under the current system because prostitution is illegal. As such, the man would be either charged with no crime or charged with soliciting prostitution and the prostitute who reported it would be charged with prostitution...

I understand that there is a very basic revulsion to rape, but what separates a prostitute who is forced to have sex from any other person who is forcefully to provide their professional wares?

The fact that forcing someone to have sex is a separate crime - called rape. It is an assault on the person.

Suppose I was a stripper. I would take my clothes off for money, right? If someone decides to rip my clothes off of me, does that cease to be assault simply because I sometimes do it for money? If I say, "I'll take my clothes off for money, but show it to me first," and the person then pulls out a gun and then proceeds to rip my clothes off, it is no different a crime than if I hadn't offered in the first place.

The fact that forcing someone to have sex is a separate crime - called rape. It is an assault on the person.

Suppose I was a stripper. I would take my clothes off for money, right? If someone decides to rip my clothes off of me, does that cease to be assault simply because I sometimes do it for money? If I say, "I'll take my clothes off for money, but show it to me first," and the person then pulls out a gun and then proceeds to rip my clothes off, it is no different a crime than if I hadn't offered in the first place.

Of course it is still assault but that was not the question.

I asked what would be the difference between the situation of the OP and a situation like the one you have used as an analogy. That you used it as an analogy suggests there isn't that much of a difference.

I just get the feeling that there would not be this moral outrage if a lawyer was forced at gunpoint to create a legal document and all that came out of it was a "theft of services" charge.

So is there some reasonable distinction, is it a cultural norm, or is there some "finer sensibility" that separates the two?

Of course, as I understand it, it couldn't be brought under the current system because prostitution is illegal. As such, the man would be either charged with no crime or charged with soliciting prostitution and the prostitute who reported it would be charged with prostitution...

On some consideration, wouldn't that mean that the ruling "theft of services" would then be construed to mean that prostitution there is either legal, or the judge has just made a ruling that subverts the law?

Of course it is still assault but that was not the question.

I asked what would be the difference between the situation of the OP and a situation like the one you have used as an analogy. That you used it as an analogy suggests there isn't that much of a difference.

I just get the feeling that there would not be this moral outrage if a lawyer was forced at gunpoint to create a legal document and all that came out of it was a "theft of services" charge.

So is there some reasonable distinction, is it a cultural norm, or is there some "finer sensibility" that separates the two?

If a lawyer was forced, under duress, to create a document, it might be considered theft of services, it would possibly also be considered kidnapping.

The point that you seem to want to set aside is that he and his friends physically assaulted her. She withdrew consent, and they still violated her person. No matter how you slice that, it's STILL physical assault.

On some consideration, wouldn't that mean that the ruling "theft of services" would then be construed to mean that prostitution there is either legal, or the judge has just made a ruling that subverts the law?

As I understand it, the judge has made a ruling that, if the case had been pressed, would have been a surefire way for the defendant to get out of the charges altogether. If the prosecutor had gone forward with that charge, any defense attorney would have argued that the services themselves were not lawful - and thus "theft of services" was not a valid charge.

On some consideration, wouldn't that mean that the ruling "theft of services" would then be construed to mean that prostitution there is either legal, or the judge has just made a ruling that subverts the law?

Color me cynical, but wouldn't it just be like this judge to toss it out on those grounds if anyone questioned the validity of the ruling?

"Oh, you're right, it can't be theft of services since prostitution's illegal."

Whores should be locked up, selling sex is the worst business a woman can condescent. And don´t blaim the society, life is cruel and will always be, there are other ways to get money than prostitution. Get a real job!
I would imagine that being an assassin would be a worse job morally speaking.

Obviously she deserved it because she's a dirty, dirty whore.





:rolleyes:

Obviously she deserved it because she's a dirty, dirty whore.

:rolleyes:

We prefer to be called 'sex workers'.

And don't you roll your eyes at me if you are going to complain about the increase in the prices.

We prefer to be called 'sex workers'.

And don't you roll your eyes at me if you are going to complain about the increase in the prices.

;) Trust me, I have no need, nor wish, to buy it.... or rent it, as the case may be.

As I understand it, the judge has made a ruling that, if the case had been pressed, would have been a surefire way for the defendant to get out of the charges altogether. If the prosecutor had gone forward with that charge, any defense attorney would have argued that the services themselves were not lawful - and thus "theft of services" was not a valid charge.

Color me cynical, but wouldn't it just be like this judge to toss it out on those grounds if anyone questioned the validity of the ruling?

"Oh, you're right, it can't be theft of services since prostitution's illegal."

Ahh, but here's the rub. Unless I'm very much mistaken, there are procedures to follow in removing a judge from the bench. And one of the arguments that can be used is that the judge is utterly incompetent to function as one.

Making a ruling that in itself is illegal can be the basis of that argument. Cat-Tribe could probably explain it better than I.

Furthermore, the use of "theft of services" to throw out the actual case of armed assault could be very well thrown back at her, by bringing out any number of assault cases she covered in the past, and using her rulings against her.

It would require a bit more refinement, but if executed correctly, not only would this destroy her career, it would give her the credibility of a rock in just about all things.

Let's see how well she sleeps then.

Whores should be locked up, selling sex is the worst business a woman can condescent. And don´t blaim the society, life is cruel and will always be, there are other ways to get money than prostitution. Get a real job!

If men didn't pay for sex there would be no prostitution.

Why not lock up any man who wants to have sex with a prostitute?