Uh, no, it's rape. So says the bar association in a rare rebuke of a municipal judge. The judge ruled that a woman forced by a client to have sex with three other men at gunpoint should be considered just "a robbery." Salon.com's Broadsheet quotes the Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association's condemnation of the decision: "Even though the woman is a prostitute, it doesn't mean she couldn't be a victim. Once she says 'No, it's not okay,' then to have sex with her is rape."
It's amazing the judge could have thought otherwise, but she even defended the decision later to the press. According to the original AP article:Municipal Judge Teresa Carr Deni heightened the furor when she defended 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.''
Deni also told the newspaper that the case ''minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped.''
Some back-story on the case from the same article:The 20-year-old woman, a single mother, testified that she worked for an escort service that advertised through the Web site Craigslist.
She went to a North Philadelphia home Sept. 20 to meet Gindraw, who had agreed to pay her $150 for sex. He then said that a friend was coming with the money and that the friend would pay her another $100 to perform sex acts.
Instead, three other men arrived, and Gindraw pulled a gun and ordered the woman to have sex with all of them, she testified.
''He said that I'm going to do this for free, and I'm not going nowhere, and I better cooperate or he was going to kill me,'' she testified at a preliminary hearing.
The article also quotes Carol Tracy, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Women's Law Project, as saying the judge's comments that the case was just "theft of services" was ''a throwback to the Middle Ages, when rape was a crime against property, not against a person.''Seriously. The implication of the decision is that prostitutes are offered less protection under the law than other women. We're relieved to see that the bar association is on the case.
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 10)
91. Here's the other thing, and I'm surprised that nobody has touched on it, especially the judge in question.
When someone commits a crime, be it robbery or murder, or as in the instance, the alleged rape, we do not try them in a criminal case that pits them against the victim (that is for a civil suit should someone choose to file one). We (as in the Universal tax paying we) do not arrest and try perpetrators on behalf of the victims, we do so on behalf of the state or federal government as a service to the populace. We do this in the belief that when people commit these types of acts they commit them against the people in general, not so much the victim in particular.
This, in fact, is the very thing that so many victim's groups get angry about, but - it attempts to serve a purpose. That is, to keep the law impartial. Because perhaps one of the more important reason we prosecute is that we see the offender in criminal cases as a risk to other members of society. And the degree of bad or criminal behavior on the part of the offender against one member of society doesn't just cause us to think about punishment, but also risk to society as a whole.
What is the chance this offender is going to do this again? What if he decides to buy the house next door to mine? Should he really get to rape someone at gunpoint, even if she is a prostitute, and then by the house next to mine and live there? Do I feel comfortable leaving my teenage daughter home alone if he does? What if he has his two friends over all the time? Do I feel comfortable leaving her alone then? Perhaps you can see why the judicial system is supposed to be handled in an impartial manner.
Trust me, victims aren't always happy with this impartiality either. Because this sword cuts both ways. Frequently victimms feel this favors the criminal. But its the best system we have and its a hell of a lot better than what the other countries have going.
Sydney at 3:18AM on Nov 2nd 2007
92. See,
now you might very well have seen that as hostile. It was not the least bit hostile from my standpoint. Perhaps there is, and I know there is as this is the story of my life, an appearance or impression of hostility. I'm a tough little SOB
How is this:
Thank you for your concern Clif but I'm fine. I believe there is likely more misinterpretation and misunderstanding, miscommunication involved here than anything else.
Absolutely everything I have ever said is sound and no one has or can refute it. They will only attack me as always however, I very likely may be presenting myself as being hostile which is not the case at all.
If I were here in person, it would be different, I assure you.
I could easily correct the matter.
Okay???
KrautKnabe at 3:19AM on Nov 2nd 2007
93. For those of you who don't find much of the milk of human kindness in your hearts due to that pesky dash of self-righteousness, perhaps it will help if I explain why it is so important that the law work to protect society impartially. Point in case:
On December 29, 2001 Kenneth McDuff and Hank Worley abducted, raped and killed a very sweet girl from my hometown, Austin Texas. Her name was Colleen Reed. She was a clean cut girl who was happily preparing for her upcoming wedding.
Three months later, Kenneth McDuff abducted and killed married mother Melissa Northrupp. She was kidnapped from the store where she worked. She was a loving mother and wife, and she and her husband were excited about the impending birth of their second child as she was pregnant.
I bring this case up because prior to Mr. McDuff killing these two young women he had been on death row for killing and raping a young teenage girl and killing her two friends (he and a friend had kidnapped them, all good kids), and his sentence had been commuted, then he was later paroled.
Within DAYS of his parole a prostitute last seen with him vanished. The police didn't take it seriously. She was just a prostitute. Also, he committed a dui offense, causing the state to have to put him on dual supervision, parole AND probation. They could EASILY have put him in jail as a parole violator to investigate the prostitute's disappearance. Nah.
A few months later, police at a roadblock saw McDuff's truck blow THROUGH their roadblock. Another prostitute, Regina Moore, was in the truck, hands bound, kicking desperately at the window. What did the police do? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. She was a known prostitute. They did not even give chase due to McDuff failing to stop at the roadblock. They KNEW him to be a violent murderous parolee. But since she was a prostitute, and they later SAID this was the reason, they let it go. They even ignored later missing person reports BY her family that pointed to him. Police simply were not interested due to her occupation. Both women were later found to have been killed by McDuff.
Had police intervened at either point, after the disappearance of the first prostitute or after SEEING him abducting the second, those other two young women, Colleen Reed and Melissa Northrup might still be with their families today. Society might have been spared a dangerous predator much sooner. The law, as unpalatable as this may be to some, is not about serving the victim necessarily, it is about protecting and keeping order for all of society.
The police failed then, and this judge failed when she made her ruling. Normal men don't have to rape women in a gang bang at gunpoint, prostitute or not. When you have men doing that, they are dangerous. Period. And they need to be prosecuted before they hurt someone in my family. Or yours.
Sydney at 4:33AM on Nov 2nd 2007
94. i think if you apply force to do any work to any human it is rap.If someone one shoot a robber it is also a crime whether the died person was robber.
vivnay at 6:04AM on Nov 5th 2007
95. My thinking is that it is just a robbery at gunpoint, not rape. She was performing a service and someone forced her to do an extra service for free. She was already breaking the law so in my opinion she already lost her rights. If you don't agree with me I don't care, but the slut was not raped, only robbed.
Brad at 6:50AM on Nov 2nd 2007
96. I think a good lawyer could come up with the argument that although the first man might not be guilty or rape, he is however guilty of accessory before and after the fact of rape, while the two other men ARE definitely guilty of rape.
M2D5 at 8:08AM on Nov 2nd 2007
97. The law recognizes several levels of guilt. For instance, breaking into a home--in which people reside--carries a far stiffer sentence than breaking into a storage facility, a vacant home, etc. A prostitute, being self-employed for the purpose of sex, puts herself in the position of being available for that purpose. So, in the strictest interpretation of the law, 'theft of services might be the only thing her 'rapists' could be charged with--for the sex. Since prostitution is illegal, they probably couldn't be charged with even that. (She she had no right to sell it, she had no legal expectation of being paid for it.) However, since force was used, her rapists could be charged with assault--though without any reference to the sex.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 8:20AM on Nov 2nd 2007
98. She committed a crime then the men committed a crime. They should all go to jail.
MichelleP at 9:00AM on Nov 2nd 2007
99. April,
Adultery is sex outside of marriage. God's commandment is "Thou shalt not commit adultery." You are talking about the legal definition of adultery. If you can't make distinctions like this, you will never understand what other people are saying. Christians God's definitions, not legal definitions. Everyone is answerable to God, whether or not he is married, and even if adultery is completely covered up. People who want to excuse their culpability before God are always playing with the definition of adultery. On Judgment Day, no one will be able to play with words before Jesus the Judge, cop a plea, or make a defense. Legal foolishness on earth does not exist in heaven.
Ronald B. Zeh at 12:43PM on Nov 2nd 2007
100. # 97, Thanks for correcting me! I will worry about this when I'm dead! This blog, however, is about legal definitions. In my own opinion, I do not see how anyone could compare HER crime (if you want to call it that)with the actions of these thugs.
April at 1:03PM on Nov 2nd 2007
101. #83 - Lizard - ROTFLOL !!!!!!! Here's another one for ya "You know your in trouble when someone yells 'hoedown' and your girlfriend hits the floor!" Heh hehe hehee... :-)
One more time - Kudos to that judge!!! I'd vote for her if I lived in that state. Like some very smart person pointed out on here, if she would have wanted to do 3 or 4 men, she would have gone home happy. I'm not sure who said that, but i want you to know you are 100% correct! But anywhoo, can we talk about something happy instead of argueing? LOL, but, if ya still wanna argue, go ahead..... :-P
jenny at 1:13PM on Nov 2nd 2007
102. #96: Ronald, honey, all sex outside of marriage is not called adultery. The word you need to look up is fornication. Seriously. I'm a Christian, too, but please be nicer to people! And look up stuff before you pronounce it as fact! You told someone else to be careful in making distinctions, but you have messed up on this very distinction!! (adultery v. fornication) Your righteous proclamation of erroneous information is giving the rest of us a bad name!
Brenda at 5:37PM on Nov 2nd 2007
103. #99 Jenny. Things were getting tense here. Just trying to add a little levity! LOL
From a business stand point, you are correct. She was using her body (assets, ahem..) as her product. As soon as she agreed at the price of $150.00, then she became a "bailment for hire,"
just as if a person were to use their hands to wash someone's windows, and then get "stiffed," (I gotta million of em' heh,heh!) on the bill. From a human stand point; not so great what the other guys did, but in order for her to claim "rape," she would have to be conducting herself with "clean hands," that is; just walking down the street and being jumped. She was in the commission of a crime, (so was the original John)
and at best, the other perps can only be charged with assault (if injured) and/or unlawful restraint. Theft of services is a big stretch, since the actions were illegal, just in the same way that you cannot sue someone for failing to pay up on a gambling/betting debt.
Anyway, this case may have a chilling effect on "dining and dashing !!" :p Back at ya'
Lizard at 6:45PM on Nov 2nd 2007
104. most of you who are intelligent should remember days when cops asked victims of rape what color their undies wore, if they were virgins, was alcohol involved and if they knew the guy....
all info obtained was used against the woman to excuse the rape. This woman wanted to be with one guy...not three.. Try making a living on minimum wage when rent is 8oo a month. The oil companies are making billions and we have people in umemployment. The cops consider me to be a prostitute but I select my men on looks. Does that mean that some ugly guy can assault me and rape me without punishment after I tell him "in your dreams"
stephanie at 6:37PM on Nov 3rd 2007
105. stephanie'
You have done everything you possibly can to try to justify your behavior to us and convince us that we should approve of your decisions and lifestyle just as anyone who dare oppose that Judge or speak their mind was assailed on this Blog by the Mob. That's why you feel comfortable doing it here. You are hoping for support.
I'm not going to support you.
You might never convince your worst accuser....
Your own conscience!
******** at 8:23PM on Nov 3rd 2007