Interesting article and very telling about society. I understand the point about moral degradation that was being made but the bench is not the proper forum for such antics especially with these stakes. The judge way overstepped her bounds on this one and should be held accountable and removed from duty. This precedent could allow for an unarmed 'theft of services' where if the prostitute was asking for little enough could be a simple misdemeanor. Really sad.

There is a circumstance where I could see this rule applying. If someone defrauded a prostitute with fake money, a bad check, fake drugs, etc. That's not really rape (she was consenting at the time) it is more like theft of services.

What matters in determining rape is the consent of the party at the time of the sex, not before or after. That is clear, and logical, and well established (and also completely contrary to this decision)

Oh, and prostitution should be legal anyway. Just had to get that in.

Let's "legalize" every vice shall we? There are unintended consequences to everything - including legalizing marijuana.

Interesting that the judge would make that distinction. So. With that logic and everything remaining equal in this case, would she have come to the same decision with a non-prostitute?

Let's "legalize" every vice shall we?

Sounds good to me. Our government is hardly equipped or qualified to legislate morality.

Dave

She has to be a republican appointed judge, can anyone verify that? The ruling is a joke, it is all part of the GOP plan of stacking the judiciary with hard right conservative nut bags who don't care about people who are vulnerable. The GOP needs to be snuffed out of power before they ruin this country.

I can see the Bush signing now.

It is to be considered rape, unless the President as the Executive in Chief, considers it to be a matter of National Security and then it is to be considered or not considered whatever I deem appropriate or inappropriate.

Honestly, I understand that insane things happen all the time... there's a scandal or an injustice every other day if you're politically savvy. What really bothers me is the lack of an outcry in this case. I searched for "Judge Deni," "Philadelphia rape Deni," and a bunch of other related phrases on Google News (which isn't exactly discriminating in its choice of listings) and all I got was that original Philly.com article. This is a horrible decision by someone put in a high place of authority, and there appears to be no consequence or oversight at all... neither from higher courts, nor from the public.

Interesting that the judge would make that distinction. So. With that logic and everything remaining equal in this case, would she have come to the same decision with a non-prostitute?

I don't understand this question at all. You mean, if a woman who wasn't being paid for sex was forced to have intercourse at gunpoint, would it be ruled a rape? I should certainly hope so.

Awkwardly put on my part, my apologies. But you got the picture. The ruling has little logic.

We should be able to eliminate judges.

We can. Can't judges be recalled?

Folks,


I'd have to agree with the judge on this one.

You cant have it both ways.

I think that prostitutes have the right to sell their bodies. I don't think that it is psychologically beneficial. I believe that the affects of prostituting ones self may be similar to the affects that rape must have in terms of loss of self worth, vulnerability, etc.

In this case the prostitute chose to make her body a product. In that setting, she WAS a product.

Had she been walking around her neighborhood in normal pedestrian mode and a rapist grabbed her and forced her to have sex, that would have been rape. However, SHE had declared that sexual acts with her, were for sale. She made it clear that the encounter was not an emotional one or a relationship based exchange. It was economic, period. In other words, you get to put XY or Z on or in XY or Z for money. An individual put XY or Z on or in there but didn't pay.

Perhaps I am missing something. If so, tell me what it is.


VIVA Springboks!!!
Boks rule the world!!!!!

Viva, are you nuts???

When someone "sells" thier body they do so under certian presumtions, and within certian parameters. "buy me dinner, we might have sex". "Put a ring on my finger, we can have sex" "pay me 50 bucks, we can have sex".

"selling" of sex in a "barter" system is done and has been done by women for 1000s of years, it is the only commidty many women have.

but it is still your body. if you are forced into an act you do not want to do, or forced to do said act with people you didn't agree to. or, fankly, BY LAW and BY COMMON SENSE, if you decide you don't want to finish the sex act (and return the money, of course), any further action by the other party is necessarily rape.

I've been raped by a violent situation, and by a date rape that simply "went too far". i dont' care if i was taking money for either - rape is rape is rape is rape.

you have a right, ALWAYS to say "no". It is your body, not the other person's.

Tanya,

Sorry about your situation.

Your statement however lacks in logic.

You said that she made her body a product to be sold or bartered. Stick with that. Don't start jumping over to some other stuff including infusing your personal experiences.

The person took the product that she was attempting to barter with, without payment. THAT IS STEALING. She was robbed and not rapped.

People don't exchange vows for sex. People don't generally exchange a meal for sex. People have sex because they want to engage in sex and the courting makes it feel safe.

I'm very disheartened by the lack of coverage I've seen on this story. The judge should be de-frocked, or whatever they do to judges. She had no right to impose her moral opinions on what is very clearly the law.

And Zedd, you're full of it. How is forced sex with multiple partners at gunpoint NOT a rape? No matter WHAT your fuckin' job is, its rape! The moment fear, violence, and a deadly weapon entered the picture, it ceased to be a transaction and became a bodily assault. The moment consent was withdrawn it became rape.

Che

It's fine for you to FEEL that it is rape but you have to explain why based on this particular situation.

We aren't talking about a sacred act being trampled upon. We are talking about a monetary exchange and that is all. Prostitutes will tell you that they differentiate between their John's and the men that they date or love. They have intimate sex with those that they have relationships with and they sell sex to their Johns. A John didn't pay for sex. He stole it.

The author said "If the body is a temple...."

If the body is a temple, you don't sell it.

Women cant claim liberation when their bodies are used as a bartering tool and when the tool is stolen, they become damsels in distress. All merchants expect revenue loss from theft. It goes with the territory.

What am I missing?!!

There is a reason why people don't prostitute themselves. It is demeaning and it dissolves the sacred nature sex. People don't want to feel empty, used, detached, dirty, discarded, etc. THAT is the horror of non intimate sex. What is left is the lack of safety that rape brings. So prostitution has a lot of elements that rape does.

Zedd's being contrary. She demands logic, and says, "Perhaps I am missing something. If so, tell me what it is." Unless she didn't read the blog post at all, this is feigned ignorance... my post makes a clear case for both semantic errors and pragmatic harms in this court judgment. Zedd just wants to pretend she doesn't understand the logic at all, like we're autistic aliens who are speaking gibberish, and I know she's smarter than that.

Rape is a crime, not a vague social policy that's responsible for maintaining the sanctity of the commodity. It's about extracting by force what a person always has the right to refuse. There's a word for theft of products ("robbery") and for non-payment for services ("theft of services"). When the sexual organs are involved, it's not a physical product, nor a service already rendered... it's rape. There's no reason to go conflating it with other crimes because you're judgmental of a person who temporarily allows themselves to be objectified.

Although I must admit, I <3 this expression: "... it dissolves the sacred nature sex." Ahhhh, the sacred nature sex. I LOVE that stuff.

Jesse,

Perhaps you probably think you offered a clear argument but you didn't even begin to.

When the sexual organs are involved, it's not a physical product, nor a service already rendered.

Who says?

You just made that up and stated it as if it some sort of universal law. You cant base an argument on flimsy stuff like that.

If you sell something, it is a product Junior. If you attempt to sell an organ (say, a kidney) if it is stolen, would you call that rape? No, smarty pants. So taking and using someone's organ without paying, that they have put up for sale, is not rape. It is theft.

You see, with rape there is no breech of contract (or agreement). Rape is a physical approximation that is unwelcomed, unexpected, and unwanted.

In this case, the physical interaction was wanted, expected, and pursued. The only problem is that there was no payment. This was a breech of a contract (verbal). It was theft.

The question is, if they had paid her after they held the gun to her head, would SHE have considered herself raped?

Based on this particular situation? The woman consented to a sexual encounter in exchange for money with two men, provided protection was used. Instead a gun was pointed at her, she was forced to have unprotected sex with four men. Threat with a deadly weapon dissolved all issues of consent (after all, I seriously doubt she consented to be terrorized either) - and even if you consider the sex with the two men she'd originally agreed to have sex with as robbery (and I consider it rape) then the additional two men MUST be considered rape.

And lets pretend for a moment that Zedd is being logical here. I know its a stretch, but I have a good imagination. Regardless of how logical your argument, the law is very clear on the definition of rape. And according to the LAW, it was rape, and the judge was remiss in her duties when she dropped these charges. It is the judge's sworn duty to uphold the law, not redefine it.

To be honest I don't think Zedd read the post, or the original article.

Zedd's post is an interesting rearticulation, though. According to some of our philosophies, criminal law is designed to protect individuals, both from institutions and from one another.

Zedd's claim here is that it's not about the attacker, it's about the victim... because the victim rendered her sexuality for sale, it completely changed the nature of the whole interaction. Her hypothesis is that sex is only sex when it's "intimate," i.e. sacred and personal. This is what rape laws are supposed to protect... the sacred, personal institution of romantic intimacy. Because the victim didn't adhere to this philosophy, she gave up her right to be protected by the rape laws. They're there to protect the act of sex from being corrupted, not to protect the individual.

It turns out this relates to her stance on marriage. Zedd objects to gay marriage, not because it's any threat to individuals, but because it threatens the institution of marriage, which she sees as a "temple" (to use my own expression) built on the foundation of biological reproduction and traditional male-female pairing.

If I'm right about this, it's an interesting, and as of yet unresolved, philosophical difference. To me and most of the posters on this thread, laws are supposed to protect the individual from personal, psychological, and economic harm. To Zedd, the laws seem to be there to protect the institutions from the transgressions of non-compliant individuals.

At the moment, I can't prove that my ethical/legal assumption is any better than hers. I'll have to think about it a bit further.

The law is there to protect EVERYONE.

The law is to be just.

If a person asks his doctor to perform an assisted suicide on him and specifies just how he wants it done. If the doctor agrees but then assists the patient to die using another concoction (other than one agreed upon) to reach the same end. Is this then murder?

The end result was what the person expected to occur. He would be dead. What was different is the agreement being adhered in the manner that the patient specified.

You see, prostitution is against the law so there is no legally binding contract for a Jon vs prostitute engagement. So it boils down to, the prostitute came there for sex. She came expecting sex for pay. She got sex but didn't get paid so sex was stolen from her.

The FACT that she came for the purpose of sex, expected sex makes the claim of rape null. She was robbed. Those men came for sex and expected sex but (most likely didn't come prepared to pay for it).

The contention is that they were not prepared to nor didn't pay. Not that she didn't want sex.

BTW Jesse,


Oh ye of tiny mind. Don't speak for me. You don't have the chops. You honestly don't understand what I say and certainly why I say it. Stop yourself.

Lets hope in a few years you will have the tools to make broader and more logical conclusions. You are young right now and still believe in fairy dust (at least that is how you come across to me). I know, you don't buy it. I wouldn't have at your age. But just trust me. Let it go. Unless you are trying to build a massive portfolio of things to cringe about in 15yrs.

Zedd...sorry, but yer premise is completely incorrect...

once the gun came out..it was rape

if you really want to go with the judge's idiocy on this, then those who were not verbally contracted, but who took sex by force (ie:the gun) entered the scenario...it was rape by every legal definition...since there was NO contractual arraingement involved, and force was used/threatened to violate the victim against their will....

rape - /reɪp/
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

under both definitions of the word, the woman was indeed raped

ask yourself...if you had met some guy, and in playing around told him you wanted to and were going to have sex with him after he paid for dinner, then he took out a gun (no dinner for you), forced you to have sex with him, AND some of his friends...

were you raped?

of course...just like this woman was...no matter her profession, once force was used against her Will..it's rape

Excelsior?

Gonzo,


What does the gun have to do with anything. It could have been a fist or a mean look. What differentiates rape and theft in this case, is that she was selling sex. They took it at gun point.

We cant diminish the significance of rape by labeling everything rape. We have to give it a clear and non-blurry definition. Women are not always damsels in distress. Women are sometimes suckers or fools. This woman entered into a dangerous profession. She sold a product which like any other product could be stolen. It was stolen at gun point and now she wants to go all conventional?

If a guy was dealing drugs and was making deals with some really tough guys in some secluded location of his choosing. Would you even pity him if two more men showed up, slapped him around and took his drugs? NOPE. He chose to live dangerously.

This case is even more ridiculous. She was going there to have sex with them. She did. They just didn't pay.

Zedd,

Every so often you adopt a position on something which is diametrically opposed to that of the majority of posters, and proceed to wallow in how pleased with yourself you are about it.

I don't think you really believe in your own opinion when this happens. Your argumentation style changes: instead of following coherent logic you start playing with language and being arrogant and patronizing. It's not classy and it's not nice.

And in the case of Jesse, please remember that seniority does not equal intellectual superiority.

Doc,


I abhor believing in something because it sounds good or right.

What you guys espouse sounds right but it isn't.

If you simply think about the point that I am making, you will see what I am saying. Let go of the "supposed to be" either from some political slogan or idea(that was made up by some person who thought they were clever at the moment and certainly wasn't meaning for it to be universal principle).

I really believe what I am saying.

No one has said anything to dissuade me. I am asking for a logic reason why this particular situation is not theft but rape. I look for opportunities to learn something new but in this case, no one is helping me out.

Again, she was selling something and someone took it without paying. HELLO!! Putting an emotional spin on it doesn't help.

She was selling something that most consider to be sacred, special, intimate, personal, recreational, etc. hence the feeling that it must be rape. She was not sentimental like most people are about this "thing". She just wanted money for that thing. So, someone, again, robbed her. She was not raped.

Rape applies to the emotional, social AND physical affects of this horrible crime. The "social" has to do with a lot of things. With women it has to do with the idea of being a slut, used, A HORE. The "emotional" has to do with a stranger entering you, you feeling vulnerable, invaded. Prostitutes live off of that invasion everyday.. not an issue for them. The one element that matches rape is the "physical". However, many prostitutes are roughly treated. We can't call this situation rape because rape is something much much much more intrusive and invasive and has a different emotional and social affect. It needs to be given that distinction because of the detrimental nature of it.

Zedd, it isn't the woman's behavior, profession, or level of virtue that makes this a rape. It is the man's actions. He is a rapist. He is a man that forces women to have sex with him - and with others - at gunpoint. He has done this to two women (that we know of - maybe more). If he had done this to someone that you consider 'virtuous' you would surely define it as rape. The man has raped prostitutes likely because they are easy prey, can be lured with the promise of money. But what were this man's intentions? To rob? No. His intentions were to rape. That makes him a rapist.

In law, rape is not - and should not be - defined by the perceived virtue of the victim. It's defined by the actions of the perpetrator.

Zedd - did you read the definition of rape i put in my comment...it's right out of the American Heritage dictionary, and about the same as the legal definition...taking sex by force, or the threat of force

Che sez - "In law, rape is not - and should not be - defined by the perceived virtue of the victim. It's defined by the actions of the perpetrator."

Quoted for Truth

the entirety of the Argument that the woman was raped, by definition, has been set out in a coherent and Logical manner...YOU are attempting to change the axiom by assertion that is contrary to both the language and legal definition of the term

therefor you are incorrect in your assertion, Q.E.D.

your erroneous statement and the logical fallacy of your position are defined when you state - "Rape applies to the emotional, social AND physical affects of this horrible crime. The "social" has to do with a lot of things."

i call bullshit...neither definition of rape has anything to do with this made up "social" aspect to the Law

the Law states that if you force sex on a person, it's rape

it really IS just that simple, and you really are just that incorrect...once again, due to your attempting to change definitions from very clear and defined standards

Excelsior?

"I really believe what I am saying. "

And we're really happy for you.

Gonzo,

What is theft.

Mathew,

That was rude and uncalled for.

I was responding to someone who was suggesting that I was just being contentious because I enjoy being contrary.

Che

" it isn't the woman's behavior, profession, or level of virtue that makes this a rape. It is the man's actions."

I never said it was. You missed what was being said. I said it is the circumstance. Just like man slaughter and murder are different, depending on the circumstances; so is the crime that was committed against this woman, from rape. A person is dead regardless of the charge, but it is important to charge the perpetrator with the correct charge or else the weight of the crime becomes diminished. If everything that results in a person's death is called murder, then murder would no longer be seen to be as horrible as it is. We can't call this situation rape because the circumstances are different than a rape.

A side issue...

This woman chooses an illegal, and extremely dangerous profession. It is dangerous because such things (as what happened to her) are a standard risk. This job is abhorred by most women in the entire planet and most fathers and brothers for their sisters. Every one knows that it is extremely dangerous. She pursues this illegal profession and then has the nerve to use the judicial system, tax dollars and all to consider this case. RIDICULOUS.

Zedd - since you don't appear willing to look at a dictionary...

theft - the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

Zedd sez - "She pursues this illegal profession and then has the nerve to use the judicial system, tax dollars and all to consider this case. RIDICULOUS."

the woman being raped is not equal to "personal goods or property"...as defined earlier, rape is the use or threat of force being used to obtain sex...a specific act of violence clearly defined by Law...the profession, character, race, religion, creed or body piercings has NOTHING to do with the FACT that force was used to obtain sex against the victim's Will or volition

the circumstances do not matter to the definition...there are no mitigating circumstances, the differences in definitions are blatantly obvious to any thinking Mind

Excelsior?

Gonzo,


I don't want to belabor this discussion so I'll just say this:

By selling sex, she made her body goods to be sold. Those goods were stolen.

I issue is not that she is a woman or that she was assaulted or that it was a sexual assault. The point is that SHE changed the CIRCUMSTANCES by choosing to sell her body. At that point her body became "goods". She weighed the ramifications, including the possibility of those goods being taken at force and she took the risk, like any entrepreneur who goes into business. One does a risk assessment. Let's not overlook these very important factors.

She is a strong and capable person who put her body up for sale, took a risk and lost. Her body was stolen.

Gonzo, this scenario does not fit a rape situation by no means. Rape is a horrible invasion not a calculated risk. Come on! To actually choose this highly risky, illegal profession and then have the nerve to go the the law for help when she knows why NOT to do this thing, probably defying her family and people who love her, is an insult.

I'm inclined to agree sort of with Zedd here (I can't believe I'm saying this!!!).

A woman who puts her body up for sale (or rent, which is a more appropriate business term) is turning her body into goods to be stolen. Put rather crudely, this woman presented herself as a piece of ass up for rent, and someone stole the goods.

This doesn't change the emotional trauma of rape. But it should be borne in mind that much of this trauma was already suffered by this woman when she first became a prostitute. Even if she was getting paid, the invasion of her body by a stranger was probably traumatic at some point - like when she didn't feel well and had to go to work to pay the bills and whatever initial excitement she might have felt had worn off in the realization that renting her vazgina and other orifices was a job like any other.

Much of the talk about legalizing prostitution seems to come from madames or pimps, not prostitutes themselves, but nevertheless, once you view a woman's body as a mere rental unit for semen deposit, then you raise the issue of stealing the unit (for a time) - which is what happened here.

Oh Ruvy,

You've agreed with me before. And why "sort of". You have restated my point.

Man up! YOU AGREE FULLY!!

I am not making a value judgment against this person. Like you I believe that this individual has already experienced the trauma which comes from prostituting ones body, which has elements which resemble rape. I stated that earlier (rather cryptically, I will admit, with all of my classic errors).

Now Ruvy, aren't you a little concerned that you are playing to the stereotype of being overly astute in matters of commerce? I mean all of a sudden you rose from the ashes, your reasoning is prestine.... hee hee. I know you'll enjoy that joke.

Zedd,

I'd rather be viewed as "presstine" - as in getting paid for my reportage and writing - than "pristine". though certainly either would be better than being viewed as "philistine".

I wouldn't want some righteous David (or scion of his house) to chop my head off with a sword....

Zedd...you continue to try and change definitions in order to make your point valid..and it still does not work, either ethically or logically...

you also contradict yourself...

Zedd sez - "By selling sex, she made her body goods to be sold."

you then go on to state that because of her chosen profession, she could not, in your mind, be raped...which again is in direct defiance and contrary to thew very definition of rape...which YOU do NOT get to choose and define according to your narrow *moral* viewpoint

but the contradiction and hypocrisy is shown in your next comment when you state - "I am not making a value judgment against this person."

complete bullshit, or self deception...in the earlier commnet, as i have quoted, you did nothing but make a "value judgement", ie: thta because of her profession she is now incapable of being raped (made to have sex against her will by use of force)

since logic and epistemology are obviously not among your skill set it is futile even discussing the matter with you

but i stand by everything i've typed here, and you are incorrect in your position as well as obviously bigoted against those who , for whatever reason, are in the profession this woman is

obviously not only do you hold no compassion for this victim of rape, but you are prejudiced against any who fall outside of your narrow , judgemental criteria

for the record, women are not the only ones who can be raped...in the same case, if the subject was a minor, forced into the "trade"...woudl that have counted as rape to you?

no need to answer, just something for you to think about

Ruvy - another disappointment from you...YOU i would have thought knew better than this

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

It is not that this woman didn't suffer - she most certainly did. Rape is rape, no matter how you try to excuse it. But there were circumstances here that put this more into the realm of contract law. The only problem was that the contract agreed to (sex for money) was illegal, and therefore could not be enforced under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). That left a rape charge as the only possible redress this woman had against her attackers/stealers of services.

The irony here is that had prostitution been legal in this jurisdiction, the reasonable argument could be made that this woman would not have had any grounds to ask her attackers to be charged with rape. She would have been left with seeking remedies under the UCC. So the fact that prostitution is illegal worked in her favor. Or should have. The judge didn't see it that way.

That is what stinks about this case.

But it is also a stern warning to those who are in love with "libertarianism". Reducing everything to a contract between two people can be hazardous....

Some things go beyond contractual agreement.

Gonzo,


I think that it is you that is making a value judgement about my motives. Your uncustomary emotional response actually reflects more about YOUR uncertainly.

Did I shake you up a bit? Pull yourself together man. Be a good sparing partner and ally (when the occasion calls for it). I am disappointed that you got personal. Perhaps we need to send you some Zulu juice so you can muscle up and begin using your noggin.

I really am not condemning this person for her chosen profession. I also feel more-so for the fact the is a prostitute. I cant imagine what must have occurred in her life to make her choose such a dangerous profession. Being big picture oriented, my compassion is focused on that. Because of the same tendency to zoom in quickly on the larger picture, I am concerned about watering down the meaning of RAPE. If a prostitute who doesn't get paid for business can call that rape, then rape is not as horrible. Its gravity is diminished. THAT CANT BE.

Perhaps you should think about that.... and calm down too.

The truth, fact, situation IS that she came to sell something (whatever it is) and that thing was taken without pay. That says she was selling her body and someone didn't pay for the "use" of her body. No value judgement.

It is you that is injecting emotions and political supposed to be's into this.

You support a certain political stance. You are so sold to it that you wont evaluate the sense, usefulness or social damage of some of their blanket proclamations.

Gonzo, the one consistent element that prevails in most of my serious interactions on BC is that I abhor sloganeering, bandwagoning, party loyalty and joining the club just for the sake of it. I think that doing so has stolen our country from us and has rendered us DUMB. I believe in critical thinking, deductive reasoning, applying logic and seeking. I won't insult you by stating just how many fallacies exist in your "reasoning". I respect your intelligence and trust that you will deduce the answer once you find the equation (hence the question about theft).

This woman was sexually assaulted and had sex (her goods for sale) stolen from her.

Still all this focus on the behavior and profession of the victim, rather than the actions of the man.

Intention of the perpetrator goes a long way toward defining the crime. Proof of intent can mean the difference between manslaughter or murder. Intent to sell can add quite a few years to a drug-possession charge.

Intent.

The man's intent was to rape. He lured a woman with the promise of money, then forced her to have sex at gunpoint. He's done this twice. His actions are the actions of a rapist. If he went out tomorrow and did the same thing to a nun, his intent would be exactly the same as his intent was with the prostitutes. His intent and actions were rape. He is, as defined by law, a rapist and should be tried for rape.

But I can see Zedd and Ruvy aren't going to stop defining the crime by the behavior of the victim. But as far as the law's definition is concerned, the man committed rape, and the judge had no right to redefine the law.

Che

I would love to discuss this better with you but you are missing everything.

When a crime is assessed it is not just he victims claims that are taken into consideration. The entire scenario is taken into consideration. The charge and judgment is based in the SPECIFICS of the incident.

Again, that is why we have a distinction between murder and manslaughter. The victim is just as dead in both situations but the circumstances make all of the difference. Hope that helps you.

Che the law is there to protect all of us victim, perp and society.

Your insistence in using the word rape does not make it so. The guy intended to have sex with the prostitute. That we all know. As to whether he thought it was rape, YOU have no idea. Saying so is useless to our discussion and causes you to loose credibility as someone who is making a lucid argument. You are simply extrapolating, taking huge leaps of assumption.

What we KNOW is that BOTH of them intended to have sex, one intended to get paid and the other intended to trick the other and not pay. They did have sex and it wasn't paid for. She was robbed. That sounds nothing like rape to me.

Haha, are you confused about the facts of this case, Zedd? A number of your remarks suggest that you think the prostitute had sex willingly, assuming money was forthcoming, and then charged rape when she wasn't reimbursed. If it had happened this way, I would probably side with the judge.

That's not what happened. The prostitute was forced to have sex at gunpoint. I think rape is pretty much defined by the contract (emotional, verbal, monetary, or whatever) at the time of consummation. [NUANCE]There's obviously a bit of a window... a woman can't charge rape if she "changed her mind" at the moment of the act and neglected to tell her partner.[/NUANCE] However, this was not what happened here.

It should be obvious that the sex wasn't performed as a result of the contract. Once the second male arrived with a gun, the contract was no longer even a factor. The woman wasn't having sex because she expected to get paid (which is how a "service rendered" is defined, both legally and logically). She was having sex because she expected to die if she didn't.

I don't think prostitutes normally cry when they fuck, and/or accept help from one of their "clients" to escape the situation. That's probably a sign that there was something amiss with the contractual agreement.

Jesse,

You are adorable.

How in the world did you get that from my posts.

I know that I've been consistent on my read on this situation.

I'll say it once more. She went there to get paid for sex. She was robbed. Sex was taken without pay. Simple isn't it?

The contract occurred when they said that sex would take place for pay. Simple right? When they didn't pay but took the sex, that was theft.

Like if you meet someone to sell them a uhmmmm CD (lets say). They pull out a gun and take your CD. You were robbed. They stole your CD. While the gun was to your head, you would probably cry. You may cry for several reason. Maybe you really needed the money because you were about to be kicked out of your apartment. Maybe you'd had a bad week (month, year, decade..) and this was just the thing that tipped everything for you. Maybe you were just extra angry but couldn't do anything about it so you just cried. Maybe you were simply scared, as I would be. However, the fact that she cried, while it brings about sympathy for her, has no connection to whether this was rape or not. We have no idea why she cried. Perhaps she doesn't even know. We cry often for a mixture of reasons. So that point is, well, pointless.

Anyway, later gator. Interesting case. Thanks.

Zedd, if he's bringing a gun to the scene of the crime, and planning to use the gun to obtain sex, rather than use money, its pretty obvious he is intending to rape. The fact that he has done this more than once shows a pattern and a certain amount of premeditation.

The man is a rapist.

Zedd sez: "When a crime is assessed it is not just he victims claims that are taken into consideration."

And yet that is precisely what you are doing. You are focusing on the victim, her profession, etc, rather than on the actions and intentions of the perpetrator. The only thing about a victim that determines whether the crime is defined as rape is did she consent?. Not her job, not her clothes, not the number of sexual experiences she has had in the past.

This woman did not consent. She agreed to sex under a certain set of circumstances. When those circumstances changed (gun drawn, arrival of 3 more men, threat, the omission of condoms), her consent was withdrawn. That makes this a rape.

Your arguments are laughable, and I have to agree with Jesse. You don't seem to be aware of the details of the matter.

Che,

The frequency of the times that the crime was committed does not necessarily define the charge.

If a person steals 50 times, he is still a thief.

As for your statement about he woman not consenting... Who consents to their goods being stolen. Mute point. Sorry again.

Let's let it go Che.

I really don't think that you believe that my arguments are laughable. You are just hoping to rescue your meager attempts through intimidation (?). Just walk away Che. Let's not let things get all icky and cringe-some.

I'll thank you not to tell me what I believe. In fact, if your arguments weren't so narrow and judgemental, I'd be laughing aloud.

We can agree to disagree, but I for one am glad that the law does not define rape in the same manner as you do. Its unfortunate we have judges like Deni who seek to redefine the law, rather than uphold it.

Judge Deni is facing a retention vote in November - and there is a local movement to vote against her retention. I hope the people of Philadelphia have more sense than you and Deni.

I hope the people of Philadelphia have more sense than me too Che. Always hoping for the best....

Its clear, although embarrassing to say, that you don't have sharp critical thinking skills. You've addressed this entire matter emotionally. In order to make good judgments, one has to have a clear vision of what the conclusions do. You've simply bit into a few slogans or statements and believe you understand the entire range of what is involved. You don't. You won't believe me. But it simply must be said. Your reasoning doesn't add up.

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Relax dude.