A judge eases her conscience by dehumanizing a victim.
Bad news for rape victims: a prostitute is forced to have sex at gunpoint, and her judge doesn’t even consider a rape charge. This shows how confused our culture is about sexuality, power, and commodification. Feminism, justice, rape victims, sex workers… for how many people is this a step backwards?…
Article comments
26 - Zedd
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.
27 - Che
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.
28 - gonzo marx
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?
29 - Matthew T. Sussman
"I really believe what I am saying. "
And we're really happy for you.
30 - Zedd
Gonzo,
What is theft.
31 - Zedd
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.
32 - gonzo marx
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?
33 - Zedd
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.
34 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
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.
35 - Zedd
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.
36 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
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....
37 - gonzo marx
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?
38 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
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.
39 - Zedd
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.
40 - Che
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.
41 - Zedd
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.
42 - Jesse
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.
43 - Zedd
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.
44 - Che
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.
45 - Zedd
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.
46 - Che
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.
47 - Zedd
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.