You got to be f*cking kidding

[make_your_move]

This is a prime instance of why our legal system and some of those in it should burn in a special fucking hell. "When is Rape at Gunpoint not Rape? When it's a "Theft of Services"

Comments

[kellfire.livejournal.com]

I am speechless. And more so because the judge is female.

[the-nita.livejournal.com]

Assholes are assholes. Just because they are female and hold judicial authority doesn't make them less of assholes.

I'm sorry for those poor women....they're lives are likely in serious danger (especially now that serial-rapist-man knows he can get away with it).

[emeraldliz.livejournal.com]

Was the gun pulled before she had sex with the two first guys?

What would we call it if a lawyer had been held at gunpoint to be forced to give his services that way?

I understand sex and rape is a very wrong thing, but when you use sex as a professional service, standard rules don't apply.

Now, the other men she didn't consent to at all obviously raped her as there was no business transaction in place.

Being a former sex worker myself, those really are the risks you take, just like having a convenience store in a bad neighborhood. What these guys did was wrong obviously, but it's a lot more complicated when sex becomes a profession.

[museclio]

I would imagine that since the second man came with a gun, her consent was withdrawn when the money was no longer on the table, therefore it's still rape for all four.

[emeraldliz.livejournal.com]

That sounds like you're saying with Guy #1, she consented to have sex with him, had sex with him, got paid by him, and THEN decided to say the sex they had was rape?

I guess I would want more details on exactly who did what and who showed up with what when.

[museclio]

If you look at the article, she set it up with the one guy, got there, was asked to neg for the second guy. Had done nothing second guy showed up with a gun. Third and forth guy showed up.

She should at least be internally consistent....

[elkor.livejournal.com]

Let's see...

So, why no charge of "use of a fire arm in the commission of a crime?" Never mind, it was the second guy who used the fire arm. Guy 1 should also be charged with "conspiracy to commit".

And no charge of "Unlawful detention?" (i.e. kidnapping, since she obviously didn't feel she was free to leave)

If it weren't such a serious situation, the wrong-sense-of-humor side of me thinks she should sue him for breach of contract for not paying the $250 (or however much she was owed for the time she was there), with punitive damages for exceeding the scope of the encounter by involving more than the agreed to participants (guy 3 and 4).

Use those proceedings to obtain the names of guys 2, 3 and 4 and then get rape charges filed against them, since she didn't have a contract with them to consent to. As well as civil penalties for denial of income.

I mean, if we're going to be absurd about this situation, let's go the whole way!

[dorei.livejournal.com]

It's my guess that they wanted the guy to have to do some sort of time for the crime. It is unfortunate, but considering her line of work, she is not going to look very sympathetic to the jury. It's not fair, it's not right, but we all know how hard it is to actually get justice in the courtroom. So they went for the charge that they could definitely get to stick.

[dckermit.livejournal.com]

Kinda reminds me of an old cartoon in which a prostitute is reporting a rape to a detective. She's saying, "Why didn't I report it earlier? I didn't know I'd been raped until the check bounced."

The introduction of the gun certainly makes it assault with a deadly weapon rather than just theft of services, but I'm not so sure the first couple of guys committed rape. There just aren't enough facts presented.

If that makes me unpopular... well... y'all can queue to the left behind all those already in line.

[totient]

Growing up in LA, one of my favorite local restaurants would give discounts to first-time customers, and also to regulars, where "regular" meant anyone who'd been there before. Silly, but it served a function: they reserved the right to charge you more for being an asshole. I get the impression much of our criminal code works the same way. Convicting someone of the lesser crime because they're being cooperative is the expectation, and the sentences are cranked up across the board with that expectation in mind. It's a problem that the definition of "cooperative" is subjective, and it's especially a problem that too often it means "rich", "white", or "politically connected". But I'd want to see what this guy's sentence was before agreeing that this judge was out of line.

ETA link to the restaurant in question, since mym grew up with it too

[redhotlips.livejournal.com]

This is absoloutely astounding. I have no words.

[musicman.livejournal.com]

I sent you two articles to update the information. Evidently the Philadelphia Bar agrees with all here, as well as the District Attorney. The men are being prosecuted for rape after all, and while it is too late for the judge to be prevented from running for office again, it is not too late for the voters to refuse to re-electe her.

[wizardglick.livejournal.com]

Theft of services for failing to complete an illegal transaction?

Wouldn't this mean that if the taxi I was riding got carjacked I would have to settle the fare with the 'jacker or risk criminal charges?

Some thoughts

[sierra-victor.livejournal.com]

1) If you're pointing a gun at someone, it's rape. Business transactions don't happen at gun point, just crimes.

2) She's a prostitute, she's a slut, she's easy, she's dressed provocatively, she's cute, she's female, it's one long, slippery slope, but you know what? It Doesn't Matter, When sex happens at gun point, on a knife's edge, it's rape.

3) Someone can always find a reason for their bad behavior. I was drunk, she lead me on, etc. It Doesn't Matter. If violence, or the threat of violence, is why the act happens, it's rape.

4) I probably won't live to see it, but the sooner sex worker becomes a legal profession, the better. Just someone chooses to, or must, engage in sexual activity for money does Not make them a second-class citizen.

If I'm a banker and I'm robbed because I probably have more money on me, am I 'asking' to be robbed? If I'm a solider and I'm killed in my hometown, does murdering me automatically become manslaughter because I may have shot someone in Iraq?

S_V