Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

Considering Gang Rape on Prostitute 'Theft'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Considering Gang Rape on Prostitute 'Theft'


    PHILADELPHIA — In a rare rebuke, a bar association has criticized a judge for refusing to uphold sexual assault charges against a man accused of letting friends rape a prostitute he had hired. The judge said she considered the case "theft of services."

    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."

    Dominique Gindraw was accused of ordering the accuser at gunpoint to have sex with three men, but Deni dismissed the rape and sexual assault charges Oct. 4. She upheld conspiracy, robbery, false imprisonment and other charges against Gindraw.

    The chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association issued a statement Tuesday that questioned Deni's understanding of state law.

    "The victim has been brutalized twice in this case: first by the assailants, and now by the court," Chancellor Jane Leslie Dalton wrote. "We cannot imagine any circumstances more violent or coercive than being forced to have sex with four men at gunpoint."

    Carol Tracy, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Women's Law Project, called Deni's comments "a throwback to the Middle Ages, when rape was a crime against property, not against a person."

    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.

    Gindraw also took her cell phone and a purse containing pepper spray, she said.

    The other men have not been identified or charged.

    "Even though the woman is a prostitute, it doesn't mean she couldn't be a victim," Dalton said Wednesday. "Once she says 'No, it's not OK,' then to have sex with her is rape."

    A bar association committee recently gave Deni high marks and recommended that voters support her in a Nov. 6 judicial retention election.

    Deni, who makes $148,596 a year, did not immediately return a phone message left at her office Wednesday. Her lawyer, George Bochetto, said Deni called Dalton's statement that the victim was brutalized twice "regrettable."

    "The transcript doesn't necessarily tell the whole story," Bochetto said. He said Deni also considers a witness' tone of voice, demeanor and other factors in her rulings.

    Prosecutor Richard DeSipio and Gindraw's public defender, Susan Lin, did not return messages left Wednesday seeking comment.
    I don't know about this one, what do you intelligent ladies think ?

  • #2
    Re: Considering Gang Rape on Prostitute 'Theft'

    My initial reaction is I wish the Judge would get gang raped, then ask her what she thinks.
    Luanne
    wife, mother, nurse practitioner

    "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." (John, Viscount Morely, On Compromise, 1874)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Considering Gang Rape on Prostitute 'Theft'

      Wow

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Considering Gang Rape on Prostitute 'Theft'

        Ditto to Luanne.

        Although I do appreciate that the judge was trying to say that the woman was robbed (because she was, I suppose) but really? rape is rape, dummy.

        Jenn

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Considering Gang Rape on Prostitute 'Theft'



          rape is rape
          Finally - we are finished with training! Hello real world!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Considering Gang Rape on Prostitute 'Theft'

            I think it is rape. From a legal perspective (or just a logic perspective), we are assuming that the woman does not have the right to sell the use of her body for sex by making prostitution illegal. Right? So, given that, the men are guilty of gang rape and the woman is guilty of soliciting. Strange situation. It brings out a whole "Men are dogs" feeling. Maybe just these men.

            My detached analytical question was "What if it had happened in a Nevada county with legal prostitution?"

            Where's GreyMatterWife????

            We need you!!
            Angie
            Gyn-Onc fellowship survivor - 10 years out of the training years; reluctant suburbanite
            Mom to DS (18) and DD (15) (and many many pets)

            "Where are we going - and what am I doing in this handbasket?"

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Considering Gang Rape on Prostitute 'Theft'

              So....if this happened in a licensed brothel in Nevada, wouldn't it still be considered rape by the community? I can't think of a situation in which an armed group of men forcing sex on an unwilling woman would be considered "theft" and not rape -even with legal prostitution. I don't know what the judge was thinking on this one.
              Angie
              Gyn-Onc fellowship survivor - 10 years out of the training years; reluctant suburbanite
              Mom to DS (18) and DD (15) (and many many pets)

              "Where are we going - and what am I doing in this handbasket?"

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Considering Gang Rape on Prostitute 'Theft'

                Originally posted by Sheherezade
                I can't think of a situation in which an armed group of men forcing sex on an unwilling woman would be considered "theft" and not rape -even with legal prostitution. I don't know what the judge was thinking on this one.
                I agree. Mark me down for "clearly rape, and moderately surprised that this is considered debatable." She did not give her consent to this situation, and was forced at gunpoint to do it anyway--definitely rape, and a particularly rapey rape at that, even if she was in the middle of a different illegal act at the time, even if she earlier agreed to sell a similar set of services. She didn't agree to this sex (four guys, for free, at gunpoint), they did it anyway, and therefore this sex was definitely rape.
                Married to a hematopathologist seven years out of training.
                Raising three girls, 11, 9, and 2.

                “That was the thing about the world: it wasn't that things were harder than you thought they were going to be, it was that they were hard in ways that you didn't expect.”
                Lev Grossman, The Magician King

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Considering Gang Rape on Prostitute 'Theft'

                  Originally posted by Pollyanna
                  Originally posted by Sheherezade

                  Where's GreyMatterWife????

                  We need you!!
                  That's what I was thinking.
                  Man, guys, I am so sorry about being totally MIA this week. My work week has been INSANE!!

                  My thoughts? BASIC CONTRACT LAW: public policy prevents contracts for illegal services from being enforceable. That is, you can AGREE (either in writing or orally) to contract for the services of a prostitution, but neither the prostitute nor the john has ANY legal recourse for breach of contract if the contract is not fulfilled. The john has no legal right to allow his friends to have sex with a prostitute who stiffed him (so to speak). Moveover, even if it WAS an enforceable contract, it wouldn't be enforceable by specific performance! You wouldn't be able to force the other party to perform...your legal recourse would be in damages for breach of contract, not compulsion of specific performance.

                  Moreover (and probably more importantly), the judge's reasoning would be wrong, even if the contract were enforceable by specific performance! The contract was a contract for CONSENSUAL sex, not forced sex. You cannot contract for sexual assault. So, if the sexual assault was commited under the auspices of fulfillment of the contract, the resulting sex was not the sex contracted for. AND the resulting sex was not between the contracting parties (some friends of the john raped her, not the paying john). I am fairly certain that there was no "substitution of parties" provision in the oral contract for illegal services.

                  Oh, this is so stupid it barely merits a legal analysis. Some municipal judge who probably couldn't write an order to save her skin. Sounds like she couldn't reason her way out of an open paper bag. Awful, awful legal reasoning, from what I've read in the newclip. But, I have not seen the Order, so the new could be misinterpreting or misrepresenting the facts/Order. Can go only on what I have in front of me.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Considering Gang Rape on Prostitute 'Theft'

                    Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
                    Originally posted by Pollyanna
                    Originally posted by Sheherezade

                    Where's GreyMatterWife????

                    We need you!!
                    That's what I was thinking.
                    Man, guys, I am so sorry about being totally MIA this week. My work week has been INSANE!!

                    My thoughts? BASIC CONTRACT LAW: public policy prevents contracts for illegal services from being enforceable. That is, you can AGREE (either in writing or orally) to contract for the services of a prostitution, but neither the prostitute nor the john has ANY legal recourse for breach of contract if the contract is not fulfilled. The john has no legal right to allow his friends to have sex with a prostitute who stiffed him (so to speak). Moveover, even if it WAS an enforceable contract, it wouldn't be enforceable by specific performance! You wouldn't be able to force the other party to perform...your legal recourse would be in damages for breach of contract, not compulsion of specific performance.

                    Moreover (and probably more importantly), the judge's reasoning would be wrong, even if the contract were enforceable by specific performance! The contract was a contract for CONSENSUAL sex, not forced sex. You cannot contract for sexual assault. So, if the sexual assault was commited under the auspices of fulfillment of the contract, the resulting sex was not the sex contracted for. AND the resulting sex was not between the contracting parties (some friends of the john raped her, not the paying john). I am fairly certain that there was no "substitution of parties" provision in the oral contract for illegal services.

                    Oh, this is so stupid it barely merits a legal analysis. Some municipal judge who probably couldn't write an order to save her skin. Sounds like she couldn't reason her way out of an open paper bag. Awful, awful legal reasoning, from what I've read in the newclip. But, I have not seen the Order, so the new could be misinterpreting or misrepresenting the facts/Order. Can go only on what I have in front of me.
                    Well said.
                    Charlene~Married to an attending Ophtho Mudphud and Mom to 2 daughters

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X