If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   If you rule as a judge that a sex workers rape was only a "theft of services," you can bet on it that people will have a problem with your ruling   (opposingviews.com) divider line 30
    More: Asinine, sex workers, RH Reality Check, Philadelphia Daily News, miscarriage of justice  
•       •       •

7614 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Nov 2013 at 5:37 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-02 12:48:24 AM
18 votes:
If the men had told her they would pay her afterwards, then had sex with her and didn't pay I would call that theft of services.

But according to the article that wasn't what happened. The men said they weren't going to pay, the woman said then she wouldn't have sex, and then they forced her to at gun point. That's rape.

The actual sexual experiences are much different in the two scenarios.
2013-11-02 12:55:52 AM
4 votes:

Krieghund: If the men had told her they would pay her afterwards, then had sex with her and didn't pay I would call that theft of services.

But according to the article that wasn't what happened. The men said they weren't going to pay, the woman said then she wouldn't have sex, and then they forced her to at gun point. That's rape.

The actual sexual experiences are much different in the two scenarios.


Yeah, very.  Sex at gunpoint is rape regardless.

This has taught me a valuable lesson:
Pay her, fark her, then catch her before she gets in her car and rob her at gunpoint to get your money back.  Then it really IS just theft.
2013-11-02 08:49:57 AM
2 votes:
Rape is rape. It is an act of violence and inexcusable. No "she was dressed provocatively", or "she is not member of our tribe", or "she wanted it", or "she's a whore or a pariah or half-caste or untouchable" nor any other nonsense. If she was untouchable you wouldn't be touching her would you?

Raping a prostitute is "rape with robbery", not robbery simple. There is violence, and that violence is rape. Robbery with violence is an aggravated robbery. In this case aggravated not with assault and battery, but rape.

Judges can be such idiots, regardless of their ideological slant. In a case like this, the ideology goes around the circle from radical right to radical left or vice versa.

Every person has the right to say "no" to sex, even a professional or amateur. Every person has a right to protection from violence except when they themselves are the agressor, and also a right to self-defence (limited by circumstances and reasonable limits on the amount of violence used--it's not a right to kill or go medieval on the aggressor--the right of self-defence is limited to real and present danger or a reasonable anticipation of danger, and also to due force.

So says I, on behalf of common sense, decency and justice. Let's say that two thirds or 80% of the political circle agrees on these principles and that extreme leftists or rightests are equally prone to ideological derp.

I don't believe class, race, sex, age, or other attributes justify rape under any circumstances, including war. An army that rapes is out-of-control of its officers, or under the control of war criminals. Do I sound like a medieval Christian, say Saint Thomas of Aquinas? Tough shiat. Some medieval thinking was pretty good. As an atheist I will admit a certain admiration for those rare Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and what not that think and feel rightly. Not because God tells them to, but because their own human sympathies and reason tell them to. God can bugger off. He is more often used as a weapon and an instrument of torture than a tool for healing and health.
2013-11-02 03:26:26 AM
2 votes:
they couldn't legally consent to committing a crime because the men were drunk. that woman took advantage of them.

drunk means you cant consent to something. period.
2013-11-02 03:05:50 AM
2 votes:

Triumph: Shedim: Triumph: No you are trivializing armed robbery. Threatening someone with a gun is a life and death matter. I disagree with the judge's logic on not calling it rape, but I agree with her that the gun crime is the main issue. There's a difference between getting in a fist fight and having your face pounded while a gun is held on you.

I see - we seem to have different interpretations on what the "main issue" is.

Why do you think the gun crime is the major issue, compared to the rape?

Because her life was unquestionably threatened. That makes it the top crime. The judge's logic apparently is that she already had conspired with the men to commit a sex crime, so she's looking at it like it's comparable to a drug deal gone bad or something. Yeah, that's messed up, but the main thing still is that he brought a gun to the party and threatened her life.


Okay, I can follow that logic, and I still agree that the judge is showing terrible logic by dismissing the rape charges. To me, however, the judge is implicitly saying that the presence of a firearm is more important than the rape of a woman; that the presence of a weapon is, as far as her interpretation of the law is concerned, more important than the rape.

Frankly, a rapist doesn't need a gun to rape someone; the guy was likely to rape her no matter what weapon he brought with him. You can threaten someone's life with your bare hands. That's why I see the rape as the main issue, because it was going to happen no matter what; the presence of a firearm, while a notable issue, is not the principal crime that occurred.

Not only that, but dismissing the rape charges stinks of "blaming the victim" - the judge is implicitly saying that if she hadn't been a prostitute she wouldn't have been raped, that the perpetrators transgressions against polite society are more important than what the perpetrator actually did to the victim. That's why I said that I felt it was trivialising rape before.
2013-11-02 02:09:11 AM
2 votes:

Triumph: Shedim: Triumph: Meh - reminds me of when people get bent out of shape arguing about whether something is a "hate crime" or just a regular plain old crime.

Are you implying that there's no difference between raping a sex worker and shoplifting, or am I reading too much into your post?

The judge didn't call it shoplifting, she called it armed robbery. Pulling a gun on somebody and threatening their life ought to be the main issue.


No, the main issue is that someone was raped at gunpoint. The fact that the victim happened to be a prostitute is irrelevant - you can't consent to sex if your only choices are "let me fark you or die." Reducing a rape to an "armed robbery" or a "theft of services" trivialises a very serious crime and shows no concern for the bodily autonomy of the woman concerned.
2013-11-02 01:53:53 AM
2 votes:
The whole "held at gunpoint" thing should definitely make it rape.

However, if a guy screws a prostitute, and then refuses to pay, I'd say no crime took place. She did consent to the sex, with the belief that she would get paid. He refused to pay her, but she still consented. However, money for sex is not something that a contract can be formed for in most jurisdictions, so no contract would exist, and there would be no theft of services either.
2013-11-02 11:02:13 AM
1 votes:

Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.


Bullshiat. Prostitution does not make a person's vagina a product any more than bricklaying makes a person's arm a product.

The transaction is not money for body parts, it's money for labor. You don't get to wrap it up and take it home in a box, you creepy fark.
2013-11-02 10:47:39 AM
1 votes:
cman:  Hyperpartisanship is DESTROYING us, and we really need to stop it.

All of us need to stop it


Agreed. Very much so. The instant defense for ANYONE who seen as being on a "side" is a problem, that we don't just face in this country, but across the globe. Even politicians we LIKE make calls that we disagree with. It's up to us to weigh those issues against their record, and vote accordingly. I am proud to have worked on Olympia Snowe's campaign, and I'm proud as heck of Impie for a LOT of her career, but that doesn't mean that she hasn't made some votes that I disagree with. There are a LOT of pols that I personally like--and John McCain has been one of them, but he LOST my vote by doing some damn stoopid stuff, and supporting some damn stoopid stuff. I wish that he hadn't, but wishing doesn't make someone's record go away.  Some of the idiocy that he rambled on about, was an attempt to make appeals to the Wing Nut Brigade, and I can understand that at least. Not approve, but I understand it. What I couldn't cotton to was an ignorance in foreign policy that showed a blatant and willful ignorance that would have gotten the country involved in brinksmanship we can ill afford.

We all need to look hard at the folks who we choose to represent us. And hold them accountable. Party be damned, because party shouldn't trump reason. That it often does, is an indictment against our process, and the nation as a whole.

In this case: the judge made not just a questionable call, but made a decision that has dangerous implications for folks in her district. She should be removed, not out of partisanship, but because she is basing her decisions on poor jurisprudence.
2013-11-02 10:29:58 AM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: cman: A judge made a scary ruling and our primary goal is that we are gonna use it to bash our political opponents with it?

Jesus farking Christ, people. This kind of talk is bullshiat because we lose focus on who was wrong in this.

The Judge did this.

This is on the judge

She deserves to be tossed out on her ass

Putting this as left v right is gonna ensure that people come to vote for her reelection

Please let this one go

In fairness, I think that most folks are putting it on the judge. And it's a sh*tty ruling. Prior consent doesn't mean that when things change, that the act remain the same. That her fellow judges have criticized the ruling was mentioned.

You're correct, in this is NOT a Right vs Left issue, but it IS being latched onto by folks who are typically on the Left, as advocates for women's issues. I think that latter portion of that statement is the more pointed: advocates for women's issues. That advocates for women are seen as "Left" IS something that is sort of telling about where the country is at this moment. That folks don't feel that they are represented by Conservatives IS an issue. In your mind, a separate issue. It shouldn't be a Right vs Left sort of thing. Women are represented and represent the party, and their districts, and some with great tenacity, vigor, and integrity. There are a great many that do not, but that is not exactly news. Idiots get put into chairs for ideological reasons as often as for intellectual and professional prowess.

That you feel it necessary to leap to the defense is telling. And it shows a weakness at this point for the party.

The judge made not just a bad call, it calls into question her entire basis for jurisprudence, and her qualifications to continue as a seated judge. Not for a "right" or "left" basis, but on the grounds that she seems to have some blinders on about what crimes actually are, and her own bias about "real rape." That those who are typically on "the Left" are calling for her removal, ...


You are correct

Thank you for helping me see my bias.

I reacted with anger. I am just getting sick of it all

Hyperpartisanship is DESTROYING us, and we really need to stop it.

All of us need to stop it
2013-11-02 09:38:36 AM
1 votes:

AbortionsForAll: italie: AbortionsForAll: italie: AbortionsForAll: Ima4nic8or: This may not be popular to say but the judge's ruling was correct.  The sex workers and those who support that activity can't logically have it both ways.  Once you decide that the vagina is nothing more than a physical product to be rented out, you can't then still claim that someone using it against your wishes is violating your humanity/personhood.  They are simply using an object that you don't want them to. No different than if someone uses a rental car without paying.

THIS (actually does make perfect sense). The woman was selling her vagina (which makes it product).

If it wasn't legal to sell her vag, then it was never legally a product. Theft of services a pretty bogus wrap seeing as there was never legally any service offered.

I see what you're trying to do there, but the fact that the sale was inherently illegal doesn't mean its not a sale. By your logic, if I go buy a bag of weed, there's actually no transaction happening because the act of buying the weed is illegal. Nope, the logic... She does not line up.

And if you steal the weed, will it EVER be a theft of service charge? No.

//None of the logic lines up, that's the point.

If someone steals your weed, it's still stolen weed. Unless you're saying that one can't legally own weed in the first place... Which obviously isn't the case, since one can be prosecuted for owning weed.


This is a rather disgusting conversation all around. There is no comparison that would be appropriate. I cannot believe we're even discussing if being a sexworker somehow mitigates a gang-rape at gunpoint. Please, step back and see the humanity of it all. This woman likes to fark, and likes to get paid for it. I fail to see how she deserves to be kidnapped at gunpoint and then gang-rapped by three men.
2013-11-02 09:00:29 AM
1 votes:
Could it be the judge is ruling theft of services to be sure the men are convicted of a crime? The judge could be savy, and knows that a jury may not find the alleged rapists guilty. Further, theft and armed robbery may carry a stiffer penalty. The judge may very well be doing this in the victims interest to guarantee a conviction./jmtc
2013-11-02 08:43:04 AM
1 votes:

Benevolent Misanthrope: KawaiiNot: Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?

You know, I see this as a logical extension of the brand of feminism that says sex workers aren't victims, they're revolutionaries and what's wrong with them selling their own property?  Unless you're a patriarchal pig who thinks a woman's body is not her own...

So, yeah - if a sex worker takes that tack, then she shouldn't be surprised when a court buys in.

It's still stupid, though.


It's a matter how the "business" end of it is conducted, however in this case it appears more rape than theft.
This is why money should be exchanged up front, no money, no consent, thus rape.  If the deal is sex and then payment, then it'd be theft, since consent was only withdrawn after the act.
It's kinda like if you were to go into a fast food joint, where you order > pay > eat, but decide instead of paying, you're going to pull out a gun and demand food, that's armed robbery.  Now, if you go to a sit down restaurant, where you order > eat > pay, and then dash out between eating and paying, then it's fraud, not robbery.
2013-11-02 08:41:41 AM
1 votes:
Don't get me wrong. I am no issue with sex workers.  If that is what they want to do it is their business, both literally and figuratively.  I just don't like the logical inconsistency of on the one hand saying the vagina is  just an object to be bartered and on the other hand claiming that someone else using it is deeply personal.
2013-11-02 08:26:10 AM
1 votes:
"You would have sex with me for a hundred dollars?"
"No, go away asshole!"
"How about a thousand dollars?"
"Are you crazy?  No!"
"Okay, I'm insulting you.  How about twenty thousand dollars?"
"Are you serious?"
"Absolutely.  Would you have sex with me for twenty thousand dollars?"
"I guess..."
"Okay!" *pulls out gun* "Now take off your clothes or I'll kill you...this is an armed robbery."
2013-11-02 08:16:01 AM
1 votes:

DemonEater: This has taught me a valuable lesson:
Pay her, fark her, then catch her before she gets in her car and rob her at gunpoint to get your money back. Then it really IS just theft.



cs418131.vk.me
I just run her over with the car once she gets out...
2013-11-02 07:54:38 AM
1 votes:

blindio: So by that line of thinking, once a woman agrees to sex she can no longer withdraw consent? I mean, that's what the Judge is saying right?  She agreed to sex, so she's obligated to it, and if the terms of the sex change than it's a contract dispute?


It's incredibly retarded. It's like saying if you invite someone into your house once, you can never ever tell them to leave after they come or inside, or not to come back to your house again. If they break down your door at gunpoint and start eating shiat out of your fridge and camping out in your living room, they can only be charged with theft of the food, but not breaking and entering or trespassing because you said they could come over that one time.
2013-11-02 07:34:00 AM
1 votes:
A judge made a scary ruling and our primary goal is that we are gonna use it to bash our political opponents with it?

Jesus farking Christ, people. This kind of talk is bullshiat because we lose focus on who was wrong in this.

The Judge did this.

This is on the judge

She deserves to be tossed out on her ass

Putting this as left v right is gonna ensure that people come to vote for her reelection

Please let this one go
2013-11-02 07:01:24 AM
1 votes:

SpdrJay: So if I go into Wendy's and rip off the cashiers arm and eat it, it is theft of services too?


Only if the cashier's arm was originally available for purchase.
2013-11-02 06:45:22 AM
1 votes:
"She went to a North Philadelphia home on Sept. 20 to meet Gindraw, who had agreed to pay her $150 for sex. He then said 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."


http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=5735923

I don't see how this isn't rape since she clearly did not consent to this scenario and her her life was being threatened at gunpoint. Doesn't get more "coercive" than this. Fark this judge to hell.
2013-11-02 06:31:48 AM
1 votes:

armor helix: KawaiiNot: Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?

Oh, we're being racist. Ok.


no kidding. when I think "judge" the image of a young, black, lesbian is always the first thing that comes to mind. what kind of a sick mind would assume a judge in America would be an old white person??

damn racists make me sick.
2013-11-02 06:31:02 AM
1 votes:

Benevolent Misanthrope: KawaiiNot: Let me guess: The judge is old, white and... a women?

Really?

You know, I see this as a logical extension of the brand of feminism that says sex workers aren't victims, they're revolutionaries and what's wrong with them selling their own property?  Unless you're a patriarchal pig who thinks a woman's body is not her own...

So, yeah - if a sex worker takes that tack, then she shouldn't be surprised when a court buys in.

It's still stupid, though.


Of course it's stupid because it is nothing more than a phantom of your fevered imaginings.

There are no feminists who think sex workers can't get raped because "they're not victims".  It is not a "logical extension" of any kind of feminism except in your enfeebled brain.  Thinking a woman's body is her own does not ever lead to the conclusion that she can't be raped, in fact it will always lead to the exact opposite conclusion.
 I live in a country where prostitution is legal.  If someone commits or forces a sex act on a prostitute (of any gender) to which they did not consent it's still rape.  In fact coercing sex from a prostitute even in the absence of something meeting the legal definition of "rape" will land you in jail for up to 14 years in these here parts.
2013-11-02 06:21:02 AM
1 votes:
Did the judge forget that you can convict a person or persons for multiple crimes stemming from the same incident?  If I rob a bank with a handgun, then steal a car on my getaway, do the other charges just disappear because of the "assault with a deadly weapon"?

/the answer is "no, no they do not"
2013-11-02 02:45:32 AM
1 votes:

Shedim: Triumph: No you are trivializing armed robbery. Threatening someone with a gun is a life and death matter. I disagree with the judge's logic on not calling it rape, but I agree with her that the gun crime is the main issue. There's a difference between getting in a fist fight and having your face pounded while a gun is held on you.

I see - we seem to have different interpretations on what the "main issue" is.

Why do you think the gun crime is the major issue, compared to the rape?


Because her life was unquestionably threatened. That makes it the top crime. The judge's logic apparently is that she already had conspired with the men to commit a sex crime, so she's looking at it like it's comparable to a drug deal gone bad or something. Yeah, that's messed up, but the main thing still is that he brought a gun to the party and threatened her life.
2013-11-02 02:31:30 AM
1 votes:

Triumph: No you are trivializing armed robbery. Threatening someone with a gun is a life and death matter. I disagree with the judge's logic on not calling it rape, but I agree with her that the gun crime is the main issue. There's a difference between getting in a fist fight and having your face pounded while a gun is held on you.


I see - we seem to have different interpretations on what the "main issue" is.

Why do you think the gun crime is the major issue, compared to the rape?
2013-11-02 02:25:39 AM
1 votes:

Shedim: Reducing a rape to an "armed robbery" or a "theft of services" trivialises a very serious crime


No you are trivializing armed robbery. Threatening someone with a gun is a life and death matter. I disagree with the judge's logic on not calling it rape, but I agree with her that the gun crime is the main issue. There's a difference between getting in a fist fight and having your face pounded while a gun is held on you.
2013-11-02 01:42:43 AM
1 votes:

Shedim: Triumph: Meh - reminds me of when people get bent out of shape arguing about whether something is a "hate crime" or just a regular plain old crime.

Are you implying that there's no difference between raping a sex worker and shoplifting, or am I reading too much into your post?


The judge didn't call it shoplifting, she called it armed robbery. Pulling a gun on somebody and threatening their life ought to be the main issue.
2013-11-02 01:36:58 AM
1 votes:
Theft of an illegal service?  How is that legally enforceable?
2013-11-02 12:06:54 AM
1 votes:
Being a judge doesn't mean you can be judgemental
2013-11-02 12:02:59 AM
1 votes:

Triumph: Meh - reminds me of when people get bent out of shape arguing about whether something is a "hate crime" or just a regular plain old crime.


Are you implying that there's no difference between raping a sex worker and shoplifting, or am I reading too much into your post?
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report