Rape...ish
If you kill someone suicidal, you've still committed murder. Likewise, if you force sex on somebody who's in the business of having sex, under the law, you're still doing more than stealing their services. Somebody should tell that to the judge, who happens to be a woman. Jill Porter writes for the Philly Daily News:
A DEFENDANT accused of forcing a prostitute at gunpoint to have sex with him and three other men got lucky, so to speak, last week.A Philadelphia judge dropped all sex and assault charges at his preliminary hearing.
Municipal Judge Teresa Carr Deni instead held the defendant on the bizarre charge of armed robbery for - get this - "theft of services."
Unbelievable.
Deni told me she based her decision on the fact that the prostitute consented to have sex with the defendant.
"She consented and she didn't get paid . . . I thought it was a robbery."
The prostitute, a 20-year-old single mother, agreed to $150 for an hour of oral and vaginal sex on Sept. 20, according to assistant district attorney Rich DeSipio. The arrangements were made through her posting on Craigslist.
She met the defendant, Dominique Gindraw, 19, at what she thought was his house, but which turned out to be an abandoned property in North Philadelphia.
He asked if she'd have sex with his friend, too, and she agreed for another $100.
The friend showed up without money, the gun was pulled and more men arrived.
When a fifth man arrived and was invited to join, DeSipio said, he asked why the girl was crying - and declined. He helped her get dressed so she could leave.
It's true the prostitute negotiated sex with the defendant - but not unprotected gang sex at gunpoint.
"The Legislature has defined sex by force as rape," said DeSipio, accusing the judge of "rewriting her own laws."
DeSipio said Judge Deni's ruling was based, not on the law, but on moral contempt.
"Certainly if a jury wants to make that judgment, they're entitled to. But for a judge to make a judgment on a human being - I've never seen that before."
Deni did seem contemptuous of the victim:
"Did she tell you she had another client before she went to report it?" Deni asked me yesterday when we met at a coffee shop.
"I thought rape was a terrible trauma."
A case like this, she said - to my astonishment - "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped."
Uh, judgie...the woman was really raped: sex was forced on her. That's rape. Whether or not you think she's a slut. Whether or not she had a "client" before she reported it.
Just like we don't allow thought crimes (except for the dumb, wrong hate crimes law) we shouldn't allow thought victims; i.e., the woman seems to have a more cavalier attitude toward sex than most women, so...fuck her!
Yet another reason to legalize and regulate prostitution. This would never happen at the Bunny Ranch, or whatever it's called.
eric at October 22, 2007 8:10 AM
I think there will always be abuses, legalized or not, but my attitude about prostitution has always been, "It's your body, sell it if you want to."
Amy Alkon at October 22, 2007 8:20 AM
It sucks that we wind up deciding finer points of law by looking at people who hang around in abandoned houses and trying to decide who is the biggest dumbass.
She got raped. The men are rapists but how the fuck are civilized people supposed to come to her aid when she won't display the common sense of a tree stump?
She had no reasonable expectation of safety in that situation and the rapists had no reasonable expectation that they couldn't do whatever they wanted. She is lucky to be alive. Let the lawyerin' begin.
martin at October 22, 2007 9:31 AM
I don't disagree with you, Martin, but some thug has no reasonable expecation, either, that they can't run off with an elderly lady's pocketbook...but it's still illegal.
Amy Alkon at October 22, 2007 9:34 AM
Yup, the law as written is the first line of defense and I expect this judge will be hung out to dry.
I'm just saying, people who really believe in getting government the hell out of people's lives should be careful who they put on their posters.
martin at October 22, 2007 10:33 AM
These men gang raped a woman, end of story. It doesn't matter if she were a kindergarten teacher of a batshit crazy homeless woman. They should be treated and punished as the predators they are.
eric at October 22, 2007 10:39 AM
Exactly. Well-said.
Amy Alkon at October 22, 2007 10:57 AM
Right there with you eric but what do we do in those pesky cases where the accused has the bad manners to say they didn't do it and the evidence isn't CSI-ready? What if it is your son or brother etc. who is accused? Still don't care if it is a school teacher or nutjob making the accusation?
If this woman had been found in that house with a hole in her head, the men would have been charged with murder the same as if she had been a kindergarten teacher. No one is saying her worth as a person is in question.
But if her real complaint was that she didn't get paid then that's how it should be prosecuted and that is what advances the cause of letting people take their own chances and take their own lumps.
A true Libertarian has to be able to look someone in the eye and say "tough hop."
martin at October 22, 2007 11:08 AM
"Right there with you eric but what do we do in those pesky cases where the accused has the bad manners to say they didn't do it and the evidence isn't CSI-ready? What if it is your son or brother etc. who is accused? Still don't care if it is a school teacher or nutjob making the accusation?"
Sure, I might care very much about the circumstances of the rape & the nutjob status of the alleged victim if the defendant was a chum or kin, martin.
But - thankfully - it's not up to you or I to decided how "pesky" we find the details when deciding whether or not the law says a crime took place.
And the arguable "peskiness" may well figure in the sentencing.
Amy - no pushover in these sort of arguments - is right.
Jody Tresidder at October 22, 2007 11:23 AM
Her complaint isn't financial. And I will be the first to admit I look at many rape accusations with a suspicious eye. But that doesn't mean that rapes do not occur.
Remember - "When a fifth man arrived and was invited to join, DeSipio said, he asked why the girl was crying - and declined. He helped her get dressed so she could leave."
(I just deleted about 5 paragraphs of soapbox morality, but...) I bet most men would agree with me that a man who participates in the gang rape of a prostitute would probably also participate in the gand rape of a drunken co-ed, that may be your daughter or sister...
eric at October 22, 2007 11:27 AM
Even if her complaint were financial, prostitutes have the right to go for the gold in court just like anybody else.
Amy Alkon at October 22, 2007 11:34 AM
It stopped being a matter of non-payment and became rape when they forced her to continue. She had a verbal contract with the first and then the second guy, if when the first refused to pay or when the second guy showed up without cash, she was allowed to leave, THEN you've got theft.
When I've escaped some near tragic experience relatively unscathed, sound judgement isn't an immediate by-product. It's later when my brain has time to examine it outside of "fight/flight" that I can consider what an appropriate response should be. Turning another trick seems like an odd reaction to most of us, but many folks carry on "business as usual" as a means to deal with trauma.
moreta at October 22, 2007 11:37 AM
"Did she tell you she had another client before she went to report it?"
It's her job, and she needed the money to feed her kid. She was raped and suprisingly money didnt come magically to her, she still needed to preform her job.
This judge sickens me. These men deserve to be punished. Agreed sex for money is quite diffrent than forced sex on a prostitute.
PurplePen at October 22, 2007 11:41 AM
"Sure, I might care very much about the circumstances of the rape & the nutjob status of the alleged victim if the defendant was a chum or kin"
It'd be nice if you cared very much no matter who the parties were (that's the whole idea behind the blindfold on the Justice Lady statue)but it's certainly not a requirement. And the Law can't tell us whether or not a crime took place, only how to apply the evidence on hand.
"I look at many rape accusations with a suspicious eye. But that doesn't mean that rapes do not occur."
Well sweet mother of mohammed on a hang glider I hope not. But for some people, any due process short of execution upon accusation is a fresh transgression against the victim. For them, looking at evidence and trying to figure out what happened and how to respond is the same as saying all rape accusations are lies. Do we have a justice system or don't we?
"I just deleted about 5 paragraphs of soapbox morality"
Your call but if you've got time to write it, I can find time to read it.
"I bet most men would agree..."
As I said before, I am right next to you with tidy pile of fist-sized rocks and loosening up my rotator cuff. Find me a big enough hopper and I will flush these guys personally; it doesn't have to be my sister etc. These guys are the shit on the shoes of society. That's why I am not a judge (well, that and the law degree thing.)
"It stopped being a matter of non-payment and became rape when they forced her to continue. She had a verbal contract with the first and then the second guy, if when the first refused to pay or when the second guy showed up without cash, she was allowed to leave, THEN you've got theft."
Do you see the level of detail here? Do you see what you are asking the justice system to do? I don't want the machinery of government hovering over my shoulder every second of my life collecting evidence to be used in an endless cycle of civil and criminal litigation. We don't KNOW what happened between these people. She tried to get paid for something most people do just for fun and she got outgunned. How does she enforce her "transactions" when it's only one guy? What is her customer service policy regarding refunds and exchanges? She is in a dangerous line of work and it doesn't sound like she has the chops for it.
I'm not saying she deserves to be raped. I'm just saying it might be beyond the power of the law to do anything about it.
martin at October 22, 2007 12:09 PM
Martin,
Do you have a short term memory problem?
YOU asked:"What if it is your son or brother etc. who is accused? Still don't care if it is a school teacher or nutjob making the accusation?".
I said, yes, I'd probably care more - human nature and all that, and you respond:"It'd be nice if you cared very much no matter who the parties were (that's the whole idea behind the blindfold on the Justice Lady statue)"
Why would you specifically ask about whether a very close relationship to the accused might make an individual's personal, emotional reactions to the case different, if you didn't want the question answered?
My honest answer to your somewhat trivial question assumes Justice is not swayed by the (understandably) biased opinions of the friends/relatives of the accused.
And a good thing it is too!
And you've not given a single sound reason why the law can't deal with this case.
Jody Tresidder at October 22, 2007 12:41 PM
JT: I have no recollection of a short term...uhm thing. I most certainly did want an answer and your answer worked just fine to establish that our sense of "justice" fluctuates depending on who is involved.
You went on to say that it's not up to us to decide etc. but I happen to think it is up to us in the sense that we vote, serve on juries etc. People's feelings and opinions are part of the equation.
And I am NOT saying the law can't deal with this case because the law already has dealt with this case (and will continue to deal with it I'm sure.)
The question of whether "justice" has been served is still up in the air.
At any rate, these people make a terrible foundation for a decent discussion. I wish this woman had a better life and that these guys would all go volunteer for a medical experiment.
martin at October 22, 2007 1:24 PM
"You went on to say that it's not up to us to decide etc. but I happen to think it is up to us in the sense that we vote, serve on juries etc. People's feelings and opinions are part of the equation."
Martin,
Isn't an immediate cause for disqualification as a juror the fact that one is the defendant's mother/friend/lover in a case because you couldn't possibly be expected to reach an unbiased verdict?
Or have I got that arse about face?
Jody Tresidder at October 22, 2007 1:41 PM
JT: I suppose you are right that anyone with anything resembling an opinion about laws or public policy would be bounced off most juries in a nanosecond.
But the popularity of opinions and the unpopularity of jury duty seem to operate as a self-reinforcing system.
By way of personal interest: Are you a subject of HRH or is "arse" finding its way into broader usage?
martin at October 22, 2007 3:11 PM
Martin,
I think I AM right (though as per usual it's a state-by-state thingy regarding the particulars). Looks like a prior relationship with the defendant that could/would affect your impartiality as a juror gets your bounced for "cause" before you've made the seat warm- whether or not you have commie/liberal/feminist views (as I do sometimes)on top.
And, yup, I'm a damned immigrant from the UK. Though pretty pro-USA - indecently so according to chums!
Jody Tresidder at October 22, 2007 3:36 PM
Amy's blog loads slowly tonight. I blame the fires. The Treacher/Danicki blog is pretending it's a DOS attack, but that's what a blog called "Blowing Smoke" would say during a crisis like this!
> the woman seems to have
> a more cavalier attitude
> toward sex than most women
It's not that she's cavalier, it's that nobody wants the state to audit the traffic in her underpants, especially given her career complications. The judge fucked up, but still....
> they can't run off with
> an elderly lady's
> pocketbook
Elderly ladies don't earn a living by illegally trading the intimate contents of their pocketbooks. When an elderly lady engages in a legal transaction (or transit with cash), the full force of law defends her interests, with much public goodwill.
Rape law is no fun, even when it's just he said/she said after a few drinks following the company softball game. All intimate law sucks; people should be discouraged from relying on it.
Maybe the judge is an asshole, but prostitutes are assholes, too. And I don't want hookers thinking the state should be responsible for cheaply doing the enforcement work of pimps. Should people who rip off heroin dealers be prosecuted? Maybe, but as long as you have a drug dealer standing in front of Sgt. O'Herlihy's desk, swearing out that complaint....
> people who really believe
> in getting government the
> hell out of people's lives
Holy fuck, I agree with Martin.
> They should be treated and
> punished as the predators
> they are.
Word. But if we're as certain that the woman is a violator, can we punish her to the same proportion of her crime? You can't be angry with the judge as you are without conceding this victim's ancillary guilt. I'm annoyed with her because she's complicit in this attack.
> But - thankfully - it's not
> up to you or I to decided
> how "pesky" we find the
> details
Guess again, Brit-breath! Ever do jury duty? The pesk-itude is dumbfounding.
> Even if her complaint were
> financial, prostitutes have
> the right to go for the
> gold in court just like
> anybody else.
If her complaint were financial, I as her juror would have the right to tell her to go fuck herself, right?
> It stopped being a matter
> of non-payment and became
> rape when they forced her
> to continue.
The contract is unlawful. Why quibble over its mechanics? If this woman (a single mother) sold her kid into slavery, would you care if the buyer missed a payment? Would you be angry if her finance charges exceeded the New Jersey state usury caps? People, we as citizens don't want to have to adjudicate --and pay for the adjudication of-- this horseshit.
> many folks carry on
> "business as usual" as
> a means to deal with
> trauma.
Where that business is unlawful, we shouldn't be any more patient than we were before the trauma.
> It's her job
It's not a job, otherwise she'd list it on her tax forms. It's literally a vice.
> These men deserve to
> be punished.
Of course they do. But if she'd been obeying the law, we'd not have to prosecute her attackers, right? The law tried to defend her.
> Your call but if you've
> got time to write it,
> I can find time to
> read it.
Yes yes.
> I'm not saying she
> deserves to be raped. I'm
> just saying it might be
> beyond the power of the
> law to do anything
Martin, our concurrence makes me terribly uncomfortable.
Crid at October 22, 2007 10:06 PM
Amy's blog loads slowly tonight. I blame the fires. The Treacher/Danicki blog is pretending it's a DOS attack, but that's what a blog called "Blowing Smoke" would say during a crisis like this!
Actually, I was down for about five hours -- very upsetting. 1and1 is my server company, and this is the second time in two days I've had an outage I knew about. Gregg has been very busy, but I think he's moving me very soon.
Amy Alkon at October 22, 2007 10:26 PM
Crid,
I'm an immigrant from the UK, but I'm not British. So you can stuff "Brit-breath" back where you found it.
The crime before the judge was an allegation of rape - not the legal status of the victim's job.
Your personal prune-faced, lace-curtain-twitching opinions about hookers are neither here nor there.
Jody Tresidder at October 23, 2007 5:58 AM
Your personal prune-faced, lace-curtain-twitching opinions
Catfight!
Amy Alkon at October 23, 2007 6:38 AM
Jus' wanna be sure you're reading, Niblets!
> The crime before the
> judge
That's precisely the point, contexts don't fragment into the pieces we prefer, not in the courtroom or than anyplace eles. Jurists can re-clump them anyway they see fit. I seen it happen.
Crid at October 23, 2007 9:24 AM
Crid,
You are all over the shop on this one.
The "work" of prostitutes is apparently beneath your lofty regard because it's a vice not listed on her tax form.
Then why do you allow a pragmatic nod and a wink to "the enforcement work of pimps"?
And, contrary to your implication, there is most certainly an intended difference between the courtroom and "anyplace else".
The intention is to minimize the commonplace personal prejudices and hang ups (including on matters you delicately refer to as "intimate law" for example) of the dozy, reluctant bunch in the jury box.
Jody Tresidder at October 23, 2007 9:54 AM
You've seen "Pretty Woman" too many times, and have too many fantasies of prostitutes as thoughtful, otherwise-integrated personalities momentarily aground on the rocky shoals of civilization's masculine coastline...
> beneath your lofty regard
> because it's a vice not
> listed
Oh, take the point: It's a vice. It gets policed by a team called the "Vice Squad." It's not just my lofty regard, it's beneath all my middle and lesser judgment as well. Prostitution sucks! It's a bad way to make your living. It's bad for the 'tutes. It's bad for the Johns. It's bad for their families and friends and their whole communities (including our revenue agencies) and I'm agin' it. Understood? There's a reason that you, unbidden, put irony qoutes around the word "work".
> a wink to "the enforcement
> work of pimps"?
Who's winking? I want them in jail. Their work is criminal, and I don't want the state of Pennsylvania doing it for them. Without prostitutes, there'd be no such duty. And as it happens, prostitution is against the law. Works out for everybody!
> there is most certainly an
> intended difference
Your intention, but nobody else's. When the state loses its way, it hires a juror, because jurors know what's actually going on out there.
The "commonplace personal prejudices" are yours, and Julia Roberts thanks you for your attention to these matters:
Lay a whisper
On my pillow
Leave the winter
On the ground...
Crid at October 23, 2007 10:31 AM
Crid,
I'm not the one with "fantasies" about prostitutes and reality, old bean.
And I get the point - you don't like 'em!
When you note (of pimps)... "Their work is criminal, and I don't want the state of Pennsylvania doing it for them..."
...We have a problem.
No one was asking the state to do a pimp's job. The question facing the judge - and the state - was whether there was evidence a rape had occurred.
And I don't like the state flinching at the question and denying it should be investigated because the defendant isn't sufficiently adorable.
Jody Tresidder at October 23, 2007 11:42 AM
> No one was asking the
> state to do a pimp's job.
Of course you are. Again, again: The state has already protected prostitutes from the this kind of thing by making it illegal. (And Purp or whoever, above, was correct to characterize this a dispute over prices: The woman hadn't been attacked if she weren't a prostitute.) She was operating outside the law. As it happens, there's a common security arrangement to which practitioners of these darks arts commonly avail themselves. But traditions don't make righteousness, do they?
The judge didn't want to bother with this one when she has a docket full of rape cases where the victims did follow the law to protect themselves but may have nonetheless been violated. I sympathize. This victim presents an inherently compromised complaint, and time is tight.
You may be a magnificently compassionate person, but that's not what institutions are about, and it never will be.
Very weird light here in West LA at high noon, like a February sunset.
Crid at October 23, 2007 11:59 AM
Wouldn't have been attack etc. Sorry about the typos this week, can't see the screen through the smoke
Crid at October 23, 2007 12:01 PM
Y'know, Crid, I hope you and those out there with you are okay...
Flynne at October 23, 2007 1:02 PM
You angel you. I'm in the safe, impoverished, flat part of SoCal, along with 23 million fellows. On the California Apocalypse index, this rates only 3.7 out of ten... It's not like a football star murdered his wife or anything.
Somebody, maybe McPhee, pointed out that the geology that makes this place so hazardous is precisely the sources of its attraction. You pays yer money and you takes yer pick. More people died in Chicago's cold than died during the Northridge earthquake.
Crid at October 23, 2007 1:11 PM
Crid,
Again with the silly!!
"The state has already protected prostitutes from the this kind of thing by making it illegal."
Courts do tend to deal with people who do illegal things, actually.
They are really quite used to it.
So, to recap, you've got four guys with a gun accused of gang raping a lone hooker after conning her into meeting one of them in a derelict building. The fifth man calls a halt 'cos she's crying.
And your sympathy is with the busy judge who throws out any sex charges because of a more pressing docket full of violated virgins (which you've just made up).
Don't get it.
Jody Tresidder at October 23, 2007 1:35 PM
There's a feminine --by which I mean naively girlish, not feminist-- preciousness about sex at work here... A rainbow & unicorn daydream of supernatural intervention in human affairs where behavior is irrelevant, and momentary (if much later and distant) measures of feeling tell us about right and wrong, because "No means no!," and the endlessly loving Daddy figures of our culture have all the time in the world to listen to our clumsy narratives.
(Only stories of the girly heart, though: My tales of drug abusers and slavers could not excite your interest.)
And it's not the judge who's being skittish. Your recap ended a little early, but even though our reporter in Pennsylvania is on your side (as liberals usually are), she plowed onward:
| Deni did seem contemptuous
| of the victim:
|
| "Did she tell you she had
| another client before she
| went to report it?" Deni
| asked me yesterday when
| we met at a coffee shop.
|
| "I thought rape was a
| terrible trauma."
|
| A case like this, she said
| - to my astonishment -
| "minimizes true rape cases
| and demeans women who are
| really raped."
By the most obvious, bankable, and I think just) morality of the street corner and the water cooler, this case was doomed. But now it's obvious that the victim had done everything imaginable to befoul the physical investigation of the crime. Even if you want to pretend that it mattered to her, what would you expect prosecutors to do? Is there any doubt that this woman, as an afterthought on a busy night, hoped that society might be tricked into doing some pimp-ish price stabilization?
Perhaps the judge was taking it personally when she decided that wasn't what she went to law school to do, but again, I sympathize. Law is human, not supernaturally robotic.
Our reporter is blind to her own proud words:
| But crimes are prosecuted
| not out of sympathy for
| victims, but to maintain
| the rule of law in a
| civilized society, to
| punish a criminal and
| prevent further crime.
Crid at October 23, 2007 2:46 PM
"Is there any doubt that this woman, as an afterthought on a busy night, hoped that society might be tricked into doing some pimp-ish price stabilization?"
Yup, shit loads of doubt there, Crid.
Wow. This is easy. Next?
"I thought rape was a
terrible trauma." (Reporter's self-quote).
Nope. Reporter is terribly mistaken. Depends on the woman. Thought we'd got past identikit concepts of appropriate shame/suitable distress.
Next?
Perhaps the judge was taking it personally when she decided that wasn't what she went to law school to do, but again, I sympathize. Law is human, not supernaturally robotic.
Who is emoting girlish sympathy here?
You know when only being "human" is a fine excuse? When you forget to take the giblets out of the turkey before cooking. Or when you missed your nephew's Sunday morning trumpet recital.
It's not "human" for a judge to decide that if a woman has a sloppy cunt, she deserves to be treated like one.
Next?
Jody Tresidder at October 23, 2007 4:08 PM
> if a woman has a sloppy
> cunt, she deserves
Did the judge say that? Gosh, your rhetoric is getting all heated and McKinnon-y.
The woman did nothing to protect herself, or to assist us in pursuit of her justice. She basically dusted herself off and went on about her (criminal) business. It's difficult to feel more upset about it than she did, and I think people who struggle to do so are trying to believe in Disney magic, and not on her behalf.
"Rape" describes a crime, a particular behavior in a particular context. It's not an incantation. It's not a secret pixie/Seuss term that makes the world grind to a halt as Sandy Duncan-ish fairies appear to validate grievance without regard to circumstances. Until the end of time, when a woman claims to have been raped, sensible peers are going to ask "What happened?" It's a safe bet that this judge has seen (and read) more rape trials than you and I have, and thoughtfully decided to call this to a stop. Can you imagine what the rapist's defense attorneys would have done to this woman on the stand? What fulfillment could have come to her? To her community, which pays for the trial? To you? It would not have affirmed the personhood of a downtrodden underclass; it would have further diminished the impact of a word important to all of us.
This computer has a cheap, fast-loading language tool ("The Sage" from Sequence Publishing) which offers the following for "crime." See especially #2:
1. (criminal law) An act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act.
2. An evil act not necessarily punishable by law.
It's been great to clear this up for you.
Crid at October 23, 2007 5:18 PM
Also, I think the reporter was quoting Deni regarding the "terrible" part. But the reporter was obviously overwhelmed by the issues under discussion, which may account for her lack of clarity in the article...
Crid at October 23, 2007 5:25 PM
"It would not have affirmed the personhood of a downtrodden underclass; it would have further diminished the impact of a word important to all of us."
These, Crid, are sentiments for the haughty newspaper opinion leader writer after the case has proven whether or not the alleged rape took place.
The message, the wider implications, the "impact of a word important to all of us" - these are not matters relating to the woman's claim.
You have decided what we should - in theory - take from a case which has not been heard.
"This woman did nothing to protect herself... etc etc" is for the appropriate lawyer to argue in defense of the men. And it makes great rumbling copy too.
But it's not the point, is it? It has nothing to do with the central legal issue: was she, or was she not, raped.
Yes, my rhetoric has gotten heated. It's to burn away the taste of all your sodding pixie dust.
Jody Tresidder at October 23, 2007 6:36 PM
Deni is Tinkerbell... (Poof!)
Crid at October 23, 2007 7:47 PM
Also, Crid.
You might want to make up your mind about the judge?
In your defense of her position, the judge has mutated from being "an asshole" to "not want[ing] to bother" with the case, to "thoughtfully" coming to this decision.
Which is it?
Like you, I'm no lawyer but there's something awfully familiar about this line of yours: "Can you imagine what the rapist's defense attorneys would have done to this woman on the stand?"
Isn't the usual TV and film response from the woman's professionally outraged lawyer something like: "Can it you imagine being gang raped at gun point by the four defendants and then being told you don't count as a rape victim?".
You simply seem to have a "feeling" that rape doesn't really happen to whores.
Jody Tresidder at October 24, 2007 5:11 AM
Around town, I see "the fifth man" being hailed as a hero. Maybe. But ordinarily, there is a word for the story of someone who comes upon an armed felony in progress and tries to put a stop to it: Eulogy.
How is it he is noble enough to rescue a damsel in distress but ignoble enough be invited to such a gritty get-together in the first place? I am guessing he is her pimp and as the only friendly witness to the woman's accusation, he represents an obstacle to successful prosecution although that seems like a call for the prosecutor to make rather than the judge.
martin at October 24, 2007 7:14 AM
"How is it he is noble enough to rescue a damsel in distress but ignoble enough be invited to such a gritty get-together in the first place? I am guessing he is her pimp and as the only friendly witness to the woman's accusation, he represents an obstacle to successful prosecution although that seems like a call for the prosecutor to make rather than the judge."
Martin,
It hadn't even crossed my mind the 5th guy could be her pimp. It isn't beyond the realms, I guess - though unlikely?
Didn't it start as sex-for-cash in an apartment via Craigslist - i.e. it wasn't intended as a street trick? So it's not at all obvious that a pimp would be there necessarily as a lookout. (This is the sort of detail that would quite properly emerge, as you say).
But I don't quite understand why you asked your first question.
Why is "whoa, guys!" so very hard to understand?
You don't even have to romantically conclude the refusnik was motivated by decency.
Maybe he wasn't turned on by a woman crying? Maybe he'd already had a brush with the law? Maybe he didn't care for sloppy seconds? Maybe he just didn't like the guy who'd gone fourth? Maybe she simply wasn't behaving like a tramp is supposed to?
I can think of any number of less-than-noble explanations for why guy number 5 went from zero to hero.
Jody Tresidder at October 24, 2007 7:50 AM
I was reading all the comments here and I am asking myself if we are witnessing a cultural backlash against rape victims.
In a judicial system where mens can't have the consent of a women if she got a single glass of alcohol or if he need to stop any sexual relation in the plain middle if woman say a weak "no" between two pelvic trusts, I say it was to be expected. Of course, a rape is a rape but I feel we should dig deeper into this story instead of staying at the "PC" level of things.
One example; If a prostitute delivers her services to a John who refuses to pay her, can she claim rape? After all, her consent was conditional to a payment for her services. As much as I believe misguided the judgment against the prostitute, I can only wonder what peach a guilty judgment would have.
Toubrouk at October 24, 2007 8:10 AM
Interesting comment, Toubrouk.
I do think there should be more discussion of what should happen to people who make false accusations of rape. Personally, I think they should be made to serve the term the accused would've, with conviction.
Amy Alkon at October 24, 2007 8:35 AM
Toubrouk,
I also agree that's a very good question.
I'd say your example is not rape. Cheap, opportunistic behavior, sure! But not sex without consent. (That's only a reasonable hunch, though).
Yeah, the backlash thing makes sense.
But because there's always an ebb and flow in public opinion, it's even more crucial the law should not try to follow it.
Jody Tresidder at October 24, 2007 9:22 AM
"But I don't quite understand why you asked your first question."
JT, if you mean the question about his "nobility" I was thinking of questions he'd be asked on a witness stand to challenge his credibility.
martin at October 24, 2007 10:05 AM
> make up your mind
> about the judge?
Consistency is a hobgoblin, like research. I didn't read the whole post and link until late yesterday. (Amy kinda slid that "client" line past me with a speedreader's fastball. Takes one to know one.)
> the judge has mutated
I mean this sincerely: You're bracingly counter-persuasive. Last night I worried you'd had some bad experience that generated enthusiasm, and resolved (too late) to let it go. But if you're up for another round...
This was a tabloid squib designed to set the hens a-cluckin', and that's what it did. Let's pretend the article is a good review of what's known, and that this judge and her court and its contenders are what they seem to be (an urban operation).
> Isn't the usual TV and
> film response from the
> woman's professionally
> outraged lawyer
I haven't the vaguest clue what you're getting at with this. The petty perspective of a fiction-lover's aggrieved righteousness is what bugged me about your position. (And Amy's, though it's tough to tell when she's pulling our leg or just enjoying an alt-weekly's dustup.)
> Which is it?
I think the guys raped her. This is like stories of American soldiers pillaging Germany or anywhere they've fought. It sucks, but what did you want? If you've set guys in motion in that context, you don't get to fuss over every next behavior as if it were a handshake at cotillion. And in this case, I'm arguing there should be no war: Prostitution is illegal! You often smirk about boyish brutishness being a problem because society tolerates it. But in this case, it doesn't.
We gotta 20-year-old single mother. An anonymous electronic solicitation has been answered. She's in the company of half-a-dozen male strangers. (Would you be surprised to learn there were really only four, or six?) It's night. They're in an unfamiliar abandoned building, presumably breaking and entering. They're all preparing to commit a crime. Specifically, they're quibbling over the price of BJ's.
(Is that enough pornography? Can you think of a more dangerous circumstance? A more probable context for violent sexual assault? Care to imagine a dear young family member or loved one on her side of the negotiation? After all, it's just a "job"....)
And during this reprehensible shitbath of mutual exploitation, you've selected this one special moment for society to drop a flag and cry "Foul!" All the lawlessness theretofore (and all the incompetence thereafter) vanishes in your mind, and suddenly we're expected to duck our chins, suck in the upper lip and confess that sometimes, masculinity can be mean-spirited and whores can be raped, too!
Well, Lil' Biscuits, we know they can... That's why whoring's against the law. But you're being inexplicably petulant. You've picked an insane place to draw the line, and civilization has done a better job. AgainAgainAgain: I don't want to have to adjudicate any sexual encounters, and certainly not ones as fraught as this.
Jody, please answer just once: What do you want? How would a virtuous, real-world prosecution of this go?
You must have some idea, otherwise you wouldn't be annoyed with the judge. If no answer follows, presumably your distress is what's felt when a bodice-ripper confesses its plot arc, as the plantation vixen (Joan Collins) steals the stable boy (Fabio) from the pantry girl (Meg Ryan). It's just not fair!
Crid at October 24, 2007 10:14 AM
"Jody, please answer just once: What do you want?"
Crid,
I thought I'd answered in bold. I thought I'd answered in italics. No matter.
I think it would be right if the men were charged with raping the woman.
Why are the circumstances "fraught" as you put it?
Obviously, because she trades sex for cash. She behaved with cretinous disregard for her safety, at the very least by not scarpering the moment she saw where the agreed-upon apartment meeting was actually taking place. She further messed up the evidence in her underpants.
I do understand this.
You keep dressing up the same point over and over.
You say 'she was a stupid prostitute. Therefore, it is best if she doesn't claim rape.'
I say, 'I know she was a stupid prostitute. [No conjunction]. It appears she has been raped.'
Then you keeping chucking different, sidebar reasons for why it is "best". So far, these have included the judge's asshole character, the judge's timetable, the expectations of the Crid-centric community, the ordeal the hooker likely faces on the stand and so forth.
Nowhere do you present the legal argument.
Nowhere do you seem to acknowledge that your fastidious reaction to all adult sexual intimacy court cases involving prostitutes might well be a little singular.
Yes "it sucks".
I think the law can handle it.
(And, no, I have not been raped. I would hope, had I been, that I would have said so earlier - in the interests of what passes for "fairness" in these discussions).
Jody Tresidder at October 24, 2007 11:08 AM
Crid,
I've just had a terrifying thought.
May I ask a further question?
If you HAD to pick one person you instantly disliked more than the other - and you were equally certain they were both speaking the truth, and you knew you'd never see either again - who would it be;
Woman A) who said: "I am a prostitute".
Man B) who said: "I raped a prostitute".
Jody Tresidder at October 24, 2007 11:30 AM
> I thought I'd answered
> in bold.
But you won't describe a probable outcome, as with my guy who robs heroin pushers. And it's in the real world that your distress doesn't apply.
> I think it would be
> right if the men were
> charged with raping
> the woman.
It wouldn't be productive. You presumably would pay the taxes to humiliate and distract all these distant players (including bailiffs and chamber janitors) for your amusement. The judge takes the transaction of justice more seriously.
> Why are the circumstances
> "fraught" as you put it?
Because she'd so willfully, lawlessly, and obviously compromised her safety.
> You say 'she was a
> stupid prostitute.
I never said that. (She was, but still, I never said that.)
> Therefore, it is best
> if she doesn't claim
> rape.'
She can claim whatever she wants, but she has to make a jury care.
> the expectations of the
> Crid-centric community,
My people adore me! We share a precious bond!
> Nowhere do you present
> the legal argument.
Why would I? I'm content with the outcome. You're the petitioner, but you can't muster a scenario beyond "Let's do this!" Urban courtrooms are busy places. Do you think you can get conviction? How would it go? Do you think that question is irrelevant?
> might well be a little
> singular.
Beloved Hitch had a hot night last week and came upon a moment like this at 6:30 into this clip (you can scroll forward to the precise moment with the viewer nowadays. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsamdA86e8w But you should watch at least this whole clip and the following ones, if not the entire show. Boyfriend was on fire!)
I'd be happy to stand alone on this and many other things... See Amy's post about picking teams from yesterday. But as it happens, our hired, experienced jurist in the courtroom agrees with me and not with you.
I choose Man B, but sleep contentedly knowing that that's not the question. Your scheme is spectacularly weird anyway, so don't be "terrified". We don't "instantly pick" from two simultaneous presentations.
Context, OK?
Crid at October 24, 2007 11:51 AM
Another lunchtime of weird sunshine on the carpet, but I'm sure we're gonna get this all cleared up real soon! That plucky little Meg Ryna is gonna turn out OK!
Crid at October 24, 2007 11:53 AM
" You presumably would pay the taxes to humiliate and distract all these distant players (including bailiffs and chamber janitors) for your amusement."
Crid,
The court reporters! Don't forget the court reporters!
Used to be one. Sorry, slipped my mind earlier.
It's neither here nor there, but bailiffs were often spectacularly well-informed, super-gossipy, inclined to lay odds in a cold-blooded fashion, and desperate for distraction. A rum bunch, actually. I wouldn't worry about their feelings.
"Do you think you can get conviction?"
Yes, I certainly do Crid.
And, no, that's not without relevance to any case going forward. The fifth man witness is - I think - important to the likely conviction.
Since you brought up community reaction earlier: what message does it send that raping a prostitute isn't the same as raping a person?
For all the reasons you've argued here, the rape of hookers does generally go under reported. My excellent evidence for this is whenever some psycho starts killing them as well, and the police finally go public - the community is often stunned, yes stunned, to discover how many attacks on the Night Ladies have previously slipped under the radar.
And what if "Meg Ryan" (good god, Crid - can't you pick someone else for your sidebar soap operas?)- simply looked like a hooker? Y'know - wrong frock, wrong derelict building, one lonely night, one pushy john and - hey - you can't rape a hooker!!
"You're the petitioner, but you can't muster a scenario beyond "Let's do this!".
You didn't ask before.
But as I just said in this reply, I don't think a conviction in this endlessly fascinating case is out of the question at all.
I'll watch the Hitchens later. Look forward to it.
Jody Tresidder at October 24, 2007 12:52 PM
So then abortion actually is murder, not just disposing of property?
rusty wilson at October 24, 2007 3:10 PM
> I certainly do
HOW?
READTHIS---> How?
> the community is often
> stunned
Yesyesyes, you're so much more sensitive and aware than other people. But you have these incredible powers to share your insight and....
> You didn't ask before.
246p 10/23: what would you expect prosecutors to do?
518pm 10/23: What fulfillment could have come to her?
1914am 10/24 How would a virtuous, real-world prosecution of this go?
And still you can't find the time! You don't want justice, you just wanna cluck.
> conviction in this
> endlessly fascinating
> case is out of the
> question at all.
Dozens of messages later, you still can't make a moment to tell us how it's supposed to go. You're busy; there's a roast in the oven, your stories are on TV, the kids have soccer. But you're just certain it can happen, and you want us to trust you on this.
I hate your mind, Tressider.
Crid at October 24, 2007 10:46 PM
Crid,
Your work here is done.
You've seen me off this topic.
I'm not a lawyer, I haven't seen any of the detailed statements and I can't therefore devise an authoritative strategy for prosecuting the woman's claim that she was forced to have sex with a gang at gunpoint.
But your condescension is rattling me. And, once again, we've got into my apparently witless generic female sensitivity and your sniggering mockery of imagined domestic priorities.
I've been ignoring them - but it simply seems to goad you further.
Go fuss with a salad yourself, Crid.
Jody Tresidder at October 25, 2007 4:48 AM
Guilty as charged... You push my buttons
Crid at October 25, 2007 8:14 AM
JT, I'd like to see you back onto this topic because you wouldn't let go and because I have a thing for U.K. flavored syntax.
There was a story in the news this morning about a woman who was attacked on the streets of my city and rescued by the police. She was minding her own business when a known, convicted and registered sex-offender grabbed her from behind and began beating her. She was sure she was dead when a spotlight flooded the scene. Rough men in crisp, blue uniforms pressed his face into the concrete, snapped steel restraints on his wrists and began explaining to him his many, many rights. She is alive and well, if frightened, because those cops were NOT off mediating a trade dispute in an abandoned house.
You posed a hypothetical choice between a rapist and a prostitute that shines a bright light on how you see this situation. If it helps, re-read the part where I am right there with decent people everywhere giving this guy the "help" he needs. But the HUGE point we can't overlook is that nobody walks up and admits to being such a despicable thing; the system forces us to treat him as innocent until we can PROVE he is guilty.
And this goes back to my own hypothetical question about the accused being a loved one: would you treat your own brother or husband or boyfriend or father etc. as you would a violent, woman-loathing rapist only on the word of the woman in this newspaper story and the man who rescued her? The presumption of innocence is part of the fabric; pluck that thread and the whole thing comes apart.
Having said all that, this judge was WRONG. It is the prosecutor's place to decide there is not enough evidence to press the strongest charges, not a judge's. But she put this case in the news and if it gets the word out to people that their safety depends in some part on staying where the law can help you, I will take that as a glint of good in an otherwise sorry pile of human misery.
martin at October 25, 2007 9:16 AM
And as far as legalizing prostitution, consider this. Rape is not a political crime. It is not a coherent statement about the relative worth of various demographic groups. It is a desperate and pathetic attempt to assuage a deep-seated sense of worthlessness at the expense of another human being. And procuring a prostitute is the same damned thing.
martin at October 25, 2007 9:20 AM
"And this goes back to my own hypothetical question about the accused being a loved one: would you treat your own brother or husband or boyfriend or father etc. as you would a violent, woman-loathing rapist only on the word of the woman in this newspaper story and the man who rescued her? The presumption of innocence is part of the fabric; pluck that thread and the whole thing comes apart."
Martin,
I know my answer seems shabby on this one; taking your "boyfriend/father" - for me, the best example would be our two sons, who straddle the age of majority - they're 17 & 19.
My assumption that there's more-to-this-than-meets-eye in the case of a newspaper story would come from parental shock, intimate knowledge of who I think they are, it would be emotional and thus hugely corrupted and biased.
My ability to grasp the facts would be lop-sided at the start - and terribly compromised even after a conviction.
I daresay, again even after a conviction, I'd initially be full of lovingly moronic excuses and blame-flinging (at others, or because of some "provocation") in private - and so would their father.
And my small shrill voice in this would be eclipsed by others - from the prosecuting authorities to all those who were aware of the facts printed but without my emotional entanglement & I'd have to learn to cope with it.
What you're asking is when I - as a mother - would be ready to suspend all of the unconditional love that flows to one's young? What would it take?
More than printed words in a paper. I'd have to get over my protectiveness to accept what I'm assuming is a horrible, unequivocal truth. And even then there would be "a" unique-to-us connection of sorts.
(And, yeah, I have read We Need To Talk About Kevin by Lionel Kennedy! Which famously explores just this subject. This was a UK best seller a couple of years back and Kennedy is a single woman without children, despite her name and the mother-of-a-monster theme).
I just don't agree that the whole system falls down on this basis.
After all, say I ran across another adult talking about another newspaper rape case - and the adult claimed it was all bunkum - and I was startled. If the adult then admitted: "I"m the mother or father of the accused" my eyebrows would shoot up and I'd mentally decide "whoops - wrong person to ask!"
Jody Tresidder at October 25, 2007 10:46 AM
"I just don't agree that the whole system falls down on this basis. "
We do agree then because I don't think the system failed so much as it was short-circuited by the judge. If the rape case had run its course, there'd have been a verdict and we'd never have heard about it because it happens too often to report, fuck it all.
I don't think you need for me to tell you how courtrooms operate in the realm of what can be proven, not "he said, she said" and not whose feelings got hurt the most.
It's your answers to the hypotheticals that are of interest to me. Obviously what we'd do under various extreme circumstances is unknown but the answer I assumed most people would give to mine is that anyone who accuses my boy had better be able to show me some proof.
Your answer suggests to me that you'd feel an obligation to believe the accuser even if it meant your boys were...I can't believe I am understanding you correctly and I'm hoping you can explain this to me.
I'd want my son presumed innocent and given a fair trial. (And because I love my son, you had better chain me to something heavy if you find him guilty.)
And if is my daughter who is doing the accusing, under any circumstances at all, the accused should beg to remain in police custody.
People seem to understand all that until the charge is rape. Why should the presumption of innocence be set aside or weakened in the slightest in the case of rape? No one is winking at rape and letting rapists off with warning. It's a terrible crime and it needs to be driven from the face of the earth but the presumption of innocence and the right to due process have to be maintained.
martin at October 25, 2007 11:51 AM
Martin,
You wrote (carefully) that:
"Your answer suggests to me that you'd feel an obligation to believe the accuser even if it meant your boys were...I can't believe I am understanding you correctly and I'm hoping you can explain this to me."
Re-reading everything just as carefully - I can see why I gave the wrong impression in my answer above.
I assumed I had to accept my son the-accused-rapist was indeed guilty as charged - as (coincidentally)indicated by our lurid hypothetical newspaper account!
I thought you were equating my 'loved one' (ghastly phrase!) with "a violent, woman-loathing rapist". And "a...rapist" is someone who is guilty of that crime - otherwise he's strictly "an alleged rapist".
So, yes, I agree. Exactly as you say. You'd bet I'd want proof! Tons and tons of it.
And I agree with everything else you wrote just above - including despair with the system-circuiting judge.
Jody Tresidder at October 25, 2007 1:20 PM
Well then it is official. This is as close as I have ever come to having a meeting of minds with a self-described part-time commie/liberal/feminist. It tickled a little but I liked it.
Cheers.
martin at October 25, 2007 2:03 PM
How fun this is still going!!!
To reiterate the points of others, if prostitution were legal, this would be far less of a problem.
On the whole rape thing and whether this should be considered rape, bullshit. If she said stop, they need to stop. If they don't, it's rape. That's pretty fucking simple. If my partner and I are having the sex and she gets a pain and says stop, if I don't (which I would and have) it would be rape too.
ut
Lets pretend it's not a prostitute. Lets say it's a college girl who decides to fuck a couple guys at the same time. Lets then say that several of their friends show up and decide to gang-bang her. She starts screaming for them to stop, but they don't, is it rape? After all, she's obviously a slut, what's with fucking two guys and all that. I mean don't these guys have a reasonable expectation that because she'll put out for two guys, of course she'll love getting gang-banged?
DuWayne at October 25, 2007 2:17 PM
"This is as close as I have ever come to having a meeting of minds with a self-described part-time commie/liberal/feminist."
Treasure it Martin (and DuWayne), it may be the last...
(kidding...!!!)
Jody Tresidder at October 25, 2007 2:30 PM
Hey now, I'm not exactly a commie, but I am a lefty feminist. I have plenty of agreement (and disagreements) with my commie, leftwing nutjob friends. Far moreso than with my fascist, rightwing nutjob friends. . .
DuWayne at October 25, 2007 2:35 PM
"Treasure it Martin "
Oh, you know it, it's on my fridge.
martin at October 25, 2007 7:36 PM
Leave a comment