Business as usual?

[wordsmythe]

Jill Porter | Hooker raped and robbed - by justice system? | Philadelphia Daily News | 10/12/2007

Jill Porter | Hooker raped and robbed - by justice system?

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."

The defendant was charged in an identical incident involving a 23-year-old woman four days later, DeSipio said.

Neither woman knew the other and both told identical stories. The other men involved in the attack couldn't be identified.

DeSipio was so stunned by Deni's ruling in the first case that he refused to present the second one.

"I wouldn't demean her that way," he said of the second victim, calling the proceedings "a farce."

Judge Deni then threw out the second case for failure to prosecute.

Police Detective Jack Ryan, who investigated the incidents, said the victims in the two cases "were in fear for their lives. Since they saw one of the doers really well, it crossed both of their minds that they'd be killed."

Deni's decision to drop the sex charges is " frankly, appalling," he said.

Deni acknowledged that her ruling and remarks would be controversial.

"I know I'm going to get killed on this."

But she said she has to "sleep at night with what I decide."

And on the night of Oct. 4, when she ruled in the preliminary hearing of this case?

"I slept well."

Certainly the victims don't inspire much sympathy.

Why waste taxpayers' money for what some people consider an occupational hazard?

There are enough sympathetic victims without wasting time on prostitutes who ask for trouble, right?

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.

I like Deni, but reducing rape to theft of services?

It's an insult. And it's more evidence of the skepticism and contempt most rape victims - prostitutes or not - confront when they seek justice in court.

DeSipio said he'll file to reinstate the charges in both cases right away - before a different judge, of course.

Hopefully, the next judge will be better able to differentiate between a violated business agreement and a violent attack. *

[TigerEyes]

Hate to say it, but I agree with the judge.

The guy who bargained with her - and his friend - should be charged with "theft of services." The other two should be charged with rape.

Can something you're willing to give away really be stolen from you?

[The Drifter]

Questions: Prostitution is illegal right? So entering into a contract of sex for money is not a real contract and can't be upheld in court? Therefore if one was to not pay a prostitute then nothing could be done about it?

[Highwayman]

Guess who’s up for retention election in two weeks?

Retention Election Judge; Municipal Court; District 1 Election Information November 6, 2007 Election

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by The Drifter

Questions: Prostitution is illegal right? So entering into a contract of sex for money is not a real contract and can't be upheld in court? Therefore if one was to not pay a prostitute then nothing could be done about it?

Well in the state of Kansas selling pot is illegal but you have to pay your drug tax and buy pot stamps.

When you are caught they charge you for not having one.

[Flying Dutchman]

Rape is rape, pure and simple. That is why Justice is blind, or do some forget that. Morality is for the pulpit, not the courtroom. This judge is/was wrong and should be held accountable for it.

[TigerEyes]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

Rape is rape, pure and simple.

OK. Let's strip the moral issue down.

I'm a woman. I make a contract with a man to provide him a service in exchange for money. He accepts the service but fails to pay.

If the service contracted for is a full body massage (without the happy ending), it's theft. If the service is sex, it's not? How can it be rape when she clearly and admittedly agreed to have sex? With TWO of them?


I think you're wrong, Dutchman. Rape is never pure and rarely simple.

[Flying Dutchman]

She could have agreed to have sex with 200........but if she says no to number 201, and he does it anyway, then it is rape. Yes, it is that pure and simple. The statutes do not say anything about what the person wears, does for a living, drinks, eats......it says intercourse WITHOUT CONSENT, and saying no is considered not giving consent. Being held at gunpoint and forced to have sex is not considered consent.......unless one is into that sort of stuff.

[TigerEyes]

That's my point exactly! It's about the consent. She consented to sex with guys 1 and 2. They failed to pay. She did NOT, however, consent to guys 3 and 4. That's where the rape comes into play. I'm not saying she didn't get raped - just that the guy who was charged with the crimes did not rape her.

[Flying Dutchman]

I stand corrected then, and I appologize Tiger.

But, if the first two guys were conspiritors, and aided in the rape, then they are guilty of rape also.