They weren't found guilty of anything to my knowledge. There was only a preliminary hearing. The case did not go to trial. What is not in dispute are the preliminary facts: suspects pulled a gun, forced prostitute to have sex with them. Those facts can't be sorted out, refuted, etc., until and unless the case goes to trial through discovery, cross examination, etc. The prosecutor withdrew the case, hoping to present it to another judge instead; hoping Judge Deni was the only judge who would redefine rape charges as theft of services.

Droop, Entspeak has said a prostitute can be raped, but not while she's on the job.


Do you agree with this? Because if you do, you're saying a prostitute can be raped on the job.

Wait a minute. It's not rape if there is no such thing as being raped on the job. It's theft of services, right?


No. A specific charge of rape has to be proven in a court of law. This isn't happening because one judge has decided the case can go to trial, just not for rape.

Uh, because she said so? The transcript of her testimony claims the men said that she was going to do it for free, or they would kill her. And I have no evidence to believe that anything other than what she said happened. None of the men have come forward trying to clear their names; one of the men committed the same crime with another woman a few days later; no other news articles are disputing the incident.

According to this article, the judge upheld the charges of robbery, conspiracy, and false imprisonment. She only dropped the rape and sexual assault charges.

I am finding it difficult to believe that the men falsely imprisoned her after she consented to have sex with all 5 of them.

My views might be different if one of the men had come forward and said she was lying. Or if their testimonies said something different. But that's not the case, so I am going off what Ive read.



Well, no one but the ADers are saying that a prostitute wasnt held at gunpoint and forced to have sex. Since we only have the facts printed in the articles to go on, then those are the facts we need to work with.



And from the way youre talking, rape only happens to people who never have sex in exchange for money; and it can only happen if the victim acts the way you deem appropriate.

In case the answer to your question isnt obvious, yes rape has to happen in order for one to be a victim of it. I've never said otherwise. The difference is that you think that when someone pulls a gun on a prostitute, and him and his buddies gangbang her isn't rape. I happen to think it is.

Lesly brought up a good point: when a child accuses an adult of sexual assault, the credibility of the child isn't put to question. Why is a sex crime against a child more important than a sex crime against an adult?

Oh, my mistake then, I was tripped up by this paragraph;
Link.
I didn't realise judges charged people I thought thats what the police did. I thought judges passed sentences so I assumed thats what had happened, especially when I read how the defending lawyer responded;
Link.

I guess I owe Droop an apology for assuming I understood the matter fully and he didn't but I'm unsure as to the extend of our discord, for although the men have not been found guilty, as KeepUp has already pointed, Jane Dalton of the PBA has voiced her concerns over this matter after reveiwing the case (indeed its her criticism thats brought this matter to our attention here at

I may not fully understand the how an American courtroom works but I am satisfied that the Chancellor of the PBA does.

So, sorry Droop let me rephrase my answer:

I have no right to call these men rapists except that I beleive they are. The reason why I believe this is because the judge who threw aside the charge of rape then charged them with armed robbery and theft of services.

If you steal something from someone using a gun to force them, and the thing stolen is sex, that in my mind is a rape, regardless of who the person is or what they do for a living, forcing them to have sex at gun point is rape. Judge Deni obviously believed these men were guilty of 'armed robbery' and 'theft of services' but not rape.

In my mind 'armed robbery of sex' is just another way of saying rape.


edited for spelling

I just wanted to add a bit more perspective on the questions of credibility and explanations for the victim's behaviour.
I belong to the sex work advocate crowd so I came across discussion there first. One woman in the trade posted her speculation as to why the victim may have made the choices she did. I am not sure the forum I am taking it from would want to be linked here so I am just posting that quote because I personally found it to be a very profound and likely explanation:

She is a single mom, she is only 20, she is getting her clients from craigslist, she is probably not doing any type of meaningful screening, she is desperate enough to set aside good judgement and go ahead with a date in an abandoned property (she was led to believe it was his home she would be going to), and she may or may not have a pimp or boyfriend in the picture as well. These facts of the story lead one to assume the girl is likely coming from a poor background, and one where she was not valued as a person, and as often is the case, a background of abuse and/or neglect.

Part of the story mentioned that after being raped by all those men, they asked her “why you crying?” That is a telling fact. And the fact that she went to another appointment after the incident leads me to believe that she was so desperate for money (either to satisfy her pimp or to put food in her baby’s mouth) that since she did not make any $$ from that appointment, she had to go to the next one or come home that night empty-handed.

Another reason she may have gone to that other appointment is that it took awhile for the reality of what had happened to her that evening to set in and for her to decide that she didn’t have to just accept it. When you don’t have enough self-esteem or any sense of your own self-worth, you often accept awful things that are done to you without much question - beatings, abuse, etc. Personally, I do not come from a background of abuse or neglect, but at various times throughout my life, and even in the past year in this “job”, I have been subjected to things that were not right. At the time, I accepted them and went on, but then after reflection, I would come to realize - hey, that was not right, I did not deserve that.

I can totally understand the delay in reporting. In addition to those other factors, there was most likely fear of reporting the crime against her because of her profession. She may have feared that she would be arrested for prostitution if she reported it. I know that I would have that fear, and it would make reporting anything other than the most outrageous crime against me very difficult to do.

That whole sentence... They were never convicted of anything as far as I know. In fact only one man has beed identified. LIke I said this is what you call railroading.. that is what is happening to this Judge.

Because no one cares about what really happened, everyone just wants to fight for the right of women to call anything rape. The judge is saying..."she consented and didn't get paid.

MOIF at this point all we have is an accusation. The only evidence that we have that it happened the way she said is her word. A lot of Rape cases are he say she say, but when you have a woman who was not paid the chief witness, she has motive to lie. When you have a women who claims to have been raped, but continues to see clients there should be great concerns over her redibility of being raped.



I don't know who Nifong is, nor do I want to look it up. But you tell me why you put all this faith in the Jane Dolton that says...



The victim has been brutalized twice?!?!? Jane Dalton, didn't even need a trial to KNOW that the assailants brutalized the accuser, before publicly declaring Ms. Porter as a brutalized victim. Exactly, how proper is that??

You tell me Keepup

Of course, it is the trial that would decide guilt or innocence. But the judge maintained the charges of assault and "theft of services" yet threw out the rape changes. By not sending it to trial as a rape case the Judge denied her experiences right away thus not even giving her a fair trial. So yes, I too believe she has already been brutalized twice.

Right now, in my view, you seem to be doing to this woman, what you believe we are doing to those men. We insist that ALL charges should be included in the case and go to court and stand trial. Whereas you appear to have already acquitted the men of rape.

Give her a fair trial?!?!?! Was she accussed of something?

So you believe she was brutalized twice from what evidence??



I accept. Now I show a quote of this Chancellor grandstanding for the media... what do you say to that??

have no right to call these men rapists except that I beleive they are. The reason why I believe this is because the judge who threw aside the charge of rape then charged them with armed robbery and theft of services.


KimPossible


Well, will you or wouldn't you? Would you change you position if one of the men came forward and said it did not happen.



The facts? The facts?!?! When did allegations become facts KimPossible?? You're not dealin with facts, but I'm sure you've convinced yourself you are.

Lesly


Don't tell me yet another person that does not know the difference between fact and allegation...


Yes and no. Can a woman get raped while on the job. Well if she is on the job and the job is sex... No. If she isn't havng sex yet, yes she can be raped. But legally speaking I think judge does have to throw out a claim of rape to a prostitute that has consented to sex.

If the transaction has taken place.. the prostitute has consented to sex... that is the very nature of prostitution, correct??



And yet every story labels her a rape victim... can you explain this??


Let me ask this. Is he committing rape, if he makes her screw his freinds?? Legally speaking??

Well, here's something about Mr. Gindraw, the accused, that you seem to have missed in Jill Porter's original article, droop224:

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."

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/2007...ce_system_.html

You can cry me a river about how Gindraw's sparkling reputation has been besmirched, but instead of an innocent man falsely accused, he seems to be a dumb punk who enjoys brutalizing women. He and Judge Deni should go out on a date. I'm sure he'd express his gratitude to her in a very personal and intimate way.

But what about the woman in question here? What's her hard luck story? Porter wrote another story and interviewed her:

She's a 19-year-old woman who struggles to support herself and her infant daughter - while she cares for her sick mother.

"I'm a single parent by myself and I go through so much - it's so hard," she told me this week.

Her disabled mother spends months at a time in the hospital - which prompted her daughter to drop out of school when she was in 10th grade.

She'd been working as a home health aide earlier this year when a friend who advertised as an escort on Craigslist urged her to follow suit to make money.

She'd been doing it a few months when, on Sept. 20, she arranged to have protected sex with a man and his friend for $250. But when she showed up, the man pulled a gun and forced her to have unprotected sex with him and three other men.

"I was crying, I was begging for my life, telling them I had a little girl at home," said the victim, whose name I'm witholding for her privacy and safety. http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/11074601.html

Who is the victim here? Certainly not Dominque Gindraw.

No, you aren't saying a prostitute can't be raped. DaytonRocker isn't saying a prostitute can't be raped. Entspeak isn't saying a prostitute can't be raped. If you were to say that a prostitute can't be raped or deserves to be raped, you would be rebuked as horrible, misogynists and sexists and deservedly so.

Being called out as a "misogynist" or "sexist" carries a negative label. But not as negative as being called a whore or a rapist though.

What you are saying is because a woman is a prostitute she forfeits the benefit of the doubt and the same legal protection as any other woman does. She has to reach a higher threshold of evidence to convince you of her victimization since she has chosen to engage in sex with strangers in exchange for money. Since she has apparently chosen to debase herself by banging creeps in abandoned buildings, she's a dirty whore and whores so offend our sensibilities that unless they are ravished by a horde of serial killers they are undeserving our our understanding, sympathy or legal protection under the law. As she is already "damaged goods" in the eyes of some of the posters here, they seem to fairly incredulous there's even a controversy here.

It's at times like these I wish some of members whom are professional sexworkers were still posting. Perhaps they could provide a perspective missing from and badly needed in debates like this one. The lack of understanding and the shallowness of some of the statements posted in this thread is breathtaking in how disconnected they are from reality.

I am not a woman and I am not a sexworker, but I know a few whom are both and most of them don't consider themselves whores. Some of them quit good jobs or bad jobs to go into business for themselves. As I've said in other prostitution discussions over the years, I wouldn't want my daughter to grow up to be a hooker, but I wouldn't want her to grow up to be a secretary who has to bang her boss to keep her job either.

One thing that is good about a topic like this is how it tends to bring out posts not just from the male majority of , but the often marginalized female participants of this board as well. Not surprisingly, their responses tend to be a bit different from that of the men. Wonder why that is?

Certainly not because they are sexworkers themselves, know any women that are or have anything but a mild to severe disgust for sexwork. Maybe it's because regardless of their personal feelings they are still women and even if they don't know someone who has been raped (though I would guess more women know of someone who has been raped than most men), as women the threat of rape is always present. Rapists don't care how pretty or ugly or fat or thin or Black or White or young or old or busty or flat as a board.

All that matters to a rapist is she's a woman and that makes any woman a potential rape victim. I don't think men walk around with that same nagging fear in the back of their minds. One blogger who was raped has her own viewpoint and not surprisingly, it differs with that of the judge---and those who agree with her decision to let the rapist walk.

As for Judge Deni's insinuation that the accuser didn't "behave" like a rape victim because she "had another client before she went to report it," there's no such thing as a "typical" response to rape. Immediately following a rape, some women go into shock. Some are lucid. Some are angry. Some are ashamed. Some are practical. Some are irrational. Some want to report it. Some don't. Most have a combination of emotions, but there is no standard response, no single indicator to "prove" a rape has happened. (Or disprove it.) Responses to rape are as varied as its victims.

And if you're a 20-year-old single mother who's turning tricks to put food on the table, being gang-raped at gunpoint doesn't magically mean there's money in your pocket afterwards.

Though it's just as likely, if not more so, that the delay had more to do with shock than pragmatism.

I also suspect if the victim had been a male neurosurgeon who did another surgery and saved a life before he reported a sexual assault to the police, we would be hearing about Judge Deni praising his heroic stoicism.

Anyway, I'd like to assure Judge Deni, as one of the women who was "really raped" that she's so worried about demeaning, that I don't feel demeaned by the rape of a woman of any profession or personal circumstancebeing called what it is. I do, however, have a serious f***ing problem with the idea that someone who holds a gun to a woman's head, rapes her, and lets his friends rape her while he holds her hostage with a deadly weapon isn't a rapist.

link

There's been a lot of words written here about how this woman "chose" to be prostitute and along with the choice comes the inherent risks. Perhaps the risks of prostitution come with the financial benefit. However, all "choices" are not equal. If a woman says she chooses to be a prostitute, that word is deconstructed letter-by-letter and assumptions are made that are never made when a woman is in a violent relationship with a man who regularly beats her. We wonder aloud why a woman would not "choose" to leave a lout who thrashes her and leaves her bloodied and bruised. An abused woman is never judged as harshly because rationalizations and reasons are presented as to why she cannot leave. With a prostitute it has to be that she choses to have sex with strangers or she's on drugs and has to sell her body to get a fix or her pimp will hurt her if she doesn't work the streets or this or that.

It is presumed choices can exist in every situation, no matter how coercive, but not in prostitution.

Odd. I thought the benefit of the doubt was reserved for defendants under the American maxim "innocent until proven guilty." If there is an increased doubt due to her occupation, then it should be, as rightly suggested, to the detriment of the prosecution as guilt must be proven over every plausible explanation.

Prosecutors must contend with every eventuality. They are never entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Usually it is. That would require a trial for that which the defendants have been accused. In this case, the judge has determined that a prostitute cannot be raped on the job. In this case, the judge has determined that a prostitute cannot charge a group of men who hold a gun to her head and force her to have sex with them with rape. Ergo, She isn't afforded the same legal protections that other women would be. That's what this debate is about. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Though the case itself might be harder to prove in court, that fact isn't relevent here. The only relevant fact is that the judge threw out charges that would qualify as rape for any other woman, due to this (I'll add "alleged" to please Droop, DR, CR and BA) victim's occupation. I guess on these grounds, one could argue that even murder isn't murder, just a little S and M gone wrong, that wasn't paid for....

For that matter, if a man rapes a woman and then gives her money, does that make her a prostitute? Is everything 'square' then?

I must say, this is the most saddly illuminating thread we've had in a long time.

...you know this entire story is taking on a very "Duke" vibe to it.

And how is that? The Duke players were actually charged. Was it their similar criminal background for holding women at gunpoint? The similar avenue of meeting up with women in an abandoned building to hook up? Their penchant for Craig's list? I give up....

The victim's story is twisting somewhat. Accusations are flying. She's not really sure who did what except for one person. We've all pretty much found the men guilty without any proof. We're piling on the judge's decision without any real knowledge of her history and process. Stuff like that.

Fact: The judge charged these men with 'armed robbery theft of services', for the (alleged) crime of rape at gunpoint. This is not in dispute. Whether the men are guilty or not, the courts will decide but determining that rape at gunpoint (and when a gun is used one cannot simultaneously deem that consentual) is now 'theft of services' would indicate...well, everything I said above. IMO, it's a damned scary precedent for a number of reasons, and primarily it is a gross injustice to the (alleged) victim who ALSO deserves equal protection under the law.

The purpose of the people in this story meeting was sex - not murder. The activity that rape requires was the foundation of their meeting. Should all prostitutes be able to claim rape after every man they service to get more money? It's not like the guy was there to paint her toenails and somehow sex got involved. Sex was the purpose of the meeting regardless of the contractual agreements. Not murder.

Not to be that guy, but they charged the Duke kids with rape too.

Look the last thing the world needs is another "rape victim" caught in a lie... As for the judge - on one hand I almost understand where she's coming from, on the other she's a flat out psycho.

This debate I think has been a very evident and disgusting display of what the term "rape culture" means in our society today and it's unfortunate remaining relevance.

I don't understand how "theft of services" occurred when services were never rendered. Isn't a service a product given, provided? She never gave her service so her service was never provided. I hadn't read anywhere that this woman sold nonconsensual gang rape sex, in fact I think her services were consensual sex so how exactly was she ever given the opportunity to provide a service? Perhaps if she had sex under her own consent and then was not paid...but then I somehow doubt the courts in Philly would have considered this a crime.

Any other service provider would have been without question a victim of assault if they were held captive, and forced at gunpoint to provide a service they did not consensually agree to provide, the fact the assault in this case was sexual makes the assault a rape.

If someone entered my kitchen during my open stated business hours, as I have advertised, and forced me to make them dinner at gunpoint even though I told them I did not want to, meaning I did not consent to the transaction I think I or any other person would understand the difference of this crime to that of someone skipping out on the check at the end of their meal. I think that once consent is removed in regards to any service that the idea of the party receiving the service still maintains the role as customer and the party providing the service still retains the role of service producer is just ridiculous.

If those of us who do provide more acceptable forms of services are allowed the luxury and recognition of denying services to anyone we feel uncomfortable providing a service to, something we most often see stated as our right, why are prostitutes not afforded these rights?

And already the facts of the story change. Originally, she arranged to have protected sex with a man for $150. Then she showed up and the transaction changed. So, which is it? I mean, we are basing this entire thread on "facts" from the media.

As Deni's lawyer explained, the judge makes decisions based on more than the words used by witnesses, but by their tones and demeanors. The PBA Chancellor read a transcript. It is difficult to tell if someone is being less than truthful by reading a transcript. The Chancellor's response seemed to be intended to distance the Association from a judge they'd recently endorsed while the judge was involved in a controversy - a cover my butt, maneuver.



This is ridiculous. It's like arguing that a cable operator doesn't sell "stolen cable service", so a person can't steal a service that isn't provided... stealing cable is not theft of service, because "stolen cable service" isn't a service the cable company provides.



Sure, the former would add a charge of assault with a deadly weapon - that would be the difference. Both would involve defrauding a business or theft of service.



Who here has said that a prostitute can't deny service? I don't think anybody has. What I'm saying is that it is, in fact, a "service" that has been denied and stolen... which is, or should be, very different from a case of rape.

Can you not read? I highlighted the part of my post that answers this question. I said they might change. I think I would have to read the evidence before saying my opinion would definitely change.

Ok let me switch modes. I wanted some one to answer a question, but no one did. So allow me to elaborate on some suspicions. Deni believes this is a smear tactic due to an up coming election. (by the way she just won).

I asked a question no one answered. Maybe, because some of you, didn't think it pertinent.

QUOTE

Let me ask this. Is he committing rape, if he makes her screw his freinds?? Legally speaking??

First there is a misconception that must be adressed before i go any further. This is important. Judges rarely, if ever, make charges. In a preliminary hearing they uphold charges, they throw out charges. Yet many of you are saying the Judge is saying she was "robbed of sex". Lets think on this as a debating community, not just argue against each other.

Those charges would have been leveled at the accussed by the... the prosecutor.

Which brings up a question that oppossers of my argument, why she charge him with the other crimes (which she didn't.) But a good point. Why allow other charges to stand if the witness is unbelievable... I didn't know. But now peices are coming together, and it is conjecture, but I feel it is logical.

First question, for those willing to listen to me... why did the prosecution make these charges?? Conspiracy, theft of services, robbery?? We are upset at the judge for upholding them, yet, we have not question why a prosecutor would charge them.

Here is a story.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307245,00.html

Put it together. Or at least tellme if what I am saying is plausible.

Robbery upheld: He allegedly took her cell phone and purse
Theft of services upheld: He allegedly did not pay her
False imprisonment upheld: He allegedly made her stay against her will.
Conspiracy upheld: He allegedly made her have sex with his three freinds.
Rape: Dismissed due to the fact she consented.

The robbery charge has nothing to do with he robbed her of sex. The judge didn't create this charge. If he had sex with her with the promise his freind was coming with money... that is consentual.

The story clearly states he is accussed of making her have sex with the three other men at gun point, not himself. That means they would be rapists, not him. So if he did have sex then robbed her then did not pay her.. that WOULD be "theft of service".


So what do you all think?

I think either you can't read or you have no bloody idea what consent is. Take for example:


I have read nothing that indicates the prosecutor brought charges of theft of services against the defendant. Theft of services was Judge Deni's doing. She replaced rape charges with theft of services even though it is the prosecutor's job to present preliminary evidence, and yes Droop, preliminary facts to the judge. The judge then decides, based on preliminary evidence, whether charges should stick or get tossed out. She "tossed out" the rape charge and replaced it with theft of services. That was the judge's doing. Are we clear?

Frankly I think you and a few other people haven't read the articles posted on this thread from top to bottom. Go read all of it: Judge sparks furor after tossing rape charge involving prostitute

I mean it's right in the lead for God's sake: In a rare rebuke, the city's bar association condemned a judge who dismissed rape charges in the alleged gang rape of a prostitute and instead called it a theft of services.

If you keep posting half-truths I'm going to assume you just want to troll.

The way I read the story she didn't have sex with Gindraw before he pulled a gun on her. It was after, when his friends arrived. If someone can show me she had sex with Gindraw before the gun was pulled, before his friends arrived, then based on what I know only his friends should be charged with rape, and Gindraw and his friends should be charged with other items (robbery for taking her phone and purse, imprisonment for keeping her against her will, etc.).

I think you've demonstrated pefectly how a rape can be wittled down to a meaningless technicality about 'services' by people who rate prostitutes as 'whores'. Essentially this leaves all prostitutes helpless against any man who wish to rape them. All the men have to do is stay within the parameters of lesser crimes such as 'theft of services' (or what ever other absurd phrase fits their purpose) and if they are even caught at all they can argue their way to freedom. Imagine if this guy hadn't actually pulled a gun...

The irony is, its this disrespect that leaves prostitutes at the mercy of the pimps and criminal gangs.


Legally speaking I don't know and I suspect no one here really knows this unless we have some astutue lawyers or judges amongst us. Julian's posted definition of rape seems good enough for me however.

In my opinion, any woman being forced into having sex against her wishes, even if it is by a criminal sex slave organisation as we see ever increasingly in Europe is being raped each time she is obliged a threat to have sex. Even the people she is having sex with are ignorant of her circumstances that doesn't change the nature of her circumstances.

Why did you highlight facts?? Is this some kind of rebuttal to what I said earlier?? Are you contesting my statement that there is a difference between allegations and facts??

Next I stand corrected... all this talk of "theft of services" I thought there was a charge. There wasn't a theft of services charge at all. Her calling it that does not indicate that.



We are not clear. One article( the one you quote) says she called it, not charged him. Another articles is that the charge is "robbery because of theft of services" We are far from clear.



You've only posted one side... hell only one side is even exposed, and you talk about half truths. Show me a half truth I've posted?? By the way you read the full article... right there it says "Dominique Gindraw was accused of ordering the accuser at gunpoint to have sex with three men"




The judge heard the testimony and called it consentual. Why?? For the rest...Thank You agreed.



Then make it legal and we wouldn't have this problem. I'm all for it.




My question would then be who is raping her. Is everyone one that is part of the criminal organisation guilty of raping the woman, even though they don't have sex.

Also... I don't know the facts by what are the consiracy charges in relation to?? If it is conspiracy to rape, then the judge is somewhat acknowledging that a woman held at gunpoint was raped.

The judge upheld the charges... she did not create the charges. In order to uphold the charges, the prosecutor would have had to bring forth those charges. This statement is included in the article you quoted. And she did not replace the rape charge with a theft of services charge. If you keep posting half-truths, I'm going to assume you are trolling.



If this is true, then she had sex with Gindraw before he pulled the gun. Because the only one of the five men who showed up who didn't have sex with her was the last one.

No actually what is ridiculous is the fact so many feel the need to continue the idea that a person's body is equivalent to a cable operator's wires and so the protection afforded for each must be the same. Why not use a more appropriate analogy I wonder? If you insist on seeing this subject through the idea that sexual activity is a service, an action of labor, then why not equate it with an actual act of labor.

If a person was to ask a doctor to come to their home for a house visit and then held that Dr. against his will, by force of a gun, and made him commit physical acts he did not wish to do, maybe a rectal exam, are they just merely stealing his services? How ridiculous. Just because a doctor will perform rectal exams it does not mean he now has a reasonable occupational risk of having them stolen from him and it certainly does not mean that when he is violated in this manner he is only being cheated of his monetary compensation.


Do you feel a surgeon sells only the use of his hands? So that anything he could do with his hands he has for sale? Or do you perhaps think his service involves skill, a set process, a license of practice and yes his own physical free labor. Doesn't a service have to be defined and then provided by or rendered by the willing party in order to be in fact a service? We do not define service as anything someone wants and could perhaps be willing to pay for.

Obviously many here have a hard time making the distinction between consensual sex and nonconsensual sex and how one could be considered a service and how one is and should never be considered a service. If there is no distinction to be made, and no moral obligation on the part of our society to define the two than I would argue that one can sell a child, that I can sell the service of suicide and if I do so without consent I am just offering “free services” or that selling your organs is an acceptable transaction and that if you had your organs taken without consent after you advertised them for sale that you were merely robbed.

I personally consider this case to be a rape. But there is a small distinction that I am curious about.

Had she met with two men who wished to have sex with her at gunpoint (perhaps they were gun fetishists), who then proceeded to invite three of their friends, who then had intercourse with her under the barrel of a gun, and then paid her, would it be rape?

It's troubling. Especially in the field of prostitution, the legal definition of rape can balance on a dollar's edge.

The sex trade seems to thrive on perversion, and yet is preyed upon by that same perversion...the irony is painful, and depressing, all at once.

The judge upheld the charges except the rape charge. She "dismissed rape charges" and "instead called it a theft of services".


Entspeak, read carefully. Theft of services, theft, and services only appears in the lead in that entire Lancaster article. (Well, escort services appears once in paragraph 10, but that's beside the point.) The lead says "a judge ... dismissed rape charges ... and instead called it a theft of services."

The Fox lead is slightly different, but the context is the same: "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'."

Here's a third lead: "A city judge who reduced a rape charge to 'theft of services' in a case involving a prostitute assaulted at gunpoint was harshly criticized yesterday by the head of the Philadelphia Bar Association."

I don't know where you're getting the prosecutor brought theft of services against the defendant. What I've read about the prosecutor leads me to believe he's not that callous.


Yes, but the Fox article later says: "'[Gindraw] 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 may have (1) waited for his friends to arrive to rape her, (2) had consensual sex with her before he pulled the gun and helped himself to her services after he pulled the gun without her consent, or (3) had consensual sex with her before he pulled the gun and watched while his three friends raped her. From the articles I've read I think it is (1) or (2), or prosecutor DeSipio is just as much a legal activist as Judge Deni.

That's pretty close to the crux of the argument.

No other example provided in this entire thread has a foundation based on sexual activity - none. If sex were not the foundation of this meeting, the meeting would have never happened. So, sex can be anything the prostitute wants it to be. It can be a violent sexual crime/rape. It can be extortion for more money. It can be blackmail for further personal gain. Or it can be consensual - whatever the prostitute chooses. The opportunities are endless.

So, if it were rape, how do you prove that? How to you prove the sex couldn't have been consensual when she admitted she offered those men sex?

Uhh... yes. He agreed to come over to do perform a service, he was forced to perform that service at gunpoint, he wasn't paid. The individual who did that would be guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and defrauding a business or theft of service.

The same way you prove every rape case that starts with consent. I don't get these deer-in-the-headlights questions. I don't suppose Nevada's rape laws drastically different, maybe different at all, from the rest of the country's?

But you don't know at what point during the incident Gindraw made this statement or what 'this' refers to. We do know that Gindraw was accused of forcing at gunpoint to have sex with three men and we know that four men had sex with her that night - well, five if you include the next meeting she arranged that night. Which one did he not force to have sex with her at gunpoint?

Why not sexual assault? If the doctor was forced to perform an act of a sexual nature then why only assault? I would imagine that once the situation became a case of forced action and labor that the doctor no longer viewed the act of providing a rectal exam as just a "medical service" I would imagine it would be seen as a coerced, unwanted act that was sexual in nature. I know you wish to disassociate the fact that the service this woman in this story provided was sexual but I don't think you can, at least not honestly. Sexual crimes in our society are not held in the same regard as property crimes, with good reason.

You'd imagine, you'd imagine, you'd imagine. That's much like Mrs. Pigpen's "I'd expect."

Obviously you have never undergone a rectal exam. If you had, you would not consider it an act of a sexual nature. Would you consider a gynecological exam an act of a sexual nature? You referred to it as a rectal exam, I was taking you at your word. If a doctor is called for a house visit and forced to perform acts of a sexual nature, I'd say it was rape. If the individual started to refer to the rectal exam as an act sexual in nature, I'd also say it might be rape... the doctor's job has nothing to do with the performance of a sex act. However, if the individual does not refer to it or engage the doctor as if it was a sex act, then it isn't rape, regardless of how the doctor may "view" it.

If a masseuse is called to a house for a scheduled non-sexual massage, the person pulls a gun and forces them to go through with the non-sexual massage and doesn't pay, is it rape? No. It's a theft and assault with a deadly weapon. Why would that be different if an erotic massage is the service? Because suddenly it involves acts of a sexual nature? But acts of a sexual nature were part of the service, right?

I'm assuming none since I know he pulled the gun before she had sex with any of his friends. You want to assume (hope) she may have given consent after he pulled the gun?

Entspeak, do you think DeSipio would refile charges (I'm assuming rape included or he wouldn't bother refilling charges) in another common pleas court if he didn't think he had a small chance of proving Gindraw raped the accuser? Do you think Desipio is another NiFong? Is Judge Deni's Bar being taken along for a ride?

Then the numbers don't match up. You know? Really? You were there? You've read the transcripts from the preliminary hearing? You know? If you know, then please explain why Gindraw was accused of forcing her to have sex with three men when he was there, then his friend showed up with two more men... then a fifth man showed up later - who we know didn't have sex with her.

There seems to be a whole lot of knowing, expecting and imagining going on without taking an objective look at what appears to be alleged based on the reports available.

I didn't say I know. I said I assume going by the available information. What are you going by? Sometimes not by what's available out there as far as I can tell.

I haven't had any luck getting the transcript. Do you have it? The Philidelphia Bar Association's Chancellor Jane Dalton claims she read the transcript and wrote:

Judge Deni's retention of an armed robbery charge for "theft of services" in the case of a defendant accused of forcing a prostitute at gunpoint to have sex with him and three other men—and the related dismissal of all sex and assault charges—belies a basic understanding of what constitutes rape in Pennsylvania.

Based on my reading, the transcript clearly reflects that the victim decided she was not going to engage in sex with any of the men present, and that she was forced to do so at gunpoint. No one has denied or contradicted this.

Maybe Dalton is lying too? Do we have two Nifongs on our hands, the chancellor and the prosecutor?

Edit: I'm done for the day guys. I'm way behind on stuff.

You made that assumption based on something you claimed to know, did you not?



Well, then perhaps you can determine which reports are accurate and which ones aren't. Was he accused of forcing her to have sex with three men? Or four men?

There are also reports that imply that she made the agreement to have sex with two of the men before she showed up, and reports that she made the agreement to have sex with one man before she showed up and agreed to change it after she showed up. We also don't know the time that elapsed between her showing up to meet Gindraw and the arrival of the other three men or what happened during that time. I've also read reports that indicate that it was the "friend" that brought out the gun and not Gindraw himself. Perhaps you could let us know which of these reports is accurate based on what you know.

Yes, I claim to know the available information.


Allegedly four, Gindraw included.

Dalton: "We cannot imagine any circumstances more violent or coercive than being forced to have sex with four men at gunpoint." (Also quoted in the Fox article.)

The Phily article: "When the friend arrived, according to testimony, he had no money and was armed. The woman said she had been forced at gunpoint to have sex with four men."

The Lancaster article: "The prostitute admitted going to a home on Sept. 20 to have paid sex with a customer but said she was instead gang-raped by four men, including the customer, while he fixed a gun on her."

All three articles (I think) refer to the chancellor's rebuke.

I'm really not going to reply again today. Get angry with shoddy, fragmented reporting if you want, not with me for making my own sense of the reporting before posting my opinions. Well go ahead and get angry with me if you want. Doesn't make a difference.

Who said I was angry? I've yet to get emotional about this thing at all, really - intentionally. I wanted to look at this objectively. But you seem to believe that Gindraw should be presumed guilty of rape based on "shoddy, fragmented reporting."

Personally... emotionally, I think these guys are scum and need to be put in jail. Objectively, however, I have to wonder if they should go for a charge of rape or for a charge of assault with a deadly weapon and robbery. Based on what I've gleaned from reading the reports, I'm inclined to believe the latter. I do so for all the reasons I've stated previously in this thread.

Well, you're certainly looking at this coolly. Objectivity is another matter entirely.

It is not the Johns who initiate the transformation of sex into a saleable currency, but the Jills. You wrote this in an earlier post, ableit not word-for-word.

From there, you've made several jumps, and plausible ones, I admit, resulting in a completely "objective" conclusion; that a hooker on the job, cannot be raped, because she is in the process of selling her "goods." Said goods, when taken from a prostitute, legally constitute some other crime, instead of rape.

Oh objective, sure. But at a certain point, there is a need for empathy as well, Entspeak. Compassion, for those who sell their bodies because they have no recourse.

Objectivity and callousness. Please do not confuse the two.

Once again I have to step in here and say this is ridiculous. Were are talking about a human being here, not just some form of rendered services.

I am starting to see a clear lack of respect for women in this thread. I mean come one ent, you would fight for the right for a woman to choose. But you want to tell that same woman that if she is a prostitute and she is raped, "Oh well he just didn't pay you for your services"

No, no, no. I said they should be charged with rape, yes, based on shoddy reporting, including the prosecutor and chancellor's take on the case. You think Gindraw (not sure if you feel the same way about his three friends) should be charged with theft of services. I will continue to think all four should be charged with rape until I see the transcript or other information that refutes claims made by the articles and the chancellor, whom I expect will be in big trouble if she exaggerated/lied about the transcript, but I won't kick myself in hindsight if this turns out to be the case.

Have I said they're guilty of any charges somewhere in this thread?

Lesly



To repeat Entspeak, you KNOW?? At what point did you become so emotionally attached to this debate that you have come to know (or believe you know) the intimate details of what happened.





He is now.



In other words, you put the Justice system upside down and hope the guy can prove he didn't do it.

Objectivity can sometimes be perceived as callousness. But perception does not make it so. I have compassion for her. I don't believe a prostitute deserves to be raped just because she's a prostitute - that would imply that a prostitue could be sexually assaulted anytime and that couldn't be classified as rape, but never have I made that claim. I have compassion for many people and beings. I have compassion for a murderer on death row; that doesn't mean I don't look objectively at why he's there. And, no, I am not making a comparison between a prostitute and a murderer on death row.

Let me also say, that despite my personal belief that there is nothing wrong with selling one's body for cash, there is always a recourse - just because one doesn't realize it or want to accept it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Was this woman addicted to drugs? Was this woman unable to find other work? Or one of many ways she could "make more money." I mean, really... are you looking for me to pity her because she's a prostitute? I don't believe even she would want that. This woman took up prostitution at the recommendation of a friend. She was not forced into it.



That is an oversimplification of my position being used to claim that I have a "clear lack of respect for women." I wouldn't say it was accurate. I also believe that a woman has a right to choose but only up to a point, this has also been used against me to claim that I have a "clear lack of respect for women." This is why it is disingenuous to take a complex argument and simplify it. It isn't so black and white as people are making it.

But we also have the quote about him being accused of makin her have sex with three men. We have it reported the Judge saying. "It was consensual, she didn't get paid" That is the judge telling you that the sex is consensual. So it is not like I'm just going off of nothing.

Then we have a time line of she met the accused and did what in between the time his freind showed up?? Could be sex could be nothing.

And here is why the prosecutor would have charged him with rape. They didn't find anyone else. There are presumebly 4 other men involved, no one has been arrested. I do not put it past a prosecutor to place a higher charge on someone that will not give a cohort up.

In the end... we are doing the same thing from different angles. Conjecture. You think your reports substantiate your claim. All I see is a grandstanding Chancellor of the PBA, and a one sided story.

Why haven't there been reports from the other side. Not one. Not even "Dominique Grindaw will not comment". Maybe that's the case, but I haven't seen a single story that says it.

No, I think he should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, robbery and possibly false imprisonment and defrauding a business or theft of service.

*edited to acknowledge that being an escort is still a legal service... it's the prostitution that's illegal.

How do you retain the relationship of doctor and patient when there is force, coercion and physical threats involved and consent is no longer respected?

I suppose you believe that rape is about sex and that it would be perfectly acceptable to believe that someone who held a doctor against their will and forced them to perform acts on their rectum was only concerned with receiving medical services. Why do you refuse to consider that either example is a situation where someone was violated on a personal and sexual level. And yes, I would consider a gynecological exam sexual assault if it was performed without my consent or if I felt it was inappropriate. Were you aware that doctors have been found guilty for sexually assaulting women, some of which were a result of gynecological exams?



What are you talking about? If the perpetrator of an act behaves like what he is doing is not sexual then it isn't? Are you kidding me? What about as I mentioned above doctors who were found guilty of sexual assault under the guise of a medical exam? Since when is there ever a situation where only one party is allowed to define and rule in how a relationship or engagement takes place and how it shall be referred to?