|
Back in October, a Pennsylvania judge made waves across the country when she ruled that the forcible rape of a prostitute wasn’t rape at all, but robbery. Her reasoning was that the prostitute had already consented, and that all the “robbers” had done was fail to pay for her services. Reasonable outrage ensued on behalf of the victim and other similarly-situated women across the country, but even those who were most indignant—even those who took action and wrote letters and lobbied against the retention of the judge who made the ruling—focused on what the ruling said to and about prostitutes. The real risk of this ruling is much broader: the judge as good as said that consent couldn’t be withdrawn. The facts presented to the judge indicated that the woman had entered into an agreement to perform certain sexual services for a fee of $150. When she arrived at the designated meeting place, the man told her that a male friend was going to join them, and would pay her an additional $100. Instead, they were shortly joined by three additional men, and the original “customer” produced a gun. Like most reasonable women, the victim decided that she was a shade uncomfortable at gunpoint and withdrew her consent—an option I’m sure we’d all like to think we retained if some new element like a DEATH THREAT was introduced into our romantic interludes. But no. According to this court’s ruling, that wasn’t an option. She’d already consented; the only issue now was payment. Except…what if there hadn’t been money involved? The ruling in this case didn’t technically hinge on the fact that there had been money involved in the original agreement, but on the fact that the woman had consented in advance. Let’s imagine a different scenario for a moment. Let’s imagine that a woman agrees to meet her ex-boyfriend for dinner. The evening goes well; he invites her back to his apartment to spend the night, and she accepts. Once they’re inside the apartment, he produces a gun and tells her that his roommate is going to join them. She rethinks her decision to have sex with him, but he insists…with a gun to her head. Rape? According to the reasoning of the Pennsylvania ruling, no. And however a chorus of voices across the country might say, “But that’s DIFFERENT”, the fact is that legally, it’s not different at all. The judge in the Pennsylvania case said that the victim’s withdrawal of consent was ineffective…that she’d consented and the fact that she’d changed her mind didn’t make the slightest bit of difference. Forget the ramifications for prostitutes--which are serious enough standing alone—the underlying rationale in this ruling is that once a woman has consented, there’s no turning back, no matter what turn circumstances might take. Trackback(0)
Comments (9)
  written by Matt, March 19, 2008
I have one of those things you mention, Stephen, called a penis. I do not feel the billions beckoning to be let out that I need to produce a gun.
There was a deal. Prior to the consummation of the deal, one of the parties withdrew her consent. The act they had agreed to was sexual, and she was forced to do it under threat. That IS rape.
 written by Tiffany, March 19, 2008
Stephen, imagine this scenario. A man walks into an electronics store and enters into an agreement to buy a stereo. All of the details are worked out and agreed. Offer and acceptance occur. And then the "shopper" produces a gun and says that he's going to take not just the stereo, but a few iPods and a computer monitor as well, and that he's not paying for them. Is the clerk/store still obliged to complete the intitial "agreement"?
And what about the other items he takes, items for which there never was an agreement? Is he legally bound to turn those over, too, and hope to recover civilly because he's in the business of selling electronics?
 written by Ozzie, March 19, 2008
I'm not sure it's a good idea to try to "clarify" this issue using analogies. To restate prostitution as like being an electronics business is definitely illogical, as it tries to ignore the context of the situation at hand. I mean, c'mon... It's prostitution - an immoral, dangerous, unhealthy business! The girl is aware of this, I'm sure. Being a very risky endeavor, she's definitely chosen to deal with any consequences (sexual abuse, etc...)
That being said, i want to say that the girl must of course present hard evidence to support her side, as it's clearly a deadlock at this point. Yes, it may be rape, but what if she's just bluffing?
 written by Chris Schaffer, March 21, 2008
Ok, the arguments saying, in essence, "raping hookers is no biggie," are so full of holes I barely know how to start... Oh wait, found it, the beginning.
"What if she was lying" - It is already the burden of the accuser to prove the veracity of accusations. Hence, "Innocent until proven guilty," as the general standard. Giving people no way to make a legal complaint is irrational given this standard. "I have a need and she had a contract!" Yeah, funny how biology provided you with a hand if you really feel some terrible and pressing need to be relieved. And if you are tricked by prostitutes, bummer for you, you should probably file a civil suit. If you introduce new contract terms and use violence to achieve them the original contract has been legally voided both on a civil (introduction of new terms) and criminal (use of violence) level. Therefore any act taking place after nullification of the contract should be inherently criminal. "Analogies are bad." yeah, I agree, the electronics store analogy wasn't great. However the boyfriend example in the article is perfect. Imagine a very similar situation. "How about I buy us some wine and we go back to my place for some fun?" The girl is aware that drinking is risky, and if she hasn't seen this guys place this is also risky. She would then have entered a verbal contract by Ozzie's definition... If she decides to say no later and is then forced into sex at gunpoint this would be the same situation, and now you have said rape is no option.
 written by Jacqueline, June 11, 2008
We should also ask ourselves why a woman is being compared to a consumer good in the first place. Here the legal system is treating this woman, raped or not, as something to be consumed, as a commercial good that has been "stolen," and not a full person who can withdraw consent, even at gunpoint.
 written by disgusted student, November 04, 2008
Why are dissecting this story so much.... it is quite obvious that the judge in question is a moron and has no idea of the law because she doesn't understand that No means No and if you are forced to do something you don't want to do them were is the injustice of that.... yes given the fact that it was her 'JOB' there is an excuse but can you say that if a women said no to a man but he forced himself upon her that she was asking for it? No, you wouldn't because no matter what country or language it is called RAPE and any judge willing to let a person get away with that is wrong.
 written by MAN AGAINST RAPE, November 08, 2008
THE FACT IS THAT CONSENT WAS PREDICATED ON A FIDICUARY OBLIGATION. COMMODITY OFFERED IN EXCHANGE FOR MONEY. WHEN THAT WAS NOT TENDERED IT BECAME ROBERY. CONSENT ONLY WITHDRAWN WHEN NO MONEY. THIS WASNT SEX FOR ANY OTHER REASON THEN FOR MONEY. JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS SEX AND NO MONEY DOESNT MAKE IT RAPE. SHE WOULD OF HAD SX IF SHE GOT PAID BUT SHE DIDNT SO NOW IT DOESNT BECOME RAPE BUT ROBBERY. UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE AND I HOPE SHE FINDS ANOTHER LINE OF WORK.
 written by Tiffany, November 15, 2008
Man Against Rape, all you've said here is that there was consent based on a condition, and the condition failed. I agree. But isn't that true ANY time a woman changes her mind? Would you suggest, for instance, that a woman who consented to have sex with a man because she believed him to be single and a good relationship prospect and then found out THAT condition had failed--that he was in fact married--and changed her mind also couldn't be raped because she "would have had sex if..."? If we accept that line of reasoning, then no woman can ever change her mind...is that what you're aiming for?
Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
A common scenario in third world countries catering to 'western' men is for a prostitute - in collaboration with the local police - to say 'no' at the last second. The woman then calls the police and charges the westerner with rape - which can be 'settled' for a nice fee to the police officers.
These are not romantic interludes - they are contractual obligations fulfilling the man's biological need (men produce a billion sperm cells a day - women produce one egg a month) and the woman's financial desires. I agree with that there a plethora of criminal and civil issues here, but rape is not one of them.