Opinons wanted

[Lilian]

Just found this and would like to hear your thoughts since the article left me with very mixed feelings .

http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...WS03/709069951

What do you guys think ?

[Wills21]

Its a hard one to call, they shouldnt of refused to pay and then she shouldnt of said they raped her.

What was the woman supposed to do when they refused to pay?

[saoirsemac]

disturbing to say the least,
i believe this woman was more than likely violated
girls take cash up front 90per cent of time....

it seems the law changed their minds once it was discovered she was a prostitue
they may aswell charged the lads with fucking shop lifting....
coz aa sure she a brazzer like she merely got stiffed for the cash hardly rape

not wanting to or not consenting to any sexual act but in turn be forced into doing so
pay or unpiad is rape end of.. disgraceful

[sharkskin]

I can see what the police and prosecutors are thinking:

They can establish in court that the woman was a prostitute and that the men engaged her services as such. So, they will be able to get a result if they charge all parties with prostitution.

If they can get a conviction on the prostitution charges then it follows that a jury will likely convict on the charge of filing a false report.

Rape charges are unlikely to result in conviction.

So, the prosecutors are just doing what they see as their job which is to go after the charges on which they think that they might get a result. I am afraid that, in the US, prosecutors are pretty much required to work like that even to the extent that they will on occasion justify prosecuting a person who they knew to be innocent on the grounds that they believed that they would get a conviction.

[doodlebug]

Its not exactly breach of contract now is it. As Saoirse says, bodily freedom is a right, regardless of what motives you have, so a womans right to say no is paramount. If she is saying no because she hasn't been paid, or if she is saying no because she doesn't want to do it is immaterial. I believe it sets a bad precedent to suggest because a woman works as a prostitute she can;t be raped. The law is blind and as such, rape is rape regardless of the victims profession.

[MrNiceGuy2010]

This story makes me sad

[sharkskin]

Its not exactly breach of contract now is it. As Saoirse says, bodily freedom is a right, regardless of what motives you have, so a womans right to say no is paramount. If she is saying no because she hasn't been paid, or if she is saying no because she doesn't want to do it is immaterial. I believe it sets a bad precedent to suggest because a woman works as a prostitute she can;t be raped. The law is blind and as such, rape is rape regardless of the victims profession.

Agreed but none of the decisions in this case mean that a woman who is a prostitute can never be judged to have been raped. The decisions do not necessarily even mean that there was no rape in this case. The prosecutors are simply prosecuting the offences for which they feel that they have a prospect of getting a conviction.

Also, please do not make the mistake of thinking that I am expressing my own opinions here, I am simply trying to outline why this would have happened.

[El Gordo]

Given how little information we have, it's hard to know exactly what happened. But I don't believe an escort in a country where prostitution is illegal would go to the police to complain if it was just a question of getting paid for an appointment.

[Vindictus]

It is a sad story.
It's sad that, regardless of whether the woman's job muddied the waters of what constitutes 'consent', she was treated with utter contempt, and probably feels exposed and violated and compromised.
It's also sad that scumbags exist in the world... the kind that would do this kind of thing. The kind that were probably high-fiving each other as they left, and were bragging about their exploits until the police came a-knocking.

[doodlebug]

Agreed but none of the decisions in this case mean that a woman who is a prostitute can never be judged to have been raped. The decisions do not necessarily even mean that there was no rape in this case. The prosecutors are simply prosecuting the offences for which they feel that they have a prospect of getting a conviction.

Also, please do not make the mistake of thinking that I am expressing my own opinions here, I am simply trying to outline why this would have happened.

I was not making that mistake at all, and I think your point is valid, prosecuters go for the conviction rather than the right thing. That is one of the saddest parts of the story, that prosecuters believed that a jury could not be convinced of rape because the victim is a prostitute, in a way that reinforces my point. The violation of a persons body regardless of the circumstances should never be downplayed and prosecuters in going for the conviction are knowingly or unknowingly adding to a frame of mind that says a prostitute can't be raped. In my opinion if the assault is carried out on a non-consenting person it is rape and should be prosecuted as such.