Character, crime and consequences
Le's say that there were three families living near each other and they all three had a copy of the book "Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyon. In fact it was the exact same printing of the book. The same binding; they even had similar wear and markings. Now the first family kept their copy in the family safe, because it was a family heirloom handed down from an ancestor to whom the book meant a great deal, and who in turn meant a great deal to the family. The second family kept their copy in the bookshelf covered with dust. The third family had the book boxed up as part of a garage sale with a "10 cent" sticker on it.
A burglar steals all three books. The first is taken from the first family's safe. The second is taken (and dusted off) from the bookcase. The third was simply pulled from the box it was in, in the back yard near the door.
Were all three the same crime?
Is it wrong to insist that the obvious value of the book to the victim should impact the prosecutor's decision regarding what charges are brought? Is it wrong for the judge to consider the value of what was taken, to the victim, in determining sentencing?
Is the theft of a family heirloom, taken from the family's safe the same crime as the theft of something ready for sale at ten cents, taken from another family's yard?
When it's not a book, but a woman's virtue, it seems the value to the victim is irrelevant on our modern, feminist-controlled society.
From the Philadelphia Inquirer...
According to testimony, a 20-year-old single mother agreed to an hour's worth of sex with [Dominique] Gindraw for $150 on Sept. 20. When she arrived at the address, Gindraw allegedly asked if she would also have sex with his friend; she agreed for an additional $100.
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.
Deni dismissed the rape and sexual-assault charges and held Gindraw for trial on a charge of "armed robbery for theft of services."...
A week after the hearing, Philadelphia Daily News columnist Jill Porter quoted Deni as saying in an interview that the woman had consented to sex, and that her complaint "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped."
Women's and victim advocates around the nation have heavily criticized the judge, and there has been some grassroots organizing against Deni's retention....
[Leslie] Dalton [, the Philadelphia Bar Association's chancellor] said the law permitted any woman to change her mind after consenting to sex "regardless of the circumstances. We cannot imagine any circumstances more violent or coercive than being forced to have sex with four men at gunpoint."
For a long time feminists have been using the mantra that rape is not about sex. The reason they have been making that claim is that while they've worked feverishly to minimize the sanctity of sex, they still don't want to lose the powerful club of a rape accusation that any woman holds against any man. Studies have shown that more than half of all rape accusations are eventually found to be false, yet those women making those accusations are never charged with a crime, in spite of the fact that a prison sentence for rape means years of rape (very literally) for the accused inside the prison system.
While it's obvious that a woman who has made an effort to maintain her virtue by remaining celibate until monogamous should be respected and anyone raping such a woman charged with a very serious crime, feminists don't see it that way. They want instead, that a woman's virtue be void of any real virtue and be implied solely on the basis of her gender, not her character.
Judge Deni has rightly determined that the crime in this case is simply a matter of some men taking at gunpoint what the victim was willing to sell, and not actually a rape. It's so rare that we hear of judges making sense any more. It'd be a shame if a good one were removed from the bench because she didn't toe the feminist/politically-correct line.
Ironically, what's not mentioned in the article is the difference in sentencing between rape and armed robbery. It's because the Politically Correct don't consider the actual punishment as important, only the symbolic title of the crime. While the mandatory sentences for rape in the various states is fairly severe (typically about 20 years) the only men who ever serve more than five are those who are innocent, and refuse to confess to a crime they did not do. The real rapists are out in just a few years, ready and eager to rape again. Since there is no punishment for a false accusation of rape, we then have quite a few men imprisoned for doing no more than offending a woman, willing to lie to punish him—or men who made convenient scapegoats for a prosecutor's career ambitions.
In 2001 Jeffrey Pierce was released from prison after serving almost 15 years of a rape conviction. DNA evidence had finally cleared him. The accuser had been pressured by the police to identify him, even though she wasn't sure—in other words, she committed perjury. A forensic chemist falsified evidence to help "win" the case. Neither the accuser nor the chemist were ever charged with any crime. Pierce was never compensated for being falsely imprisoned.
Funny how twisted our view of rape is in this country. A prostitute, whose body is for sale, is defended by those pretending she has virtue, while an innocent man, victimized for almost 15 years is simply tossed aside and ignored.
Posted by Danny Carlton at November 2, 2007 7:14 AM