A judge gave a lighter prison term to a rapist who raped prostitutes at gunpoint. As the judge sentenced the rapist, according to the appeals court ruling, the judge said the sex acts were against the victims' will only because they didn't get paid, & prostitutes were "a far cry from the innocent rape victim" that lawmakers envisioned when deciding the severe penalties for the crime.
The judge gave the rapist, nine years on each rape charge & ordered that the sentences be served at the same time -- though prison terms for separate violent crimes are typically added together -- & added a mandatory 10 years for McKee's use of a gun.
A three-judge appeals court panel rejected the judge's "reasoing" & also rejected many of the rapist's claims, inincluding an assertion that his crimes were more like robbery than rape, & that prostitutes are not as traumatized by rape as other victims.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/325328_rapeappeal27.htm
Light terms for raping prostitutes?
2007-09-28 02:59:28 · 15 answers · asked by edith clarke 7 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
He's just a scumbag judge. Really, they are in all professions.
By virtue of a weapon being used alone the guy should've gotten the harshest penalty possible.
The judge is essentially saying the victim is not deserving of respect or decency because (in his view) she put herself out there.
A slippery slope, remember if they say that about a hooker, they'll say that about someone else depending on what they are wearing.
2007-09-28 03:18:49 · answer #1 · answered by angibabi113 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Rape is a horrible crime no one can argue with that.
Far as this situation---prostitutes don't respect themselves or they'd find a job that doesn't involve selling their bodies, once someone stops respecting themselves it's dang hard to get respect from other people. I'd rather scrub toilets for a living then sell my body! I'm sure these women could find something else to make money at, it may not pay as well but scrimping by with dignity is better than leaving in degraded luxury.
Since they have deemed their bodies as goods to be sold it does make rape at gunpoint more of an armed robbery, is not their body what they are selling? If you take that with pay they are happy, without pay and it is rape? No. It's robbery.
In fact putting the rape of prostitutes on the same level with rape of non-prostitutes is just another way to try and make rape a less important crime. Also someone compared this to date-rape and there is no comparison there to be had.
2007-09-28 11:55:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I think that they are stupid and are viewing such individuals the same way that criminals/rapists do.
This is a sad situation just becomes someone is a dentist doesn't mean they want to be held at gun point while they clean your teeth. I mean this is ridiculous.
These women/men that prostitute for a living, are just human beings with the same rights as anyone else. Their chosen profession should not let them be viewed as anything less than the average person.
Rape is rape and that's it.
2007-09-28 10:06:05 · answer #3 · answered by Jae Rae 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I think it is pretty dispicable when a rapist gets less time for raping a prostitute than he would if he raped someone else. In some cases, prostitutes can not find other means of making fast money. That doesn't mean that they need to be raped for their chosen profession.
2007-09-28 10:11:54 · answer #4 · answered by pitbull1969 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
This isn't the only instance of judicial stupidity I've heard of. In all kinds of cases. Rape, child molestation, child custody, the ill informed decisions of many judges are almost criminal in themselves.
I don't know what would ever correct this problem. The judges seems to think they are above the laws they are supposed to uphold.
2007-09-29 14:24:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just because one is a judge does not mean they are not vulnerable to human biases and stereotypes. I am glad the appeals court set this judge straight. Perhaps he has learned from the experience.
2007-09-28 10:13:43 · answer #6 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There is idiocy and bigotry in all fields. It's good to hear that the appeals court rejected it. Judges hate being overturned, so maybe some will be more circumspect in the future.
2007-09-28 10:08:33 · answer #7 · answered by Gnu Diddy! 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think it's wrong that this does occur. Rape is still rape. It's like saying a man who rapes a woman after a date wasn't really traumatizing her because her going on a date with him showed she was in fact interested in him.
2007-09-28 10:32:48 · answer #8 · answered by Manny 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why do you load your question with misleading terms like "judges" (plural) and "still," as if the judgment you complain of is an example of an ongoing pattern of behavior by the judiciary at large?
It's not. The travesty you cite is perhaps not unique, but is an aberration, lamentable though it is.
You'll notice also that the system corrected itself, in that the appeals panel overturned the judge's "reasoning." Without requiring any amicus curiae briefs by whacko feminazi cadres (I assume), thank you very much.
2007-09-28 10:41:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
It could be the same bias that allows a judge to think that a mother is a better parent than the father. You are allways going to get judges that have stupid ideals because they are allowed to.
2007-09-28 10:33:50 · answer #10 · answered by ! Answers 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋