Inspired by one of the Kobe Bryant threads, in which the allegation “People with characteristic X can’t be raped” is called into question.
Years ago, I read a book in which a woman was almost raped, but managed to disable, then kill her attacker. She was charged with murder, and the prosecution further claimed that she was a whore, which, if they’d been able to prove it, would have negated her claim of self-defense, because “You can’t rape a prostitute”.
Now, I’m not here to debate that. Any attempt to take a woman by force is rape, even if she’s the star of the Mustang Ranch. If she didn’t give consent, then she was raped.
But beyond that, would it also be theft? I mean, if she normally gets paid for sex, and a man forces himself on her, is he not then stealing her services? Not that I think anyone would be charged with theft, in this instance, but it would undermine the “What’s one more?” argument.
The answer to this would depend on whether the laws of your country consider prostitution to be a professional service industry, and the human body as a tradeable commodity.
Since I believe the latter is not an accepted part of any country’s legal philosophy (evidence to the contrary is obviously welcome), I do not believe there is a case to be made for theft.
Damn, I just realised I mucked up my own argument.
If prostitution is legitimised as a service industry, it stands to reason that the law believes the human body is a tradeable commodity.
That would open up a case for theft.
I think rape is - correctly in my opinion - generally considered a crime of violence, not sex. I wonder if that plays into this, and I sorta wonder if making it theft of sex cheapens rape in a way.
If a man is stealing food from a supermarket, it’s not the same as forcing himself on a prostitute. The harm from rape isn’t really the sex, it’s the psychological and personal damage.
Unless if the woman is injured, she could sue for loss of income as well as for her personal injuries. Probably not in America, where prostitution is absurdly illegal in most locales. But were it not, I could see such a case being made.
I can’t see how you can argue the case for the ‘body as commodity’ idea. For it to be a commodity, the seller would have to have less of it after the sale. It’s clearly a service, not that I understand how the distinction matters.
It would be a clear cut case of rape. In fact, it’s analogous to me beating up Mike Tyson and then him pressing charges against me for assault and theft (or breach of contract) for not paying him for the bout. There wasn’t any contract to start with.
Rape is a criminal issue, loss of income and injuries like that are matters for civil suits. The two are separate as far as I can see. An attacker wouldn’t have to be convicted of rape for the prostitute in question to sue him for injuries if not loss of income (maybe she could do that in Nevada, though).
In America, it’d just be rape. That’s what I’m saying it would be anyway. And she’d still be able to sue. The only difference is that I’m saying the rape does not also encompass a theft.
True. I should have taken that into consideration.
I’m just saying that the “Well, what’s one more?” argument shouldn’t stand up when/if a prostitute is raped. “But she takes money for sex!” “Did you give her money, in that instance?” “No…” “Then she wasn’t prostituting herself, and you were the one breaking the law.”
If I hooked up my plumber to an automatic plumbing machine that forced him to do the actions of plumbing, would I be arrested for being a theif. No. I’d be arrested for all kinds of other nasty things.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think the OP was suggesting a raped prostitute should be able to press charges only for theft and nothing else. S/he agrees that the rape charge is the big one. I think the issue is whether a charge of theft of service could possibly be brought or not.
I’ve thought about it and it still seems to me that besides the rape, an actual theft of service is nevertheless occurring. I need to look up what has actually happened in Singapore courts of law considering that prostitution is a legalised business here.
Surely its irrelevant if the person is a prostitute? Assuming prostitution is legal, then anyone could sell their body, and thus use the ‘theft’ argument.
What about analgous cases? Say I smash someone’s car up. Is that theft? I don’t think so. Yet, I could have purchased the right to do it.
If rape, besides and on top of being a violent act of violation, is also theft of services, then all victims of rape, and not just active prostitutes have been so “robbed”. They could have been porstitutes, just as someone robbed of an object could have sold it. The fact that they weren’t (a prostitute or selling the stolen object) is immaterial.
A legal prostitute, of course, could sue her (or his) rapist for lost income, but so could an accountant, or a bible salesperson. It’s not theft because rape, like more simple assault, transcends the notion of theft of services.
Now, that said, if someone agrees to pay a legal prostitute, and then has sex with her, but does not pay, that person is not a rapist. He is guilty of breach of contract, and possibly other types of theft, but, as the sex was consensual (if under false pretenses), not rape.
I think you are correct here, but just to head off another massive argument there’s been other threads discussing when and when not sex under false pretenses is rape.
Not so. If no compensation was negotiated or expected, there has been no theft of services. It’s just plain rape.
As for the question whether it’s theft of services to rape a prostitute, that depends on the actor’s state of mind. At least under the Texas statute on “theft of services,” Tex. Pen. Code 31.04, a person is only guilty if he has the “intent to avoid payment for service that he knows is provided only for compensation.” If the rapist does not know the victim is a prostitute, the rapist does not have the state of mind necessary to secure a conviction under the statute.
The definition of “service” arguably includes prostitution, by the way, under the provisions for “labor and professional services” and/or “entertainment.” Ick, I feel gross just for writing that. Anyway, see Tex. Pen. Code 31.01(6).