A prostitute can be raped?

[Draconis71]

Prosecute, more than persecute.

And yes, that was part of the original problem with the hypothetical. Unless it is truly a rape, a prostitute is less likely to come forward to seek law enforcement. The OP seems to suggest that the prostitute reported a rape in retribution for lack of payment of extra time. That's just doesn't meet any risk-reward evaluation I can conceive.

I actually chose the word persecute, vs prosecute. Don't have to be prosecuted to be persecuted, shamed, etc.

 

[701757]

Also, in some areas, prostitution, it's self is a crime.
Authorities are more likely to persecute the victim, than the perpetrator, in such cases.

Yo we are NOT discussing the legality of prostitution for fuck's sake. Focus on the topic.

Why is this topic causing everyone to talk about whatever the fuck they want, I'm really curious. No one is answering the question.

I actually chose the word persecute, vs prosecute. Don't have to be prosecuted to be persecuted, shamed, etc.

No you didn't, you just fucked up so admit it.

 

[ronin001]

NO

Technically, unless you were the man who was arrested, you have no way of knowing what exact conversations transpired between the Prostitute and her customer. In America Heresay conversations are seldom aallowed in court

 

[701757]

Technically, unless you were the man who was arrested, you have no way of knowing what exact conversations transpired between the Prostitute and her customer. In America Heresay conversations are seldom aallowed in court

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION
Holy shit I'm probably going to kill myself because of this fucking thread.

 

[ronin001]

Please no need for capital letters.
Sometime he loss of a single individual is greatly beneficial for the general populace, so happy trails

 

[701757]

Please no need for capital letters.
Sometime he loss of a single individual is greatly beneficial for the general populace, so happy trails

Thanks for that very relevant opinion you just stated.

 

[LaFemme]

Well, to my knowledge, prostitution is LEGAL in Canada, tho, communicating for it, is not. (ie: via Craigslist, speaking/requesting/emailing/etc)
So, IMO, yes, a it could be technically rape, if you somehow agree for a pre-arranged situation, and you do NOT follow your part of the bargain..
Borders on "stolen goods/services".
Hmm, guessing HST would apply here? IF they're licensed (tho, I don' think ANYONE in the sex trade licences up a business to collect taxes....)

Technically legal. It's legal to sell, but not to buy. And you cannot sell on behalf of another person, I.e. Pimping. Plus some other stuff around where selling may occur.

There's still a lot of controversy around the law.

 

[Draconis71]

Technically legal. It's legal to sell, but not to buy. And you cannot sell on behalf of another person, I.e. Pimping. Plus some other stuff around where selling may occur.

There's still a lot of controversy around the law.

Yup, had just looked it up, about hour ago.
Best way to avoid it is have the sex, and take off, not paying, to avoid the prostitution laws? (Oh, wait, I think this is where the hread was leading?)

 

[701757]

Yup, had just looked it up, about hour ago.
Best way to avoid it is have the sex, and take off, not paying, to avoid the prostitution laws? (Oh, wait, I think this is where the hread was leading?)

Exactly, now is that rape?

 

[Draconis71]

Exactly, now is that rape?

Conditional consent.

 

[701757]

Conditional consent.

That was a yes or no question lol.

 

[KennF]

Yo we are NOT discussing the legality of prostitution for fuck's sake. Focus on the topic.

Why is this topic causing everyone to talk about whatever the fuck they want, I'm really curious. No one is answering the question.

People ARE talking and answering the OP's question. "Can be rape in case when prostitutes who initially gave consent for sex?"

Because the legality of prostitution is part of the landscape of the hypothetical. The OP is talking about the 'consent'; about the accusation of 'rape'; about 'prostitutes'; and about someone going to 'jail'. All of these are part of the legal landscape.

The premise is that consent is given initially, to a person engaged in what may or may not be legal (depending on the area), and that the district attorney and police investigation are complete which led to a conviction and a jail sentence.

If you don't look at it through a legal lens, then the question doesn't make any sense.

So, if you want to re-phrase the hypothetical situation or reframe the question, feel free to do so.

 

[Creatorul]

If you don't look at it through a legal lens, then the question doesn't make any sense.

So, if you want to re-phrase the hypothetical situation or reframe the question, feel free to do so

I am interested in your opinion as person for this case and situation.

 

[KennF]

I am interested in your opinion as person for this case and situation.

Well, again, then I have to say, that all of this depends on whether you are looking at this from a criminal or civil perspective.

CIVIL PERSPECTIVE
If you are asking about a civil case, then the issue of consent isn't relevant. The case is a he said/she said and whether or not there was an agreement for the "extra time" to which one side breached the agreement. The threshold question is one of "is the activity legal". There can be no legally binding agreement for an illegal activity.

Rape is not a civil crime. Jail time is not part of a civil crime punishment. The sex worker is not able to prosecute on behalf of the state. The only recourse is monetary damages.

CRIMINAL PERSPECTIVE
If you are asking about a criminal case, then the issue of consent is relevant. The threshold question of "is the activity legal" colors the case. The fact that one person was engaged in sex worker may impeach their credibility on the stand, depending on the legality of prostitution; the fact that there was an original consent; the fact that there is a question about the motives (non-payment for extras); all of these play into and make it more difficult to prosecute.

However, if we take your hypothetical to its natural conclusion, that the activity doesn't destroy credibility too much, AND the police investigation is sufficient to warrant the charges, AND the trial occurs, AND the client is found guilty, AND sentenced to jail time...

then the consent issue is moot. It is a proven that consent was not present for the portion of time that the rape occurred.

 

[701757]

Okay just assume that prostitution is legal because that's not relevant to the question.

Or how about this. Imagine that this sex is between two adults, one of the parties proclaims that he or she will keep having sex with the other party as long as the other party plays a video game with him or her afterwards. The other party accepts, finishes having sex but doesn't play the game. Does this mean that the other party raped him or her? I know it sounds ridiculous but you get the point.

 

[KennF]

Okay just assume that prostitution is legal because that's not relevant to the question.

Or how about this. Imagine that this sex is between two adults, one of the parties proclaims that he or she will keep having sex with the other party as long as the other party plays a video game with him or her afterwards. The other party accepts, finishes having sex but doesn't play the game. Does this mean that the other party raped him or her? I know it sounds ridiculous but you get the point.

Actually, yours is an easier hypothetical to deal with, because you're narrowing down the question.

In your scenario...
* There is an agreement...
* Party A agrees to have sex, provided, that Party B plays a game afterwards.
* Party A fulfills their part of the agreement.
* Party B does not fulfill their part and breaches the agreement.

Consent was given as part of the agreement.
Criminal law doesn't recognize 'contingent consent'. And, while you can revoke consent at any time, you can't retroactively revoke consent. Therefore, it won't qualify as rape.

 

[KennF]

And, on the question of 'conditional consent', that also doesn't exist.

Someone may withhold their consent until conditions are met, but then consent is not given.

 

[701757]

Actually, yours is an easier hypothetical to deal with, because you're narrowing down the question.

In your scenario...
* There is an agreement...
* Party A agrees to have sex, provided, that Party B plays a game afterwards.
* Party A fulfills their part of the agreement.
* Party B does not fulfill their part and breaches the agreement.

Consent was given as part of the agreement.
Criminal law doesn't recognize 'contingent consent'. And, while you can revoke consent at any time, you can't retroactively revoke consent. Therefore, it won't qualify as rape.

Exactly, this is the entire question. Thanks for your answer.

 

[deleted882658]

No means no rape is having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you and they explicitly say no. So yes anyone can be raped no matter what they do for a living. Why is this even a freaking question ?

 

[950483]

No means no rape is having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you and they explicitly say no. So yes anyone can be raped no matter what they do for a living. Why is this even a freaking question ?

Most of the thread is about trying to guess what exactly the question is even, because everything the OP says is about as clear as mud.