From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Contracts (was Re: Rape Law Reform)
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:53:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.215509.15459@sequent.com> huggett@sequent.com (Terri Huggett) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.154250.5187@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>>
>>
[still about prostitution and rape]

>
>OK.  One more time and then I give up on you Dan.  You are free to believe
>what you wish, but it is getting tedious to have you phrase your opinions as
>if they are legal interpretations.

    Feel free to give up at any time. I do not phrase my opinions as legal
interpretations. To even suggest such a thing is nonsense. If you are confused
by this, you still .sig disclaimer to clear things up for you. It is at the
end of every one of my articles.

>
>These are not my opinions, this is how the law and the legal system 
>view prostitution and their rape in many states by legal precedent.
>
    If this isn't opinion, where are the citations? Include references if you
have them. People other than me will be interested.

>Just as I pointed out in a post to you, solicitation (the contract) is a crime 
>in-and-of-itself.  The agreement to sex for a specified sum of money is the
>contract.  It makes no difference if ANY of the parties fullfill any 
>part of the solicitation contract.  It is still a crime AND it is still a
>contract.  And it is a crime for all parties, not just the prostitute.
>
   I never claimed that this isn't true. 

>Notwithstanding the tv shows you have viewed, police usually arrest
>prostitutes and johns on the street and in their cars when the contract 
>is agreed upon, and many are arrested in sting operations where the police
>act as either prostitutes or johns.
>
   Do they _always_ get convictions? If the defense claims that they were
joking, and can provide some evidence to support this claim, wouldn't you
expect an aquittal?

>In contract law, a contract does not have to specify legal acts to be
>considered a contract.  It is not an enforceable contract but it IS a
>contract. 

   I don't understand this. What exactly is the difference between a contract
and an enforceable contract? 

> Thus, in contract law, and this
>is how the legal system has interpreted the case in many states, the prostitute
>agrees to sex for money.  She DOES NOT agree to sex.  Therefore, if the
>john does not pay her, he has raped her because she DID NOT consent to sex.
>He has technically defrauded her as well, but that is a legally
>unenforceable part of the contract.  It is very rare for a prostitute to
>bring such a charge and for a prosecutor to take such a case, and it almost
>always involves serious injury.
>
    Can you cite a case for this? 
    If I contract with someone to commit murder, and they do it, can they
sue me to make me pay? Has this ever happened?
    My ex-girlfriend had sex with me because she thought we would get married.
Can she charge me with rape since we broke up?

    If any of these are true, our legal system is even more messed up than I
thought.

danZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: talk.rape