judicial retention

No means no: Vote NO on retaining rapist-protector Municipal Judge Teresa Carr Deni

If you like, you can head over and read RussDiamond's ranting about PACleanSweep and their plan to defeat all the judges up for retention. But this isn't about that.

I have to confess that I typically vote against retention unless I have a specific reason to vote for a judge, because I think retention elections are dumb. I haven't decided what I'll do this time; I don't really align myself with PACleanSweep.

However, PACleanSweep or no, you must vote no on retaining Teresa Carr Deni. She just made a catastrophic ruling so activist and with such blatant disregard for the law and the roles of the legislature and jury that she is clearly not competent to sit on the bench.

She decided that a prostitute, who had agreed to have sex with two men for a certain amount of money, and who was then gang raped at gunpoint by five men and given no money, was not a victim of rape but merely a victim of "theft of services".

The law is quite clear: rape is having sex with a victim by forcible compulsion. And once there's a gun in her face and she's saying no, that is forcible compulsion. Doesn't matter how she makes her living, doesn't matter what was said before. These jerks were forcibly compelling this woman to have sex, and in taking the decision away from the jury, this judge ignored the law.

You can read about this appalling disgrace at Feministe or Philly.com

PACleanSweep believes that all the judges have violated the Constitution and thus proven themselves unfit to sit on the bench. That may be, but it is certainly a more esoteric argument than this one, where the law, the allegations and the subsequent gross dereliction of duty are absolutely clear.


Syndicate content