Australian man jailed for rape because he paid prostitute with paper .

Hopefully brighter minds than mine can help me out here . It would appear rape now has a dollar value . I really dont know where i sit with this .

The prostitute, whom Livas booked for a four-hour session, believed that the envelope contained $850.

So the man pulls a swift one and it was all OK until she opened the envelope and found paper . At this time she felt violated , was this also the time the rape occurred .

I felt internally violated, used and dirty," she said, adding that when she discovered she had been deceived, fear took hold.

Apparently money is good for washing guilt away .

Rape is rape as far as i am concerned so why was the man only given 8 months . The maximum penalty for rape in Victoria is 25 years and i assume Canberra works under Victorian law .

The man has been convicted and sentenced so must be guilty . I just wonder about the sentence , to me its sending a message and not a good one .

www.9news.com.au...

Thoughts ATS.

a reply to: hutch622

I don't agree with this at all. He should have been charged with theft and forced to pay.

Being a sneaky sleeze doesn't always equate to rape and definitely not in this situation.

He contracted for a service which he obtained. He defrauded her of the agreed payment. She said it felt like rape then, but as your article says, he was given a jail sentence for defrauding her.

a reply to: aboutface

Because she had sex with Livas on the basis that she would be paid, ACT Supreme Court Judge Hillary Penfold ruled that the sex was non-consensual because it was obtained by fraud, noting that the offence was "clearly premeditated". 99

But the judge ruled it premeditated non-consensual sex.

Did you read your own link?

The article states that he wasn't charged and prosecuted for Rape.

He was charge, prosecuted and had been found guilty of fraud.

The prostitute, whom Livas booked for a four-hour session, believed that the envelope contained $850.
Read more at www.9news.com.au...

The man handed her an envelope that she believed held her fee.
She went about the session under the assumption that not only did the envelope have money in it, but the money was to the value of $850, her fee.

There are two things to take away from this... When you provide a product or service and only accept cash, ensure the cash is legal and to the value required.

All this is her cries trying to get more out of this situation.
I don't disagree that she should be compensated... But I do agree that this was not rape and the man has been charged and sentenced fairly.

a reply to: aboutface

this reminds me of an old joke , a woman walks into a police station and tells the officer that she was raped ,

the officer asks her when did this occur , the woman replies it was three days ago ,

the officer says three days ago why did you wait until now to report it

the woman replied well it wasn't until today that i found out that the check bounced .

I don't think it's right. He needs to be punished of course but not charged with rape. We don't need cases like this muddling real rape statistics.

She's a woman running a business. She needs to check her envelopes. You never give your product away without making sure that you're getting paid.

a reply to: tom.farnhill

Can you quote the part of the article that I'm apparently not seeing.

All I'm seeing is that the judge decided it was premeditated non-consensual sex.

ETA: that was supposed to be to Sovaka

Is prostitution illegal in Australia? If so then there isn't a valid legal contract and the debt is unenforceable. Regardless, it isn't like she didn't consent to the sexual act. She simply didn't have legal recourse.

a reply to: hutch622

That is really screwed up.....he was convicted for rape when he quite clearly did not rape the prostitute....

The law is an clearly an ass and needs to be reconciled...judges have way too much power and seemingly not enough of a clue

And as far as the prostitute feeling violated,used and dirty....what a freeking joke,she had to be ripped off to feel that way ?...sleeping with all those men for money didnt make her feel dirty but being ripped off did....pffft

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The thing that gets me is that he only got 8 months . Was she only a little bit raped . I am just not connecting the dots here at the moment .

Internet playing up .

a reply to: JessicaRabbitTx

And if she did not um perform to expectations can he get a refund . ????

I hate both of these people....

You see the comments the girl said...so stupid

a reply to: [post=18973527]Sovaka[/post

A Canberra man who duped a prostitute into having sex with him has been convicted of rape and jailed for eight months.

Not sure what part you arent clear on .

non-consensual because it was obtained by fraud,

a reply to: JessicaRabbitTx

I'm sorry, I am having a very dyslexic day today... Reading things too quickly and mistaking them for other words.

Ok, the article does state he was convicted of rape.

But the gaol term is that of fraud. Left hand not talking to the right hand?
I see this as a bias of a female judge putting the man on the sex offender register.

This case is clearly not rape... It was consensual before the act and during the act.
It wasn't until she checked her payment to find she had been defrauded.

Does this mean if an employer doesn't pay me as they should, I can claim rape?

I suppose it was rape given that the sex probably would not have been consensual had the prostitute known she wasn't going to be paid.

a reply to: hutch622

Yes very strange...8 months doesn't make sense at all.....maybe the judge was offered a freebie ...she whispered in his ear "i have always wanted to be violated by a man in a robe sitting behind a big desk"

a reply to: trollz

By that logic, you can clear the rape charge by simply paying $850.

originally posted by: Sovaka
a reply to: trollz

By that logic, you can clear the rape charge by simply paying $850.

Yes, true... But only because the woman is a prostitute. That's just the nature of the business, she has sex for money. Obviously under normal circumstances a person shouldn't be able to get off of a rape charge by paying.

a reply to: Sovaka

By that logic, you can clear the rape charge by simply paying $850.

What if he put 100 dollars in with that paper . What would the ruling be then .