Sex Worker Killed After Paroled Murderer Allowed to Satisfy 'Sexual Needs'

[BorneoBabe]

www.vice.com/en_ca/article/884xd3/sex-worker-killed-after-paroled-murderer-allowed-to-satisfy-sexual-needs

'Originally given a life sentence for killing his partner, Chantale Deschesnes, in 2004 by beating her with a hammer and stabbing her, Gallese gradually gained limited freedom for good behaviour'

'According to the parole board’s latest written decision, obtained by VICE and translated from French, Gallese brought up relationships with women during a discussion with his case workers. While Gallese’s intimate relationships were deemed inappropriate, the decision explicitly acknowledges his “sexual needs.”'

A murderer's right to sex is more important than protecting women from a violent monster.

Christ.

Canada. Why am I not surprised?

But he has needs. So everything that matters has been satisfied.

RIP Marylene and Chantale

Well. Just when you think things cannot get any worse

I have a need not to be murdered, and so did the prostitute who he murdered. And his ex. Frankly in comparison to the need not to be murdered that we all share as women I don't give a single solitary shit how sad his penis will be if untouched.

I'm not sure kittens. As a women, you probably just have a 'preference'.
I

Canada is investigating the conditions that led to the man’s parole, but an advocate says decriminalization of sex work is the only way to keep sex workers safe

OR don’t let these murdering bastards out of jail

That's actually a perfect example of how not worth engaging with the decriminalization lobby is. Decriminalization would not have saved that women's life. Not giving a very violent prisoner who seems to already have been hinting at his intentions re sex workers parole would have. Make prostitution completely legal and he would most likely still have murdered a woman - he murdered his ex, after all, and being a wife is 100% legal.

I don't have the strength to critique this article , which is linked from the one quoted, beyong that is garbage from the start to the point I gave up reading.

www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qbnenm/canadas-sex-work-laws-are-dangerous-racist-and-classist?utm_source=stylizedembed_vice.com&utm_campaign=884xd3&site=vice

FFS men do not NEED sex!

How, when surrounded by only men for years can they even try and assess someones safety to be released amongst women and children.

Not that attempting to re introduce women and building up the time gradually is the answer but theres no way to know so wtf are they basing it on?

That poor woman.

Christ. Once more I’m speechless. Those poor women. I’d love to know exactly how many women are considered to be acceptable collateral damage to ensure men’s “needs” are satisfied. Is it 2? Evidently not. 200? 2 million? Who knows. Hey, once we’re not allowed to be women anymore and we’re just the underclass will it even matter when we’re murdered?

Incels believe they have a right to sex

SarahTancredi

"How, when surrounded by only men for years can they even try and assess someones safety to be released amongst women and children.

Not that attempting to re introduce women and building up the time gradually is the answer but theres no way to know so wtf are they basing it on?" That's an excellent point.

What are they basing it on? Possibly nothing at all. How can they know!

Maybe the fact that he killed his wife should be taken a bit more seriously. Plus "According to several news reports, the erotic massage parlour that employed Levesque allegedly banned Eustachio Gallese, 51, after he had behaved violently with several masseuses."

I think though that was what the decriminalisation advocate was saying. Although the massage parlour banned him, they didn't report him to any authorities, because they would have had to admit to breaking the law themselves. She thinks that if sex work were decriminalised then the information would have been passed on.

Maybe, I guess, it's hard to say that would not have happened. But I tend to think this guy was always going to reoffend one way or another.

The question I have is why was his risk profile downgraded? That seems to be where things really went wrong, they decided to begin to reintegrate him because it was decided he no longer posed a risk. A bad error clearly, but what was behind it? I honestly don't think it was about pandering to men, lots of people get denied parole because they are seen as too much of a risk.

As for sexual needs, yeah, that pisses me off. But the attitudes of these people reflect social attitudes about sex more generally. And a lot of people are happy to talk about sexual needs so long as it isn't in reference to prostitution or men.

Goosefoot the Nordic model would allow for disclosure about who may put prostitutes in danger without decriminalizing prostitution altogether, wouldn't it?

Presumably Marylène Levesque knew he had been banned from the massage parlor so that is why she agreed to meet him at the hotel?

I think there are big questions about why he was let out.

But also why are women willing to put themselves in such danger. What are we telling young women about themselves and their chances in life that they can be willing to put themselves in such danger.

Not at all blaming her, just wondering why as a society we are encouraging this. I do think decriminalizing prostitution would encourage it.

It's so very sad.

I agree, decriminalization sends all the wrong messages.

This happened at a hotel in my neighbourhood. Apparently he was given permission to pay prostitutes for sex as a risk management strategy. As in, they thought he might attack a woman if he didn’t get to satisfy his sexual “needs”. Why the fuck he was allowed out of prison I’ll never know. I guess they thought the victim was expendable because she was a prostitute.

As in, they thought he might attack a woman if he didn’t get to satisfy his sexual “needs”

He did attack a woman, the one he murdered. And several others at the massage parlor apparently.

It's not women who want the sex industry abolished who don't care about the safety of the women in it, it's people like the one who signed off on that prisoner's release on the assumption that it was OK for him to act out his violent impulses as long as he chose the "correct" targets.

the Nordic model would allow for disclosure about who may put prostitutes in danger without decriminalizing prostitution altogether, wouldn't it? Presumably Marylène Levesque knew he had been banned from the massage parlor so that is why she agreed to meet him at the hotel?

Sure, I think the Nordic model is probably better all round. Though in this example I'm not sure it would have meant that anyone informed the police about the problem. I think when people talk about legalising sex work, or even decriminalising, they usually see part of that being regular established reporting of some kind between police and sex workers.

I don't agree with sex work being legal, at all, I think the downsides of that are quite serious and also I have problems with it on principle, but I don't know that what she is saying here is a crazy idea. Maybe there would be more communication with authorities in that kind of scenario than there is now.

As far as Levesque, I wondered why she agreed as well. Maybe she was desperate, or maybe young and felt invincible, maybe someone who is easily manipulated, who knows.

Why the fuck he was allowed out of prison I’ll never know. I guess they thought the victim was expendable because she was a prostitute.

I think the people making the decisions imagine that they will somehow be able to control a scenario like this. So if this offender is only allowed to meet a certain person at a certain place and time, he knows he can't get away with anything bad or he will be caught, so he will behave.

There's no such thing as sexual 'needs'.

He won't die without sex.

@Luckystar777

Exactly. Although I'd love a word with the parole board members who appear to think that the purpose of woman is to satisfy man's sexual needs.