Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans

[Mcface]

A man in Australia was recently acquitted of the rape charges he was faced with, because the defense said it would be impossible, or very unlikely he would be able to get the woman's skinny jeans down without her consent.

This is ridiculous. My girlfriend wears skinny jeans all the time, and I have no trouble getting them off. Granted, she isn't trying to fight me.. but regardless, it's easily possible. Skinny jeans are no tighter around the waist than a normal pair of jeans, they are just tighter around the thighs and legs. How the Jury didn't realize you only have to pull them down to a certain point before you have "access" is beyond me.

Fellow Escapists, what do you think? Are the charges being dropped on the account of "she was wearing skinny jeans" bogus? Or do you think it's a solid defense?

( http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/05/05/skinny-jeans-lead-to-acquittal-in-australian-rape-case/?icid=main|aim|dl8|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemondrop.com%2F2010%2F05%2F05%2Fskinny-jeans-lead-to-acquittal-in-australian-rape-case%2F )

EDIT: The thread and article aren't about if the man is guilty or innocent. It's about the fact that the woman was wearing skinny jeans. And that her wearing them, somehow impacted her ability to be raped. And even some of the jury agreed. A case was also turned over AFTER a Korean man was convicted of rape for the same reason. It's not weather or not they should or shouldn't be guilty, it's about why the hell this is somehow a defense at all, let alone a major one.

 

[Julianking93]

...are you fucking kidding me?

This is a joke right?

That's like saying...fuck I don't even know what that's like! It's so goddamn stupid and ridiculous that I can't even think of an analogy for it.

 

[Marter]

Skinny jeans aren't that much harder to get off, so my views mirror your own OP. That should not be a reason to acquit someone of rape.

 

[Hazy]

Honestly, I have no idea what the Defense thinks Skinnies are.
Like you said, OP, they're just like normal jeans as far as the waist goes, and practically no harder to get off, either.

 

[LockeDown]

Wow. That's just...wow.

 

[Davrel]

OK - you may find it a little crazy, but what if he was actually telling the truth and he didn't rape her? There are plenty of fucked-up women out there too (not as many as men admittedly, but still).

The law works on the basis of proving something "beyond reasonable doubt", if the prosecution can't do that, then tough.

He was found innocent by a jury of his peers and his life wasn't ruined by a (possibly) wrongful rape conviction. As far as I'm concerned, he's innocent.

EDIT: The idea of skinny jeans being a reason to let somebody off a rape charge may seem silly to you but if it convinced a jury that this man was innocent (in combination with other evidence) then that is fair and final. Just because she could remove her jeans without difficulty doesn't mean he could. -snip- removed an incorrect point here. -snip-

As for the article itself, it reeks of self-involved, entirely subjective whining.
As for "As she so astutely put it, ''Any piece of clothing can be removed with force.''" - get a fucking brain; In this case, this not only implies that he had the ability to deliver the requisite force to remove them in the first place, but that he had the additional strength to restrain a scared and panicking woman whilst doing so. Neither argument is raised in the article to any sufficient level.

In short, on a case by case basis THERE IS ALWAYS room for evidence that in other scenarios may seem ridiculous; unless you were there or have the full court transcripts then you are in a far inferior position to decide than the jury: Fact.

She calls "bullshit" on the jury's verdict - I call "bullshit" on her feeble attempts at journalism.

N.B. I'm not saying the man in question appears to be entirely innocent of all forms of harassment (unless of course she is making it ALL up), but if the jury has decided he is innocent of rape, then he is, to all intents and purposes, innocent of rape.

 

[tjcross]

wow that's just stupid i know people are idiots but this?? that's like saying i can't be responsible for hanging people since it would be impossible to get them up the tree without them letting me it's just stupid was the jury high? how can people be this dumb?

 

[Raven's Nest]

Wow... Stupid beyond belief...

But have you ever tried to fully remove a pair of drain pipes whilst drunk or stoned?.. FFFFFUUUUU!

 

[Scout Kubin]

Ok, fine. So he has the manual dexterity of a walrus and couldn't actually rape her. He still tried! That's still sexual assault, and still reprehensible. It's that simple.

 

[Mcface]

...are you fucking kidding me?

This is a joke right?

That's like saying...fuck I don't even know what that's like! It's so goddamn stupid and ridiculous that I can't even think of an analogy for it.

unfortunately it's real.
and it said somewhere in the article because of this case another man accused and convicted of rape had his case overturned.

I realize there are a lot of bogus rape cases, where the woman will pin it on the guy for whatever reason. But on the grounds of skinny jeans alone, it's insanity.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Yeah, it's so hard for a large man to take them off, when the woman in question takes them off all the time. This is beyond stupid...

 

[Mcface]

OK - you may find it a little crazy, but what if he was actually telling the truth and he didn't rape her? There are plenty of fucked-up women out there too (not as many as men admittedly, but still).

The law works on the basis of proving something "beyond reasonable doubt", if the prosecution can't do that, then tough.

He was found innocent by a jury of his peers and his life wasn't ruined by a (possibly) wrongful rape conviction. As far as I'm concerned, he's innocent.

But that wasn't taken into question. The fact that skinny jeans alone are the reason he aquitted is just dumb. Not because the girl had done it before, or had a weak case, its the fact she was wearing skinny jeans.

 

[RedPandaMan]

OK - you may find it a little crazy, but what if he was actually telling the truth and he didn't rape her? There are plenty of fucked-up women out there too (not as many as men admittedly, but still).

The law works on the basis of proving something "beyond reasonable doubt", if the prosecution can't do that, then tough.

He was found innocent by a jury of his peers and his life wasn't ruined by a (possibly) wrongful rape conviction. As far as I'm concerned, he's innocent.

I agree with this guy. Is there any proof beyond just what she says? While it is possible that she was telling the truth, with no other witnesses it is impossible to prove.

Although, it is a very strange acquittal.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

*ssssssiiiiiiiiigh* Only in australia...

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Snip

If your going to rape someone are you really going to be stopped because of there god damn pants? Sometimes I just want to kill every lawyer in the world.

 

[Billion Backs]

OK - you may find it a little crazy, but what if he was actually telling the truth and he didn't rape her? There are plenty of fucked-up women out there too (not as many as men admittedly, but still).

The law works on the basis of proving something "beyond reasonable doubt", if the prosecution can't do that, then tough.

He was found innocent by a jury of his peers and his life wasn't ruined by a (possibly) wrongful rape conviction. As far as I'm concerned, he's innocent.

What he said.

You aren't supposed to judge people the moment someone mentions they might be a criminal or whatever.

Of course, given the maturity and apparent intelligence of the average escapist I've so far been able to observe, it's all pointless dreams to expect anything other then sensationalist response along the lines of RAR KILL THEM ALL.

And yes, if the court decides that someone is innocent, they're as innocent as they go. Why the fuck do you think your opinions matter? Jury decided so, so follow your own laws.
What some of ya'll clearly want is a more twisted then usual form of vigilantism that's ready to rip into someone's guts on the first mention of crime - evidence or not.

Sad, really.

 

[Mcface]

*ssssssiiiiiiiiigh* Only in australia...

"Recently, a Korean court overturned the sentence of a man previously convicted of raping a skinny-jeans-clad woman,"

And Korea!

 

[Mcface]

OK - you may find it a little crazy, but what if he was actually telling the truth and he didn't rape her? There are plenty of fucked-up women out there too (not as many as men admittedly, but still).

The law works on the basis of proving something "beyond reasonable doubt", if the prosecution can't do that, then tough.

He was found innocent by a jury of his peers and his life wasn't ruined by a (possibly) wrongful rape conviction. As far as I'm concerned, he's innocent.

What he said.

You aren't supposed to judge people the moment someone mentions they might be a criminal or whatever.

Of course, given the maturity and apparent intelligence of the average escapist I've so far been able to observe, it's all pointless dreams to expect anything other then sensationalist response along the lines of RAR KILL THEM ALL.

So believing he is innocent makes one more mature or intelligent than if one believes he is guilty?

and, for the record..

"The jury agreed. During the trial, they wanted to know more about "how exactly Nick took off her jeans" in order to make their decision.

"I doubt those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration," read a juror's note." "

It seems very likely the main reason he was acquitted was because of the jeans. That is what the whole thread and article are about.

 

[PrototypeC]

If he really did it, then no, skinny jeans aren't a defense!

 

[Nalesnik]

"If the glove don't fit, you gotta acquit.". Or in this case "If the jeans are skinny fit, you gotta acquit" xD
The guy must have had Johnny Cochran for his lawyer.