Just to repeat what earlier people have said...
There's a huge stigma attached to being the defendant in a rape case, and if you need evidence just look at the majority of replies on this thread. The general opinion seems to be that Gonzales is guilty and got away on a stupid defense. Rape itself carries so much (deserved, of course) stigma that as soon as someone's formally accused of it the general feeling is that of guilty until proven innocent.
The issue is that no-one here knows Gonzales, no-one here knows the woman, no-one here was present at the trial and certainly no-one here was at the scene. All *we* have to go on are reports on the trial, all invariably playing up the skinny jeans defense- not because Gonzales was acquitted on the sole defense of "skinny jeans are too tight to remove without consent", but because it makes for good journalism. It's an unusual aspect of this particular case as opposed to all the other acquittals out there over the plaintiff's lack of supporting evidence, or even evidence to support consent. The "skinny jeans defense" is what made it newsworthy, and as such you could assume the journalists implied it to have far greater importance than it actually had. I mean, you have to understand this, people. A good deal of journalism relies on finding the unusual or the sensational and playing it up, because no-one's going to read an article about grass being green.
And it works. There's five pages of replies here, mostly expressions of disgust at the legal system.
Anyway, the point is, maybe Gonzales is guilty, maybe not. I don't know, and I'm pretty damned sure no-one else here does either. But please, if you're going to express an opinion on the ruling, exercise a little skepticism and do some *research* first. Because the thing is, the acquittal doesn't mean anything, does it? Most people seem to assume he's guilty or that the skinny jeans defense is punishable in itself. Which means that if he is guilty, he's getting what's coming to him anyway- oh, except he's not being placed in relative seclusion at the same time. Whereas if he's innocent, good old-fashioned bigotry means he's still getting punished, but for something he didn't do.
Here's a couple of sites, probably already linked. The trick is to read between the lines of journalistic slant to get the actual facts being presented.
http://www.opposingviews.com/p/man-acquitted-of-rape-thanks-to-woman-s-skinny-jeans
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/05/01/2010-05-01_jury_acquits_accused_rapist_rules_womans_skinny_jeans_so_tight_she_must_have_hel.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1270113/Youre-guilty-rape-Those-skinny-jeans-tight-remove-jury-rules.html
Anyway... maybe he got away with rape, maybe he was acquitted of a wrongful accusation; there's only two people who know, and that's the plaintiff and the defendant. Don't jump on the bandwagon of a journalist doing what's necessary to get published. Exercise a little individual thought.
-edit: A source of contention seems to be the tightness of the jeans being considered evidence. And what exactly *is* conclusive evidence in a rape case? It wasn't denied that intercourse took place, but sadly it seems Gonzales neglected to film the event in case the issue of rape arose. So I guess the plaintiff is one up on him, because apparently the accusation of rape is considered evidence of rape?
Consider that maybe, in *this particular case*, *this particular pair of jeans* worn by *this particular woman* may have actually given the jury cause to doubt the accusation.
There's a huge stigma attached to being the defendant in a rape case, and if you need evidence just look at the majority of replies on this thread. The general opinion seems to be that Gonzales is guilty and got away on a stupid defense. Rape itself carries so much (deserved, of course) stigma that as soon as someone's formally accused of it the general feeling is that of guilty until proven innocent.
The issue is that no-one here knows Gonzales, no-one here knows the woman, no-one here was present at the trial and certainly no-one here was at the scene. All *we* have to go on are reports on the trial, all invariably playing up the skinny jeans defense- not because Gonzales was acquitted on the sole defense of "skinny jeans are too tight to remove without consent", but because it makes for good journalism. It's an unusual aspect of this particular case as opposed to all the other acquittals out there over the plaintiff's lack of supporting evidence, or even evidence to support consent. The "skinny jeans defense" is what made it newsworthy, and as such you could assume the journalists implied it to have far greater importance than it actually had. I mean, you have to understand this, people. A good deal of journalism relies on finding the unusual or the sensational and playing it up, because no-one's going to read an article about grass being green.
And it works. There's five pages of replies here, mostly expressions of disgust at the legal system.
Anyway, the point is, maybe Gonzales is guilty, maybe not. I don't know, and I'm pretty damned sure no-one else here does either. But please, if you're going to express an opinion on the ruling, exercise a little skepticism and do some *research* first. Because the thing is, the acquittal doesn't mean anything, does it? Most people seem to assume he's guilty or that the skinny jeans defense is punishable in itself. Which means that if he is guilty, he's getting what's coming to him anyway- oh, except he's not being placed in relative seclusion at the same time. Whereas if he's innocent, good old-fashioned bigotry means he's still getting punished, but for something he didn't do.
Here's a couple of sites, probably already linked. The trick is to read between the lines of journalistic slant to get the actual facts being presented.
http://www.opposingviews.com/p/man-acquitted-of-rape-thanks-to-woman-s-skinny-jeans
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/05/01/2010-05-01_jury_acquits_accused_rapist_rules_womans_skinny_jeans_so_tight_she_must_have_hel.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1270113/Youre-guilty-rape-Those-skinny-jeans-tight-remove-jury-rules.html
Anyway... maybe he got away with rape, maybe he was acquitted of a wrongful accusation; there's only two people who know, and that's the plaintiff and the defendant. Don't jump on the bandwagon of a journalist doing what's necessary to get published. Exercise a little individual thought.
-edit: A source of contention seems to be the tightness of the jeans being considered evidence. And what exactly *is* conclusive evidence in a rape case? It wasn't denied that intercourse took place, but sadly it seems Gonzales neglected to film the event in case the issue of rape arose. So I guess the plaintiff is one up on him, because apparently the accusation of rape is considered evidence of rape?
Consider that maybe, in *this particular case*, *this particular pair of jeans* worn by *this particular woman* may have actually given the jury cause to doubt the accusation.
