Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans
- Thread starter Mcface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
what people are not understanding is that there is more to this case than beats the eye, were the hell is the evidence that she even WAS raped? were the hell is the DNA evidence? If there is no evidence that she was raped then obviously there is no reason that she should be taken seriously, and its impossible to charge the accused with rape.Mcface said:
The problem with taking a rape case to court, is that it is very hard to convict someone of doing it due to it almost always turning into a case of his word against hers, which isan't enough evidence to lock someone away.
*sigh* The justice system has failed yet again. I'm just waiting for dueling to back into style.
We Aussies ain't to good at all that fancy thinkin' that most the rest of the world seems to have some grasp of.
While I'm used to Australia being retarded in most ways, please, could we maintain some freaking common sense here.
Woman accuses man of rape.
Man is acquitted.
Clearly, this was a piece of circumstantial evidence that probably played only a small part in the case. I mean, if there had been clear proof of rape occuring (i.e. she'd been beaten to a pulp, or that there was damage to her genitals), then he would have been convicted at a snap. As it is, this sounds like the classic case of his word vs hers, and you can't convict someone on the basis of an accusation.
Woman accuses man of rape.
Man is acquitted.
Clearly, this was a piece of circumstantial evidence that probably played only a small part in the case. I mean, if there had been clear proof of rape occuring (i.e. she'd been beaten to a pulp, or that there was damage to her genitals), then he would have been convicted at a snap. As it is, this sounds like the classic case of his word vs hers, and you can't convict someone on the basis of an accusation.
That's a little premature. I know you must hate the justice system for imprisoning so many men on false charges, only to find them innocent after they've had their lives and reputations destroyed, but there's still the possibility that he might have done it.clicketycrack said:
Th rest of the evidence must be of dubious quality if that was enough to swing it towards innocence.
No jury, no matter how stupid, will simply acquit on account of the clothes worn
You can rarely judge any media outlet for the full unbiased story, at the end of the day they report the story they WANT you to hear. The constant flinging of lies you see in the American media about how videogames are the cause of 90% of social problems is a great example.
No jury, no matter how stupid, will simply acquit on account of the clothes worn
And doesnt that strike you as odd? Agsint the ream of evidence that would have been presented, the newspaper only reports that one fact, that is sure to spark controversy and debate, such as this thread?Mcface said:
You can rarely judge any media outlet for the full unbiased story, at the end of the day they report the story they WANT you to hear. The constant flinging of lies you see in the American media about how videogames are the cause of 90% of social problems is a great example.
partial story inspires debate over said story which appears to be lacking.... the rest of the story
catch the whole story at never p.m. on NO station, the station that brings u parts of things
catch the whole story at never p.m. on NO station, the station that brings u parts of things
The truly hilarious thing about this topic is how I doubt anyone here has the foggiest idea about what actually happened. I read the article and what it linked to, and it barely explained anything.
All we have is a dramatic headline, and everyone gets off their rocker.
All we have is a dramatic headline, and everyone gets off their rocker.
quoted, cuz i thought i was the only one who actually read the article... and cuz i thought the same.Davrel said: