Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans

[Pyotr Romanov]

So rape's OK as long as the victim is wearing skinny jeans? Interesting... I'll have to remember that...
Seriously though, it's probably just part of a way bigger case. This just makes for the best news story.

 

[Angerwing]

Wow.

I think 68.9% of the Escapist's forum userbase need to do a course on History or Science. Just because one person says it's so, it doesn't make it so.

From what I've gathered from other sources, she was consoling him in a bar. Then they went back to his place to 'listen to music'. Then they went to his bedroom to 'play his drums'. Then he randomly raped her. Sorry, no.

We've established that there was penis in vagina. This isn't a case of a guy raping a woman in an alley, then getting off because her pants were probably too hard to get off. That's bullshit.

What I've gathered:
According to her: they were starting to get it on, she said she didn't want to, and he went ahead anyway.
According to him: they were starting to get it on, then they got it on. Then she claimed rape.

DNA evidence can't help. They had sex, that's that. It's all a matter of whether or not it was consensual. The jury seems to think so, and the skinny jeans argument seems to support this. That doesn't mean the entire case hinged on the skinniness of the jeans in question. It's his word against her, and she had inconsistencies in her story(/ies).

 

[Cid Silverwing]

The jury should be disbarred for obstruction of Justice and the rapist sentenced to death by firing squad.

 

[Tainted Sai]

I voted yes. On what we know, I support the Jury's conclusion.

From what we know, they had sex. That's not the question. It's the consent that is the real issue here.

There's a lot of things that go into proving consent. The fact that skinny jeans are difficult to remove when the woman is actively fighting is probably one small part of what raised reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury and led in part to the conviction. If the woman changed her story on the stand as well, if there was other evidence which raised questions, there's certainly room for doubt.

As the issue is consent, if that is found in the defendant's favour, there's no scope to charge the accused with sexual harassment or intent or any such. If it was consensual, he is in the clear. The skinny jeans may have contributed in part to such a conclusion.

It's ridiculous to say that a woman raped while wearing skinny jeans will have no legal recourse. If the evidence is there, if there's not the doubt over consent, then they will be just as guilty as if she was wearing nothing at all.

 

[Lawyer105]

The jury should be disbarred for obstruction of Justice and the rapist sentenced to death by firing squad.

I can't work out whether you're just a lame-ass troll, or whether you're really as stupid as you sound.

This sort of comment typifies the kind of response I'd expect from somebody who reads gossip magazines and swears that everything in them is the truth - because it was printed in the 'news'.

It's immensely scary how many people out there are demonstrating this sort of active, blatant stupidity. WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS CASE. We weren't there when it happened. We weren't there when the court was in session. Hell - we haven't even read the actual court transcripts (or similar). Nope - we've all just read a single person's blog post. Yay for factual investigation and reasoned conclusions.

Anyone else out there support compulsory IQ and maturity tests before being given intarwebz-rights?

 

[Kyouki1980]

I swear... The human race sickens me with despair ~_~

 

[AnarchistAbe]

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...

Word up! One of my friends was charged with a rape he didn't commit. She was drunk and consented to sex, then her boyfriend found out and she said he raped her. The jury believed her (she declined that she was under the influence), so he is a sex offender now. There's some food for thought.

 

[nolongerhere]

I refuse to believe that a solid case against him would be taken down by skinny jeans. There has to be more to it than this, and the fact that this will get people riled up is why this particular piece of evidence has been reported.

 

[CouchCommando]

Well for a start what do you expect from a legal system that rules that calling a uniform cop a prick isn't verbal abuse.
I think the judge said it was to be expected or something.
For the record sounds like something out of our tabloid media.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Not many people would be stupid enough to acquit based on such poxy evidence. Something sounds sensationalised.

 

[JAY_RAD]

Wow! That is SO stupid that I can't think of anything to put here. Whatever that jury was smoking before that trial, I want some, cause it must of took some good drugs to get them to acquit a man of rape because of some f*cking skinny jeans! Idiots!

 

[UnravThreads]

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.

You, sir, win thirteen cookies and three internets.

 

[TIMESWORDSMAN]

PFFFFFFFT-HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Cmwissy]

That's why I usually bring a knife when seducing skinny jean-ed wenches.

 

[Phoenix1213]

I love how some people say: "Oh you're not supposed to judge someone just because they were charged with a certain crime, and there must have been a reasonable doubt." blahblahblah "Yeah she probably lied about it because she regretted it later." or "Yeah, because women never cry wolf right?"

It's just so hypocritical to judge the supposed victim just because the supposed attacker was acquitted. Just because there was some doubt that doesn't mean you have the right to judge the victim all some doubt means is that you don't have the right to judge the attacker. The attack still could have happened, the attack still could have been attempted, or any number of things, but I just love how it automatically becomes. "He was acquitted, so I'm going to say she was lying, and just regretted having sex with him when her boyfriend found out . lol" or "He was acquitted so I'm going to bring up how much people lie and then relate it to this case, yay!"

 

[Lawyer105]

It's just so hypocritical to judge the supposed victim just because the supposed attacker was acquitted. Just because there was some doubt that doesn't mean you have the right to judge the victim all some doubt means is that you don't have the right to judge the attacker. The attack still could have happened, the attack still could have been attempted, or any number of things, but I just love how it automatically becomes. "He was acquitted, so I'm going to say she was lying, and just regretted having sex with him when her boyfriend found out . lol" or "He was acquitted so I'm going to bring up how much people lie and then relate it to this case, yay!"

Not to be difficult, but the only actual information we have is the following:

Two people met.
They went and had sex.
Woman cried rape.
Jury went rofl.

All other things being equal, this gives a pretty good message that (somewhere along the line), she probably WAS lying.

And given that the jury found him innocent, I'd argue that the DUDE was most likely the victim - of the woman's unfounded (else he'd have been convicted) accusations. Potentially, she's guilty of perjury - especially if there's any truth to her changing her story during the case. That would make HER the criminal who's getting away with it - the past few months must have been hell for the dude - harrassment in anyone's book.

But I'll say it again. WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW. So why's everyone getting their panties in a twist?

 

[Wardnath]

Australia, you deserve this:

Spoiler

I think you deserve it a bit more. Reported.

All I know is this: Women, don't go to Australia wearing Skinny jeans...

... better yet, just don't go to Australia till they've sorted this legal dispute out.

(really, DON'T! This ruling just gives perverts a licence to rape all women in tight jeans)

I mean this fails on the most basic legal terms, as rape is not defined by use of FORCE but by lack of CONSENT.

(PS: I don't blame the Jury, Juries are short sighted and narrow minded. I blame the Judge for reminding the jury they are to aquittal based on the 'issue of consent not force' and that 'co-operation or lack of resistance, is not the same as consent')

/tinfoil hat

 

[chronobreak]

What a disgusting article. The author just keeps reinforcing "no means no". She even goes as far to say you can "go down" on a guy (her words), be naked, tell him you are going to have sex with him, and then just say 'no' and that's going to be it. Yes, in a perfect world, but what message is she sending to women or young women reading this article? That is incredibly dangerous advice, and I can't believe someone would even let her print that for many people to see.

Nothing provocative a woman (or man) does makes it alright for them to be raped, but let's not fool ourselves. If you get naked with a guy and tell him you want to have sex with him, then at the last second decide otherwise for whatever reason, you may be putting yourself at a greater risk of being assaulted. The author of this peice should have mentioned that more instead of juvenile euphanisms regarding a rape case.

 

[SuccessAndBiscuts]

What!? Intent! It was INTENT to rape, wasn't it?!

Because he failed means he wasn't trying to rape her? Am I reading this right? ....g'damn!

If intent to rape = intent to have sex with a woman despite not knowing whether she consents or not.

Every straight male on the planet is guilty.