Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans

[Phoenix1213]

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?

Yeah we really don't know, and all of the articles given(the first article links to two or three others) are rather vague and single minded. No one here even has any reason for her to lie or regret it. I mean, let's say she's a single woman who is not entirely unfamiliar to "one night stands"... it's not like she'd just one day after a one night stand decide to say it was rape just for kicks. So, yeah we really don't know anything about this case, except for what the one sided articles say. We can speculate but it's really not fair to judge either party without ALL the facts.

In terms of the singular question: Jury acquits man because of skinny jeans; are they wrong?
My answer is yes

If the question were: Jury acquits man due to lack of evidence, poor character, plausible reasons for lying, and primarily skinny jeans; are the wrong?
My answer would be no, or at least that I can't comment since that's still not all the details.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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')

Hey look! Another person making an uninformed opinion. If a jury is short sighted and a threat to justice, why exactly do we still use them? Oh. Because for the most part, they work. I've been in a number court rooms during 2 murder cases and number of theft cases. Juries take their responsibility very seriously. The "Oh noes -3 for humanity, wah wah!" crowd are just as ignorant as the 'short sighted' jury you mentioned.
Innocent until proven guilty. If you people can't even get that fundamental constitutional right around your heads then I suggest you all look in the mirror and ask "Who are the real criminals?" Because I'm pretty damn sure that locking an innocent man away for the rest of his life or committing vigilantism is just as 'short sighted.'

 

[cuddly_tomato]

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.

Ditto to this.

Anyone remember the Lacrosse crap?


The guys who didn't do anything?


While a rape can ruin a womans life, a false accusation of rape can equally ruin a mans life. Even if the charges are dropped, people wonder "where there is smoke there is fire". This man has been aquitted, and therefore should be considered innocent. That consideration should definitely not be overturned because some pathetic website has got in a tizzy about someone being aquitted of rape.

 

[Beefjerky]

Hahaha. That guy must have like the best defense attorney in the world.

 

[tjarne]

Doesn't matter if he managed to get them down. He tried and that should be enough. Shouldn't be to hard to get a pair of tight jeans of though.

 

[Palademon]

It doesnt matter if they're wearing skinny jeans or not, Yahtzee will find a way

 

[DrScoobs]

It doesnt matter if they're wearing skinny jeans or not, Yahtzee will find a way

yahtzee isn't australian

 

[gamefreakbsp]

How can any intelligent person take that defense seriously, let alone an entire jury of intelligent people?

The same way that the majority of 'intelligent' people in a thread accept a biased blog post as sound legal transcript.

I understand your concerns here, I really do. But simply because a pots is biased is no reason to dismiss what is written in it as uneducated slander. There is no real way (that I can see) to skew the fact that this man was acquitted of rape due to the sole reason for his "skinny jeans defense." So, unless your arguing that that is a valid defense, I think you lost me a little here.

 

[Palademon]

It doesnt matter if they're wearing skinny jeans or not, Yahtzee will find a way

yahtzee isn't australian

I know, he's brittish like me but lives in australia.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

How can any intelligent person take that defense seriously, let alone an entire jury of intelligent people?

The same way that the majority of 'intelligent' people in a thread accept a biased blog post as sound legal transcript.

I understand your concerns here, I really do. But simply because a pots is biased is no reason to dismiss what is written in it as uneducated slander. There is no real way (that I can see) to skew the fact that this man was acquitted of rape due to the sole reason for his "skinny jeans defense." So, unless your arguing that that is a valid defense, I think you lost me a little here.

I think the jeans evidence was noticed and has been taken out of context by an extraordinary amount. Journalists don't convict people. Juries do, and they obviously felt that, given all the evidence, there was no 'beyond all reasonable doubt' in this case. These safeguards are in place to prevent innocent people from going to jail. No system is perfect, but could you honestly send man to jail because he might have committed rape?

 

[RobCoxxy]

Through personal experience, skinny jeans can come off in seconds.
EDIT:
I don't mean in rape.

What?

WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE TAKE ME FOR?

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

...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.

Allow me to help:

It's like saying someone couldn't have climbed in through an open window and robbed a house because the window was stiff, or the hinges were rusty.

He can still fucking get them off for Gods sake...

 

[Davrel]

Good lord, I want to punch that anchorwoman in the face. Does she even understand the term "journalistic integrity" or the principles of remaining objective? Another reason for me to distrust and despise the American media...

 

[luckshot]

Doesn't matter if he managed to get them down. He tried and that should be enough. Shouldn't be to hard to get a pair of tight jeans of though.

that isnt the issue here

they had sex. the issue is whether or not she consented and later cried rape.

the author the op cites wasn't at the trial, we don't have a great deal of information on what else was involved, but there is some (look through the other 8 pages).

some evidence such as her changing story, her being a friend of his ex (this could be a big one and would provide a lot of insight if we knew how both sides used it), these could have put a shadow of doubt on his guilt and forced the jury to declare not guilty

 

[Mozared]

I too think the jury might've been right. Or at the very least, it isn't "a joke", "ridiculous" or "stupid beyond belief", like posters on the first page have mentioned. Stop being judgemental bastards, you have no clue what exactly happened.

Also, for those who think "skinny jeans are just like normal jeans", I'm wondering what kind of hands you have. If there's one thing I've noticed about jeans over the last ~10 years is that they have become tighter and use buttons near the crotch rather than zippers. And heck, I'm a guy who doesn't even wear skinny jeans and even I ocassionaly have problems taking my *own* pants off easily. I'm quite sure it would be possibly unmanageable for me to restrain a wrestling and screaming woman with one hand and somehow open and take off tight pants with the other. While lying on her legs as well - either that or assume she's kicking out at me.

 

[Distorted Stu]

So the fact he went to rape this poor girl, and apperntly didnt succeed is just left off the hook? Its like pointing a gun at people, then not shooting, then getting away with it beause their bones were protecting their squishy insides.

Oh, and its piss easy to take Skinny Jeans off forcfully.

 

[asinann]

Without having all the evidence we can't make an informed decision on this. There might have been other things in addition to the tight jeans that showed he didn't do it. Probably helped his case that between 60 and 80% of all rape cases prove to be outright lies or women who wait until after the sex is over to say no (ie, she said yes then after it was all over regretted it.)

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt

A link to a legal paper about false rape reports.

Not that it matters, this guy's life is ruined.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

So the fact he went to rape this poor girl, and apperntly didnt succeed is just left off the hook? Its like pointing a gun at people, then not shooting, then getting away with it beause their bones were protecting their squishy insides.

Oh, and its piss easy to take Skinny Jeans off forcfully.

Nice to see that people believe everything they read on the internet. Seriously? Do you even know how a trial works?

 

[Xojins]

After reading the article I can't decide my position. It would be fucking retarded if the guy was acquitted solely because of the skinny jeans defense (although I do agree they make taking pants on/off really difficult). But on the other hand, the article is more of a rant than an actual report of the case, so there were probably other details it left out.

 

[Eldarion]

...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.

Agreed. :/