Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans

[ENKC]

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')

Is this a troll? Do you have any idea how patently ridiculous AND offensive it is to suggest that our country endorses rape and should not be visited by people entirely on the basis of what ONE RANDOM PERSON ON THE INTERNET said? Do you even know that Australia is consistently rated as having the highest living standards of any nation on earth alongside the Scandinavian countries?

If you are sufficiently lacking in logic to genuinely believe the kind of sensationalist nonsense you've just stated, then I'm sure this fine nation of ours will survive your boycott.

I thought you Aussies were supposed to be a bit more thick skinned? Jesus, acting outraged like a bloody west-coast American just because I called for some legal reform and gave some travel advice.

I'm (kinda) serious, after a ruling like this, assuming (like 90% of the people on this forum do) that the rape DID happen and the the aquittal WAS mainly from the "skinny jeans defence" why would a serial rapist not target women in Skinny jeans?!?

Though I will grant you that it MAY not be as the source claims it is.

But I am not going to be THAT keen to argue the point that: "ah the victim is lying, she was asking for it and she is crying rape for no reason" since it is very easy to end up looking like a misogynistic douchebag.

Your opinion is one of emotional and reactionary outrage to third hand information divorced from the original facts. A valid opinion is one wherein logic has been applied to the known facts in as objective a manner as possible.

To make such sweeping claims as the jury being narrow minded idiots and that Australia is now a haven for perverts with an established legal precendent that it's okay to rape women wearing jeans is absurd and has no basis in fact or evidence.

Then, in justification of this you speak of your assumptions, noting that others share them. Not only do your assumptions have no basis in fact or evidence, but the assumptions of others here are made on the same non-existent foundation.

Let me break this down to its fundamentals. This was a court case. The court must consider all the evidence. The state of the victim's clothing and their state of dress or undress all constitute part of that evidence.

Would you contend that such matters should not be considered in evidence? There is no proof whatsoever that it was the sole reason for the not guilty verdict. The jury decided, on consideration of ALL the evidence, that they could not find the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

And what, precisely, does you last statement about the victim lying have to do with anything? This has nothing to do with whether she lied or not. It has everything to do with how it is not acceptable to say that "Well, 90% of us are assuming this guy raped her and the jury are narrow minded idiots because we read a blog post by someone that read a story about what happened in the case." That is libel.

 

[Treblaine]

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')

Is this a troll? Do you have any idea how patently ridiculous AND offensive it is to suggest that our country endorses rape and should not be visited by people entirely on the basis of what ONE RANDOM PERSON ON THE INTERNET said? Do you even know that Australia is consistently rated as having the highest living standards of any nation on earth alongside the Scandinavian countries?

If you are sufficiently lacking in logic to genuinely believe the kind of sensationalist nonsense you've just stated, then I'm sure this fine nation of ours will survive your boycott.

I thought you Aussies were supposed to be a bit more thick skinned? Jesus, acting outraged like a bloody west-coast American just because I called for some legal reform and gave some travel advice.

I'm (kinda) serious, after a ruling like this, assuming (like 90% of the people on this forum do) that the rape DID happen and the the aquittal WAS mainly from the "skinny jeans defence" why would a serial rapist not target women in Skinny jeans?!?

Though I will grant you that it MAY not be as the source claims it is.

But I am not going to be THAT keen to argue the point that: "ah the victim is lying, she was asking for it and she is crying rape for no reason" since it is very easy to end up looking like a misogynistic douchebag.

Your opinion is one of emotional and reactionary outrage to third hand information divorced from the original facts. A valid opinion is one wherein logic has been applied to the known facts in as objective a manner as possible.

To make such sweeping claims as the jury being narrow minded idiots and that Australia is now a haven for perverts with an established legal precendent that it's okay to rape women wearing jeans is absurd and has no basis in fact or evidence.

Then, in justification of this you speak of your assumptions, noting that others share them. Not only do your assumptions have no basis in fact or evidence, but the assumptions of others here are made on the same non-existent foundation.

Let me break this down to its fundamentals. This was a court case. The court must consider all the evidence. The state of the victim's clothing and their state of dress or undress all constitute part of that evidence.

Would you contend that such matters should not be considered in evidence? There is no proof whatsoever that it was the sole reason for the not guilty verdict. The jury decided, on consideration of ALL the evidence, that they could not find the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

And what, precisely, does you last statement about the victim lying have to do with anything? This has nothing to do with whether she lied or not. It has everything to do with how it is not acceptable to say that "Well, 90% of us are assuming this guy raped her and the jury are narrow minded idiots because we read a blog post by someone that read a story about what happened in the case." That is libel.

How can you write so much yet say so little? Particularly ignore my last post and just reiterate your response to my first post. That and half of what you say is just bollocks. Sorry but it quite simply is bollocks that is barely even worth pointing out why (say I said things that I didn't)

Only 110 post and you're on probation? You're not going to last long here, mate.

 

[ENKC]

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')

Is this a troll? Do you have any idea how patently ridiculous AND offensive it is to suggest that our country endorses rape and should not be visited by people entirely on the basis of what ONE RANDOM PERSON ON THE INTERNET said? Do you even know that Australia is consistently rated as having the highest living standards of any nation on earth alongside the Scandinavian countries?

If you are sufficiently lacking in logic to genuinely believe the kind of sensationalist nonsense you've just stated, then I'm sure this fine nation of ours will survive your boycott.

I thought you Aussies were supposed to be a bit more thick skinned? Jesus, acting outraged like a bloody west-coast American just because I called for some legal reform and gave some travel advice.

I'm (kinda) serious, after a ruling like this, assuming (like 90% of the people on this forum do) that the rape DID happen and the the aquittal WAS mainly from the "skinny jeans defence" why would a serial rapist not target women in Skinny jeans?!?

Though I will grant you that it MAY not be as the source claims it is.

But I am not going to be THAT keen to argue the point that: "ah the victim is lying, she was asking for it and she is crying rape for no reason" since it is very easy to end up looking like a misogynistic douchebag.

Your opinion is one of emotional and reactionary outrage to third hand information divorced from the original facts. A valid opinion is one wherein logic has been applied to the known facts in as objective a manner as possible.

To make such sweeping claims as the jury being narrow minded idiots and that Australia is now a haven for perverts with an established legal precendent that it's okay to rape women wearing jeans is absurd and has no basis in fact or evidence.

Then, in justification of this you speak of your assumptions, noting that others share them. Not only do your assumptions have no basis in fact or evidence, but the assumptions of others here are made on the same non-existent foundation.

Let me break this down to its fundamentals. This was a court case. The court must consider all the evidence. The state of the victim's clothing and their state of dress or undress all constitute part of that evidence.

Would you contend that such matters should not be considered in evidence? There is no proof whatsoever that it was the sole reason for the not guilty verdict. The jury decided, on consideration of ALL the evidence, that they could not find the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

And what, precisely, does you last statement about the victim lying have to do with anything? This has nothing to do with whether she lied or not. It has everything to do with how it is not acceptable to say that "Well, 90% of us are assuming this guy raped her and the jury are narrow minded idiots because we read a blog post by someone that read a story about what happened in the case." That is libel.

How can you write so much yet say so little? Particularly ignore my last post and just reiterate your response to my first post. That and half of what you say is just bollocks. Sorry but it quite simply is bollocks that is barely even worth pointing out why (say I said things that I didn't)

Only 110 post and you're on probation? You're not going to last long here, mate.

Would you be so kind as to refrain from simply calling half my post 'bollocks', going the underhanded route re probation (it has no bearing on this discussion and you're welcome to look at the post in question) and simply explain your point of view in a calm and structured manner?

 

[Ultrajoe]

How can you write so much yet say so little? Particularly ignore my last post and just reiterate your response to my first post. That and half of what you say is just bollocks. Sorry but it quite simply is bollocks that is barely even worth pointing out why (say I said things that I didn't)

Only 110 post and you're on probation? You're not going to last long here, mate.

Actually, he seems to have put you down pretty hard. He's listed the reasons why your assumptions, the assumptions of other like you and your moral outrage are both inaccurate and inapplicable. He just took the time to spell it out in clear terms in short paragraphs.

Just saying.

 

[Treblaine]

How can you write so much yet say so little? Particularly ignore my last post and just reiterate your response to my first post. That and half of what you say is just bollocks. Sorry but it quite simply is bollocks that is barely even worth pointing out why (say I said things that I didn't)

Only 110 post and you're on probation? You're not going to last long here, mate.

Actually, he seems to have put you down pretty hard. He's listed the reasons why your assumptions, the assumptions of other like you and your moral outrage are both inaccurate and inapplicable. He just took the time to spell it out in clear terms in short paragraphs.

Just saying.

He's still talking bollocks, like that I implied Australia has any more perverts than anywhere else. He is being at the very least presumptive to think that.

He also chose to ignore my point that it is the duty of the Judge to keep the Jury in line because while individuals may be all right in groups people very often are only as smart as the dumbest person in the room. It's still the Judge's court room, if the jury make some ridiculous decision he has the power to tell them to go and confer again. It is his duty to ensure justice is served, not just to pass the buck of responsibility to the Jury.

I think the source is reasonable enough, no more sensationalist than any other "official" news publication. If he has proof otherwise I would like to hear it but all I've heard from him is conjecture, and I don't have time for conjecture.

He is also using reductionist logic "they must consider all evidence, including clothing"

When that is obviously flawed as ANYONE could wear skinny jeans and clearly the jury is incredibly naive to think that skinny jeans act as some kind of chastity belt that can only be removed under CONSENT (very different from COERCION, a point he has chosen to ignore as he knows he cannot counter it). Bollocks I say.

He also COMPLETELY misunderstands, perhaps intentionally, what I mean about "the woman lying" and what any reasonable person following this conversation would realise is utter bollocks. Especially the bollocks about libel. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Tom Dart]

First off I find it hard to belive that they would say he is innocent because of skinny jeans, but I have no idea of the authenticity of the article so assuming it was the only reason I suppose its wrong.
But im sure there was more to it then that, im sure it wasn't like they ignored witnesses and cctv footage all because of the skinny jeans.

On another note, people should support the laws decsions more, assume you get charged for rape and you didnt do it, sure you'll probably win the case but a rape conviction no matter the outcome can ruin your life, imagine you meet some-one and find out they are going to court for rape? your first instinct probably isnt, well Ill jugde his personality after a team of proffesionals has agreed on the most likley story, Most people will just think him a rapist, even if he's proved innocent a rape conviction could haunt him for life

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Good Lord...

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

How can you write so much yet say so little? Particularly ignore my last post and just reiterate your response to my first post. That and half of what you say is just bollocks. Sorry but it quite simply is bollocks that is barely even worth pointing out why (say I said things that I didn't)

Only 110 post and you're on probation? You're not going to last long here, mate.

Actually, he seems to have put you down pretty hard. He's listed the reasons why your assumptions, the assumptions of other like you and your moral outrage are both inaccurate and inapplicable. He just took the time to spell it out in clear terms in short paragraphs.

Just saying.

He's still talking bollocks, like that I implied Australia has any more perverts than anywhere else. He is being at the very least presumptive to think that.

He also chose to ignore my point that it is the duty of the Judge to keep the Jury in line because while individuals may be all right in groups people very often are only as smart as the dumbest person in the room. It's still the Judge's court room, if the jury make some ridiculous decision he has the power to tell them to go and confer again. It is his duty to ensure justice is served, not just to pass the buck of responsibility to the Jury.

I think the source is reasonable enough, no more sensationalist than any other "official" news publication. If he has proof otherwise I would like to hear it but all I've heard from him is conjecture, and I don't have time for conjecture.

He is also using reductionist logic "they must consider all evidence, including clothing"

When that is obviously flawed as ANYONE could wear skinny jeans and clearly the jury is incredibly naive to think that skinny jeans act as some kind of chastity belt that can only be removed under CONSENT (very different from COERCION, a point he has chosen to ignore as he knows he cannot counter it). Bollocks I say.

He also COMPLETELY misunderstands, perhaps intentionally, what I mean about "the woman lying" and what any reasonable person following this conversation would realise is utter bollocks. Especially the bollocks about libel. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Which means the judge agreed with the jury's decision in the case.

Calm down and please think a little more prior to posting your thoughts.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

snip

Hypocritical troll is hypocritical. I don't troll or read gossip magazines at all, so zip it.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Unless there was some other reason for them to have reasonable doubt, and as long as there was enough evidence against the man, then he should've been found guilty. Being acquitted because of skinny jeans alone is ridiculous, but you have to be careful with rape cases. Sometimes the woman is falsely accusing the man of rape, when she really just regrets the previous night.

 

[Deadarm]

So first I thought something along the lines of, "lolwut?" Then it dawned on me that the jurors had obviously never a) worn jeans b) seen how easily jeans can be cut or torn c) seen someone get pantsed. And now I question the intelligence of human beings one again.

 

[Wardnath]

This thread should be locked, IMO.

 

[ikey]

Now that I actually read the comments, I'm sorry I voted that the jury was wrong. Thanks Sorbs, now I know that I should actually research the thing before I vote on it.

 

[Striker501]

This is extremely depressing...

 

[jamesworkshop]

not sure about skinny jeans but i have seen plenty of people wearing jeans that look like they need some kind of mechanical machinery to remove/put on

I doubt jeans were a major factor but more likley a lack of physical evidence, lack of witnesses, possible allbi's for the time in question.

 

[Lawyer105]

snip

Hypocritical troll is hypocritical. I don't troll or read gossip magazines at all, so zip it.

Fail-troll doesn't understand the meaning of hypocritical obviously. Original comment stands.

 

[Ildecia]

thats retarted. i agree with everyone before me that shares this opinion

 

[MelziGurl]

It is disgusting that something like that could be part of the reason he was acquitted, but there may be some truth to it unfortunately. Considering what build she might be, if the jeans are indeed tight enough (and you can get super skinny jeans) then they can be some difficulty in removing them, especially if the victim is struggling. There is also the question of, was she bitter that he rejected her advances and made a shocking claim in an act of revenge?

Unfortunately, the strongest evidence in a rape case is the DNA evidence. There are lots of bogus claims on rape and very little evidence that has backed it up. Due to this, both innocent claimants and defendants suffer because there is uncertainty on what is truth and what is not. I tend not to believe either party unless there is some strong evidence to suggest otherwise, so I'm not going to let my opinion on the matter be biased.