Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans

[Ancientgamer]

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.

But that wasn't taken into question. The fact that skinny jeans alone are the reason he aquitted is just dumb. Not because the girl had done it before, or had a weak case, its the fact she was wearing skinny jeans.

Maybe she had done it before or did have an extremely weak case, and lemondrop just decided to focus on one particular facet because, you know, it makes for much better news.

In the end, both sides of the case had a full and proper trial, had all the time they needed to to fully present their cases, and yet they were fully able to convince 12 impartial people and a judge that he was innocent. Meanwhile we somehow feel justified getting on a soapbox after reading a 500 word article from a minor sensationalist news website. The justice system isn't perfect, but you must give it far more credit than that.

 

[Yureina]

I've heard a story similar to this before.

Blargh... I'm going to go off and pretend this type of stuff never happens.

 

[maninahat]

I suspect we are not getting the whole story. I doubt the jury came out and said "defendant not guilty, on the grounds of skinny jeans". Perhaps it was one factor in the jury coming to a descision, but I doubt the guys sat around in the room and unanimously agreed that jeans are as difficult to remove as car clamps.

The problem is that many rape cases rely on just one person's word against another. Unless there are obvious signs of physical injury and actual witnesses, there is nothing to say that the victim wasn't consenting at the time. This might just have been one of those cases were there was not enough evidence to suggest the man was guilty of the crime.

 

[Canid117]

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.

The conclusion may or may not have been accurate but the reason for the conclusion was bullshit.

 

[iDayman]

But that wasn't taken into question. The fact that skinny jeans alone are the reason he aquitted is just dumb. Not because the girl had done it before, or had a weak case, its the fact she was wearing skinny jeans.

Maybe she had done it before or did have an extremely weak case, and lemondrop just decided to focus on one particular facet because, you know, it makes for much better news.

In the end, both sides of the case had a full and proper trial, had all the time they needed to to fully present their cases, and yet they were fully able to convince 12 impartial people and a judge that he was innocent. Meanwhile we somehow feel justified getting on a soapbox after reading a 500 word article from a minor sensationalist news website. The justice system isn't perfect, but you must give it far more credit than that.

Agreed. A thousand time agreed.

Having been a defendant in a case at one time, accused of something I didnt do (granted, nothing as serious as this), it really bothers me how quickly people jump to assume youre guilty of something as soon as youre named as a defendant. Its a bit shocking how people, who might otherwise be skeptics, will suddenly decide that proof is unnecessary.

EDIT:
Also, i'd suggest reading this page, it seems quite relevant.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-11-23/opinion/17519595_1_twinkies-defense-s-case-martin-blinder

 

[TheDoctor455]

This stupid defense will probably sit in the Hall of Famous Stupid Defenses right next to the "Twinkie Defense" and the "I didn't do it, but if I did, then this is how I'd have done it..." argument.

 

[Skuffyshootster]

Maybe they were wet?

 

[Snarky Username]

"If the pants don't fit, you must acquit!"

What really scares me is that 9 people actually said "Yes, the jury was right"

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is only in America, in Australia the law is different, I'm pretty sure they only need a certain majority percent of the jury to agree in order to convict (although I could be wrong about that, and thinking of Austria, the international law class I took was a rather long time ago).

Anyway...I agree with you though, being an American.

No, criminal law has always been beyond reasonable doubt. Considering that it's the same in the UK and Australian law is pretty much based off of British law.

<--- 3rd year law student.

I agree with the verdict, rape convictions carry massive stigma, that's why jurys are so reluctant to convict if there is even a shred that the man charged is innocent.

 

[Cryo84R]

Because no woman ever changed her mind the day after. Nope, women are always totally innocent and not ever just trying to destroy someones life.

 

[Moriarty]

have some faith in the justice system folks, we know nothing about what happened in court, we only got some hyped up news about one of the reasons guy was acquitted.

I'm pretty sure the woman was just lying about that stuff and her story didn't work out when they asked details about how he got her pants off

 

[Good morning blues]

Welp, keep on keeping on, Australia. Another bullet point on the PowerPoint of political ridiculousness that is your country.

 

[I III II X4]

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!

 

[Daystar Clarion]

have some faith in the justice system folks, we know nothing about what happened in court, we only got some hyped up news about one of the reasons guy was acquitted.

I'm pretty sure the woman was just lying about that stuff and her story didn't work out when they asked details about how he got her pants off

I actually read the case a while back. She also changed her story, she originally stated that he ripped here jeans off, and then later changed her story to something like assisting him remove her jeans. I don't know the exact details but the link given by the OP is about as biased as an article can get.

 

[Fire Daemon]

The source you provide is a fairly poor one. They're more of a blog type thing and so are there sources. You could have used an Australian Newspaper website like this [http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/rape-of-woman-in-skinny-jeans-not-possible-20100430-tzai.html] and had it so that I didn't need to waste some of time checking if you were telling the truth.

I'm finding it hard to believe that the jeans are the sole reason for the jury's decision. There is evidence of trauma but the victim was found to be lying about why she went to the room. [http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-acquitted-in-skinnyjean-rape-case-loses-bid-for-costs-20100504-u75v.html] It was also found that Mr Gonzalez was an ex of one of her friends. While the evidence of trauma is a fairly good indicator, her feeling the need to lye about the circumstances adds more doubt. I feel that the jeans were a small part of a larger puzzle and wasn't the jury's main concern, but stories about a man being acquitted of rape because of a poor testimony from the victim don't sell papers (or get blog views in this case).

EDIT: Ninja'd in a way

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is only in America, in Australia the law is different, I'm pretty sure they only need a certain majority percent of the jury to agree in order to convict (although I could be wrong about that, and thinking of Austria, the international law class I took was a rather long time ago).

Anyway...I agree with you though, being an American.

No, criminal law has always been beyond reasonable doubt. Considering that it's the same in the UK and Australian law is pretty much based off of British law.

<--- 3rd year law student.

I agree with the verdict, rape convictions carry massive stigma, that's why jurys are so reluctant to convict if there is even a shred that the man charged is innocent.

Incorrect, in Texas and in one other state in the US (forget which one), you only need a majority jury to convict, as well as a number of countries in the European Union, and in Australia if I remember correctly.

Anyway, what's the point of arguing, when I agree with you?

Your getting things mixed up. Yes, a majority jury can convict, but the standard of proof which burdens the prosecution is that of beyond all reasonable doubt. Basically, if there is anything that can prove someone's innocence, no matter how minute, the jury are directed to take this into consideration and give a not guilty verdict. For instance, in this case, the victims testimony was inconsistent, thus damaging her arguement, aiding the defendant's defence.