Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans
- Thread starter Mcface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Its not that the guy was found innocent. Its that he was found innocent because of a piece of clothing. Something that has bad implications. He might very well have been innocent, but then he should have been let off for other reasons, like an inconsistent testimony. Though this might be the media miss-reporting the trial verdict.
On the other hand, it may be unlikely that the police would bother to let it to court if there was too much doubt. But I;m not sure.
On the other hand, it may be unlikely that the police would bother to let it to court if there was too much doubt. But I;m not sure.
Rape cases are notorious for low conviction rates, because more often than not, it's one person's word against another, with very little else to support either side. A rape conviction basically ruins a man's life so the courts are very reluctant to let potential miscarriages of justice happen based on one person's word against another.R Man said:
There may have been none, depending what may or may not have been used in the act.Aylaine said:
OT: I'm not to sure what to think about this, I'll need more information before I give my opinion, like say the quality of her testimony, or several other things that could be important.
Why do so many people in this thread keep discussing whether or not the man is innocent when the poll is about the reason he was acquitted? The OP isn't asking us to judge the man's guilt, it's asking if we think the reasoning behind the acquittal is retarded [which it is].
Unless you have the case transcript in front of you, you can't possibly know all the facts, yes the jeans are stupid on their own but you don't know what other evidence ties in with it. People with no experience with the law and its proceedings tend to make the stupidest remarks, just read half the posts on this thread.SlowShootinPete said:
and we don't even know the reason for the acquittal.SlowShootinPete said:
we DO know, media likes do hype shit up, because stuff like this sells better than the truth. I sincerely doubt a jury would acquit a charge just because tight jeans are somewhat hard to remove, and we haven't seen a single hint of proof wether this was actually the case.
The point is, in all likelihood that's not at all the "reason he was acquitted",the source given was just plain bad.SlowShootinPete said:
Than she's not wearing actual skin tight jeans. Those things take crowbars to peel off.Mcface said:
That being said... sounds like a... that doesn't sound right at all. He might have HAD a crowbar (Without jest, yes, this sounds like bullshit).
EDIT: Actually read the links. Sounds like this wasn't the real reason, just bloggers being sarcastic.
Indeed. Just look at the Barry George case. (Man wrongly convicted of murder)LarenzoAOG said:
This argument works both ways.
I guess I'd have to know more about the two people involved before I make a decision that, if I was on the jury, might possibly ruin a guy's life.
Did they know each other before hand? If so, how long? Were there intoxicants involved? The day of, where were they that might have provoked the incident? A nightclub, passing on the street, etc.? And now for the really insensitive question, did she have regrets AFTER sex, so she said he raped her?
There is a lot of consideration to go into whether or not it was rape or consensual. Given the questions I asked above were just off the top of my head, one has to assume the defense asked these same questions and more, and happened to raise some form of doubt beyond "she was wearing skinny jeans". Clearly, the skinny jeans only played a small part in the acquittal.
Of course, the guy could be a total piece of shit. It'd be interesting to read the court case if it is public record, but I'm not sure about Australian laws.
Did they know each other before hand? If so, how long? Were there intoxicants involved? The day of, where were they that might have provoked the incident? A nightclub, passing on the street, etc.? And now for the really insensitive question, did she have regrets AFTER sex, so she said he raped her?
There is a lot of consideration to go into whether or not it was rape or consensual. Given the questions I asked above were just off the top of my head, one has to assume the defense asked these same questions and more, and happened to raise some form of doubt beyond "she was wearing skinny jeans". Clearly, the skinny jeans only played a small part in the acquittal.
Of course, the guy could be a total piece of shit. It'd be interesting to read the court case if it is public record, but I'm not sure about Australian laws.
Let this be a protip for all women. If you want to avoid getting raped by a random man, wear skinny jeans. At least, that's what the defense is basically saying.
This is...I can't even...Skinny jeans? That was the one factor?
This is...I can't even...Skinny jeans? That was the one factor?
Yes, yes, that was the one factor. /sarcasmsuperbatranger said:
Seriously, does everyone draw a conclusion based on biased articles? The law isn't as cut and dry as that, court cases are complex and diverse animals. People are very rarely 'let off'.
