Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans

[FoAmY99]

Welcome back Johnny Cochran. That guy's lawyer must be the most convincing guy ever if he got a jury to buy that argument.

 

[Mr. Gency]

This is ridiculous. My girlfriend wears skinny jeans all the time, and I have no trouble getting them off. Granted, she isn't trying to fight me.. but regardless, it's easily possible.

Ask her to fight you (Without any screaming, of course) and come back to me.

In the mean time, I'll go with "This is bullshit".

 

[Shjade]

Despite how obviously wrong this is, I can't help finding it funny. I think I've officially read too many impossibly bad court cases: I can't even take them seriously anymore.

 

[ethaninja]

Honestly, I have no idea what the Defense thinks Skinnies are.
Like you said, OP, they're just like normal jeans as far as the waist goes, and practically no harder to get off, either.

Except the men that wear them deserve to their mancard to be revoked.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Despite how obviously wrong this is, I can't help finding it funny. I think I've officially read too many impossibly bad court cases: I can't even take them seriously anymore.

You've actually read too many bad court cases or you've 'read' too many 'bad' court cases as perpetrated by the media? Because there's a massive difference.

 

[Jestere]

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.

i think this is the most reasonable thing i have heard for a very long time

 

[Bek359]

Eh, juries are sometimes thick as pigshit, especially since stuff like "CSI" and "Law and Order" started coming out and people started mistaking the stuff they pull for legitimate courtroom arguments.

 

[Shjade]

You've actually read too many bad court cases or you've 'read' too many 'bad' court cases as perpetrated by the media. Because there's a massive difference.

Both. Though granted more of the legal descriptions I've read were of notable/landmark cases rather than loldidthisreallyhappen cases, I've seen a few here and there. It doesn't take many to start facepalming at the legal system in general, or maybe that's just me.

The law works on the basis of proving something "beyond reasonable doubt", if the prosecution can't do that, then tough.

i think this is the most reasonable thing i have heard for a very long time

I might agree...if it were a U.S. case. I don't know the differences between our court system and that of Australia which makes it hard to decide whether a statement that seems to be talking about the U.S. system is reasonable or not.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

You've actually read too many bad court cases or you've 'read' too many 'bad' court cases as perpetrated by the media. Because there's a massive difference.

Both. Though granted more of the legal descriptions I've read were of notable/landmark cases rather than loldidthisreallyhappen cases, I've seen a few here and there. It doesn't take many to start facepalming at the legal system in general, or maybe that's just me.

Oh I agree. There are plenty of cases that just make me facepalm but there is legitimate legal reasoning behind it (even if it is awfully convoluted sometimes), but I'd rather form that opinion after actually reading a case transcript rather than a 'news'paper.

 

[WolfThomas]

I didn't watch the trial and I certainly don't know anything about it, so I can't form a legitimate opinion.

There may have been more compelling evidence for/against whether he was guilty, however less interesting from a journalistic point of view. What I do know is that article had a definite bias against the man in it's tone and is written by an anonymous blogger with no evident qualifications. Regardless of guilt that's not good (objective) reporting.

 

[mornal]

I'm hoping that this wasn't the only reason they let him go. I could see it if the skinny jeans were one of several pieces of evidence pointing towards his innocence, but not if it was just the jury hearing about the skinny jeans.

 

[Shjade]

legitimate legal reasoning

Oxymoron: legal reasoning is never legitimate reasoning. ;p

 

[Daystar Clarion]

legitimate legal reasoning

Oxymoron: legal reasoning is never legitimate reasoning. ;p

Oh you.

But judging by the majority of responses in this thread, I think I'd take my chances with the oxymoronic courts rather than the ignorant masses.

 

[Krion_Vark]

As it said in the first article I read about this: Gone are the days of If the glove don't fit you must acquit and the Twinkie Defense.

OT: Does that mean its okay to rape someone who is in a nudist colony? Like really the same arguement can be made its like oh hey she was already naked so its also her fault. Really Australia. This is why you guys die of a nuclear winter in End of Ze World. I mean Italy actually overturned a ruling saying that skinny jeans aren't a valid excuse and put the guy in jail anyway.

 

[Shjade]

I mean Italy actually overturned a ruling saying that skinny jeans aren't a valid excuse and put the guy in jail anyway.

Well, yeah. Italians know how to remove tight jeans in a hurry.

Oh yes they do.

Mmm.

...

Sorry, what were we talking about? I got sidetracked.

 

[microwaviblerabbit]

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

I agree. I would think that the jurors would have gotten a lot more information relating to the case. There are probably a lot of things left out in the article. The bias against people accused is one of my least favorite thing in the media-these people are innocent until proven guilty, so why treat them as criminals.

If there was anything I would be making a fuss about in legal cases, it would be the CSI effect. http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15949089

 

[Cain_Zeros]

One one hand, she had evidence of trauma (as seen[not literally] in links provided by people other than the OP), but on the other, she was making inconsistent statements. And who knows, maybe she was raped, but not by that guy. Or she's full of shit. Even Australia isn't retarded enough to acquit on skinnies alone. Unlike the States, which acquits on a LEATHER glove that was WET not fitting (leather shrinks when it gets wet).

 

[Klarinette]

Wow... there has to be more to it. Way too flimsy. Skinny jeans are no more difficult to wrestle off a woman than regular jeans. ...not that I'd know that...

[small]Just an aside... I fucking haaaaate skinny jeans.[/small]

 

[Hazy]

Honestly, I have no idea what the Defense thinks Skinnies are.
Like you said, OP, they're just like normal jeans as far as the waist goes, and practically no harder to get off, either.

Except the men that wear them deserve to their mancard to be revoked.

Say what you want about skinny jeans - those bitches are mad comfortable.

 

[gamefreakbsp]

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