Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans
- Thread starter Mcface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's true that it's more difficult to remove certain articles of clothing, but that doesn't make rape impossible, so yes, the jury was wrong.
It's quite mad that a jury, with all the time available to examine all the evidence, still reached this conclusion. I read more about this case in the Australian papers, and all the evidence the media relates would suggest that this is the mildest defence ever made by an alleged rapist.
There was no reason to base the idea that he could or couldn't rape on the basis of what the victim was wearing. The act could have occurred regardless, one way or another, so they should have based their decision on other evidence, if there were any. If not, he should have been acquitted anyway; you can't accuse someone of rape without evidence and expect the courts to punish them, that would be unfair and highly exploitable to those seeking to make money out of court cases.
I'm unimpressed with my country's court system in this case. But juries have always been a bit of a flawed attempt at justice due to the lack of professional ability in most jurors to examine a case, even if they are superior as a system to giving all power of condemnation to the judges.
What would be more interesting than our current vox populi approach to juries in Australia would be a kind of random selection which funds random public people to learn about law and study court cases, then gives those chosen who agree to the training "jury rights" to stand for that role. This would cut out uninterested and unintelligent citizens, but would still be random enough to be representational to the public. It would massively improve the court system. Too bad it is probably too costly to be considered.
It's quite mad that a jury, with all the time available to examine all the evidence, still reached this conclusion. I read more about this case in the Australian papers, and all the evidence the media relates would suggest that this is the mildest defence ever made by an alleged rapist.
There was no reason to base the idea that he could or couldn't rape on the basis of what the victim was wearing. The act could have occurred regardless, one way or another, so they should have based their decision on other evidence, if there were any. If not, he should have been acquitted anyway; you can't accuse someone of rape without evidence and expect the courts to punish them, that would be unfair and highly exploitable to those seeking to make money out of court cases.
I'm unimpressed with my country's court system in this case. But juries have always been a bit of a flawed attempt at justice due to the lack of professional ability in most jurors to examine a case, even if they are superior as a system to giving all power of condemnation to the judges.
What would be more interesting than our current vox populi approach to juries in Australia would be a kind of random selection which funds random public people to learn about law and study court cases, then gives those chosen who agree to the training "jury rights" to stand for that role. This would cut out uninterested and unintelligent citizens, but would still be random enough to be representational to the public. It would massively improve the court system. Too bad it is probably too costly to be considered.
To be honest, every court system is flawed in some way or another. I recently did a paper on the cons and pros of an adversarial system (Jury) and an inquisitorial system (1 judge) and I eventually came to the conclusion (in my opinion), that I would rather trust my freedom with a group of 12 jurors, with all the safeguards currently in place, than 1 judge (no matter how experienced).Silva said:
Why must the news always make me lose all hope for mankind?
*Goes off to carpet-bomb an orphanage*
*Goes off to carpet-bomb an orphanage*
That's like saying this knife couldn't have killed him he was wearing a suit of armour!
But this is quite irrational I guess Australia just has crappy systems all over video games and their court.
But this is quite irrational I guess Australia just has crappy systems all over video games and their court.
Alright, this story was posted on a "news" site that posts suggested links of "how to be a good kisser" "the simpsons spoof" and "adorable pets"? And you all are taking it seriously? I can sum up what happened here, play by play:
Tabloid reporter gets wind that skinny jeans were one small factor in deciding an overall case. Tabloid reporter decides that this would sound really good as a "news" article, and possibly make him or her some money. Tabloid reporter sensationalizes/bullshits his or her way through the "news" story, overstating the importance of skinny jeans to the overall case.
Just a quick glance at that site tells me that it's one small step above the ones that post garbage like "bigfoot ate my baby!" so I'd suggest taking it with a huge grain of salt. I guaran-damn-tee you that a criminal case involving a class B felony was not decided on the statement "she was wearing skinny jeans".
Tabloid reporter gets wind that skinny jeans were one small factor in deciding an overall case. Tabloid reporter decides that this would sound really good as a "news" article, and possibly make him or her some money. Tabloid reporter sensationalizes/bullshits his or her way through the "news" story, overstating the importance of skinny jeans to the overall case.
Just a quick glance at that site tells me that it's one small step above the ones that post garbage like "bigfoot ate my baby!" so I'd suggest taking it with a huge grain of salt. I guaran-damn-tee you that a criminal case involving a class B felony was not decided on the statement "she was wearing skinny jeans".
I agree, and in fact, that was more or less what I was getting at. Any jury is always going to make more sense than a concentration of power in one person (which is quite extreme as systems go and reminiscent of fascism) even if, because of differing opinions in the jury, the case becomes very drawn out, delaying potential justice. A delay is usually better than a poor decision that is later revealed to be a mistake. I just think that the Australian jury system could be improved upon without creating additional flaws - if you assume that my idea would pass into law as is, which is always a big difficulty.Daystar Clarion said:
Since this was published in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is anything but a tabloid, I would disagree with you that it was a small factor in deciding the case.Nerdygamer89 said:
Their report on the case can be found here:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/rape-of-woman-in-skinny-jeans-not-possible-20100430-tzai.html
They covered it again here:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-acquitted-in-skinnyjean-rape-case-loses-bid-for-costs-20100504-u75v.html
The second article proves that the judge said that there was "compelling medical evidence" that the victim had been raped.
You are right to suspect that this sort of thing happens all the time in the tabloids. It does. This is just a rare occasion when they're actually right, and the case result was as silly as it sounds.
I officially hand you the Official Cookie of Official Thread Smartyness.Nerdygamer89 said:
[sub]I had a bit for being the Official Hander-Overer of the Official Cookie of Official Thread Smartyness...[/sub]
Yeah, certain reforms could help improve either system. The only problem is that a reform is proved successful in practice, which could cost innocent people their freedom if it all goes to hell.Silva said:
Hooray, cookies!Daystar Clarion said:
I'll let that slide... this time, and only this time. Mwahahaha.Daystar Clarion said:
Except that there's no evidence that he's dead at all, and, yeah, actually, it is hard to kill a guy wearing a suit of armor if you've just got a knife. So, that would be something to consider in one's deliberations.the stonker said:
Skinny jeans are one factor in a thorny case, based around the absolute thorniest of accusations. It'd be one thing if he was obviously guilty, and there wasn't, you know, a bunch of other, more traditional, legally-valid evidence indicating that the guy was innocent.
Probably clumsy guys who couldn't take off skinny jeans from their dates.Snarky Username said:
OP: We don't know all the case but regardless I prefer to believe the acquaintance was not mainly on the grounds of skinny jeans.
Quite right, but you have to wonder if the system has gone to Hell enough already to justify said reform risks.Daystar Clarion said:
If we're acquitting medically proven cases of rape on the basis that sex was consensual because of fashion, I'd say that it's already happened.
Aye, on paper, both systems are pretty spot on. The only thing that fucks everything up is the human element. So as long as we keep them out, everything should be fine, right?Silva said:
Nevertheless, he was acquitted on absurd grounds. Her type of pants is not a reason to acquit him of rape. In this case, the jury has made a glaring mistake that (possibly) has set a rapist loose. And in the case that the man is actually innocent, he will now have it hanging over him for the rest of his life that he was only acquitted on BS circumstantial evidence. So people around him will probably keep thinking he's a rapist.Davrel said:
It's a lose/lose situation no matter how you turn it.
Beyone all reasonable doubtP.Tsunami said:
It's not up to him to prove his innocence. If the prosecution couldn't argue the facts of the case, including the trousers, in such a way as to convince a jury then tough shit. Remember "beyond all reasonable doubt", if the jury has even an inkling that the man is not guilty then they must not convict. Ten guilty men walking free is better than one innocent man in jail.