PDA

View Full Version : You're Not Guilty Of Rape If Your Victim Is Wearing Skinny Jeans


EmeraldFields
12-05-10, 00:37
You're not guilty of rape: Those skinny jeans were too tight to remove by yourself, jury rules

A man was acquitted of rape today after a jury agreed his victim could not have been sexually assaulted while wearing skinny jeans.

Nicholas Gonzales, 23, told a court in Australia that sex with the 24-year-old woman was consensual, despite her claim he had ripped off her size six skinny jeans before the attack.

The Sydney jury sent a note to the judge during the trial asking for more information about 'how exactly Nick took off her jeans'.

The note from a jury member added: 'I doubt those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration.'

The not guilty finding follows two other courts - in Seoul and Italy - dealing with the question of whether a woman wearing the tight-fitting jeans can be raped.

In the Seoul case in 2008, the court overturned a seven-year sentence of a man convicted of raping a woman wearing skinny jeans.

But in the same year an Italian court upheld a rape conviction, ruling that 'jeans cannot be compared to any type of chastity belt.'

Mr Gonzales, the Sydney court was told, had met his victim for drinks in April 2008 before going to his house to listen to music.

The woman said they had gone upstairs to his room so he could play his drums - but he had pushed her onto the bed and lay on top of her.

'I struggled to try to get up for a while and then he undid my jeans and he pulled them off,' she said, before adding that she was then raped.

Questioned by defence lawyer Paul Hogan, the woman said she weighed 42 kilograms (6.6 stone) and did not find it difficult to squeeze in and out of her jeans.

Mr Hogan said: 'I'm suggesting it's difficult for skinny jeans to be taken off by someone else unless the wearer's assisting, collaborating, consenting.' 'I would disagree,' the woman replied.

Miss Veronica Wensing, chairwoman of the National Association of Services Against Sexual Assault, told the Sydney Morning Herald that a woman's outfit should not be an issue in alleged rapes.

'Any piece of clothing can be removed with force,' she said.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1270113/Youre-guilty-rape-Those-skinny-jeans-tight-remove-jury-rules.html#ixzz0neUZtuFp

You've GOT to be kidding me!

Paddy
12-05-10, 00:41
What the?

spikejones
12-05-10, 00:43
sigh. what a bunch of morons. if the woman can put her clothes on and take them off all by her lonesome, then so too could a man overcome with rapacious desire. :rolleyes:

Gladous
12-05-10, 00:43
Wooooooow. That's so ridiculous! All I can think is,"Wow."

People are so intelligent. :rolleyes:

Sir Croft
12-05-10, 00:45
Pathetic.

VictorXD
12-05-10, 00:47
Oh god....

]{eith
12-05-10, 00:51
What the....

http://i40.************/b4f7g5.jpg

That's messed up.

Lemmie
12-05-10, 00:56
That's right; skinny jeans are the 21st century version of the chastity belt. :confused:

How moronic.

Rai
12-05-10, 00:59
How ridiculous. Next it'll be any type of trousers or tights that renders rape claims false :rolleyes:

IceColdLaraCroft
12-05-10, 01:05
Wouldn't the clothing have been part of the evidence?

Mikky
12-05-10, 01:14
:yik: Please tell me this is some kinda joke!

What has the world come to?

MangelinaJolie
12-05-10, 01:29
Disturbing how a jury could come to that decision. They're pants... If they're loose in the waist, whether they are tight on the legs or not, they can be pulled down.

Tony9595
12-05-10, 01:30
Good point :)

Uzi master
12-05-10, 01:38
somoene rape the judge while he'swearing skinny jeans thatll tach him:cln:

In all seriousness this is completley wrong and if I was that woman I would sue the judge and the entire jurry, if possible.

aktrekker
12-05-10, 01:55
It wasn't the judge, it was the jury. Place the blame where it belongs.
And I don't think it's possible to sue a jury for their decision. Even if you appeal and the verdict is overturned.

And committing a crime is not the way to deal with this issue. Or you will have justified what they did.

Alpharaider47
12-05-10, 02:13
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ~,_. . . ..~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .=,_. . . .-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .=-._. . .;,,./`. . / . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--
(copied this from a site...)
So what's next? Will it be ok if you yell 'surprise!"?
Pretty sad...

Catracoth
12-05-10, 02:16
Right...remind me to dispose of half my wardrobe then...all I wear are skinny jeans.

Jo269976
12-05-10, 02:19
Err, what the hell?

DgoOdz94
12-05-10, 02:22
Is there something like May's fools now????

You just HAVE to be kidding me!!!! How stupid are those people?!?!?! :eek:

Catracoth
12-05-10, 02:24
I'm sure I'm not the only person who can confirm that pulling one's skinny jeans down just enough to reveal one's genitals isn't a hard task at all.

MangelinaJolie
12-05-10, 02:35
I'm sure I'm not the only person who can confirm that pulling one's skinny jeans down just enough to reveal one's genitals isn't a hard task at all.

You aren't. :p

Legend 4ever
12-05-10, 02:43
Gosh, I can't believe this, it's really moronic.

irjudd
12-05-10, 02:46
...all I wear are skinny jeans.

Now that is just criminal.

Legend 4ever
12-05-10, 03:02
Whoever thought of making skinny jeans needs a medal. Not all people have fat shapeless blobs for legs. If I wanted to walk around in a potato sacks around my legs, I would.

irjudd
12-05-10, 03:03
Indeed, a medal that reads "Menace to Society".

Ward Dragon
12-05-10, 03:12
So if she shoots him, can the jury rule that the trigger was too heavy for her and he must have helped her do it? :whi:

Apathetic
12-05-10, 03:21
I think whoever views that statement as legit seriously needs their mental health evaluated.

Mikky
12-05-10, 03:21
So if she shoots him, can the jury rule that the trigger was too heavy for her and he must have helped her do it? :whi:

:vlol: As if that would ever happen! :vlol:

MattTR
12-05-10, 03:23
Wow.. that's kind of ridiculous, way over their heads.. morons. :rolleyes:

CiaKonwerski
12-05-10, 03:55
Wow...Some people.

GameGlitcher77
12-05-10, 04:20
WTF??? Seriously??? :confused: *shakes head*

robm_2007
12-05-10, 04:26
dumb




















ass!

Ward Dragon
12-05-10, 04:34
Now, in all seriousness, the woman said that she struggled with him. I would imagine she got some injuries, so why would the jury dismiss that just because of her jeans being tight? I'm curious whether the prosecution presented any physical evidence that there was a struggle or that force had been used. Otherwise the case is reduced to a he-said-she-said mess and the jury could go either way depending on which person sounds more believable to them (which apparently was the man in this case). I don't agree with the reasoning about the jeans, and I certainly hope it does not set any precedents. However there have been many cases where someone was falsely accused of rape so it's possible he didn't actually do it. The news article is trying to be sensationalist without providing enough info about the case to evaluate ourselves whether the woman's story made sense or not.

Draco
12-05-10, 05:24
Seriously? She went upstairs to his bedroom to listen to his drums? She needs a Darwin Award, pronto!

Aranara
12-05-10, 05:25
My God, that's just stupid.
And those people are judges...What a nice world.

Dark Lugia 2
12-05-10, 06:08
I dont think the media reported the full story.

Tbh I'm suprised most people in this thread are so quick to believe that people could actually believe such a stupid claim.

Apathetic
12-05-10, 06:10
I dont think the media reported the full story.

Tbh I'm suprised most people in this thread are so quick to believe that people could actually believe such a stupid claim.

Well would you like to fill us in then?

Dark Lugia 2
12-05-10, 06:32
...in on what? I'm saying that the media reports stories with key parts left out all the time, and I wouldnt be suprised if this was wrongly reported too.

Wheres the man's side of the story? What is the relationship between the two, that the woman felt comfortable to go to his house? None of ths is in the article. For example, they could have has sex and she could have accused him of rape later for some reason.

[edit] Aaa, excuse the typos :p.

Alpharaider47
12-05-10, 06:33
I dont think the media reported the full story.

Tbh I'm suprised most people in this thread are so quick to believe that people could actually believe such a stupid claim.

People have done stupider things. You should check out some US Laws. Las Vegas has some funny ones. Really wouldn't surprise me if this was true, and I've got no reason to doubt it atm =/

Mikky
12-05-10, 06:36
...in on what? I'm saying that the media reports stories with key parts left out all the time, and I wouldnt be suprised if this was wrongly reported too.

Wheres the man's side of the story? What is the relationship between the two, that the woman felt comfortable to go to his house? None of ths is in the article. For example, they could have has sex and she could have accused him of rape later for some reason.

That's actually a very good point. :tmb:

Dark Lugia 2
12-05-10, 06:41
People have done stupider things. You should check out some US Laws. Las Vegas has some funny ones. Really wouldn't surprise me if this was true, and I've got no reason to doubt it atm =/
True :p, but at least we can confirm that the US laws are real. We cant with this story, its far too vague imo.
I mean, we even have an example of how the media can miss out/twist things to make a more eye-catching story from a forum member here (topic on 1st page of gen chat).

That's actually a very good point. :tmb:
Thanks! Haha :D

Alpharaider47
12-05-10, 06:56
True :p, but at least we can confirm that the US laws are real. We cant with this story, its far too vague imo.
I mean, we even have an example of how the media can miss out/twist things to make a more eye-catching story from a forum member here (topic on 1st page of gen chat).


That's a good point, still makes it possible lol. I'm too lazy to look for more info though :D

Drone
12-05-10, 07:53
I'm not sure whether this story is 100% true or not but if it is, then it's lame. Woman was raped, and they say that skinny jeans is his excuse ... ??? No comments.

So if you raped woman then it's not rape, because her jeans were skinny. If you downloaded child porno, it wasn't you it was your cat .....

Apathetic
12-05-10, 08:16
I'm not sure whether this story is 100% true or not but if it is, then it's lame. Woman was raped, and they say that skinny jeans is his excuse ... ??? No comments.

So if you raped woman then it's not rape, because her jeans were skinny. If you downloaded child porno, it wasn't you it was your cat .....

http://i44.************/71px7n.jpg

:D

Drone
12-05-10, 08:17
yeah lol I remember that that's why I was talking about it

aktrekker
12-05-10, 08:41
I'm not sure whether this story is 100% true or not but if it is, then it's lame. Woman was raped, and they say that skinny jeans is his excuse ... ??? No comments.

So if you raped woman then it's not rape, because her jeans were skinny. If you downloaded child porno, it wasn't you it was your cat .....

Have you been spying on my cats?


Oh wait. . .NM.

Ikas90
12-05-10, 09:33
It's a plausible, but unlikely stance.

BlackRainbow
12-05-10, 09:54
Excuse me for speaking my mind, but that is so full of :cen:.

Hell, one should be able to stroll around naked without getting raped.

Your_Envy*
12-05-10, 10:49
*looks at her jeans*

*runs*


:pi:

Dina_Croft
12-05-10, 10:52
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff175/IrishManX/what/what_what.gif

*laralover*
12-05-10, 11:10
Wow thats pathetic what next "omg your wearing a really tight belt ZOMG" :rolleyes:

interstellardave
12-05-10, 11:30
...in on what? I'm saying that the media reports stories with key parts left out all the time, and I wouldnt be suprised if this was wrongly reported too.

Wheres the man's side of the story? What is the relationship between the two, that the woman felt comfortable to go to his house? None of ths is in the article. For example, they could have has sex and she could have accused him of rape later for some reason.

[edit] Aaa, excuse the typos :p.

Don't you know that a rape accusation automatically means the accused is guilty? ;)

NOT! Obviously there is more to this story than just the sensationalistic "jeans" excuse. Perhaps her story did not ring true, and other testimony led the jury to believe that she willingly shed the jeans herself as a prelude to consensual sex... who knows... we weren't in the jury!

lunavixen
12-05-10, 12:03
what?! clothes are notmeant to be taken into account in rape cases, if someone can get into and out of their pants on their own, i'm damn sure that someone else could get INTO their pants without that much trouble

Dennis's Mom
12-05-10, 12:23
Now, in all seriousness, the woman said that she struggled with him. I would imagine she got some injuries, so why would the jury dismiss that just because of her jeans being tight? I'm curious whether the prosecution presented any physical evidence that there was a struggle or that force had been used. Otherwise the case is reduced to a he-said-she-said mess and the jury could go either way depending on which person sounds more believable to them (which apparently was the man in this case). I don't agree with the reasoning about the jeans, and I certainly hope it does not set any precedents. However there have been many cases where someone was falsely accused of rape so it's possible he didn't actually do it. The news article is trying to be sensationalist without providing enough info about the case to evaluate ourselves whether the woman's story made sense or not.

I agree. I mean, looking at my son's skinny jeans (my 12 year old is obsessed with them,) they don't look easy to take off, which means both hands might be necessary. That leaves her 2 hands free to fight. I would imagine bruises, skin under the nails . . . . Perhaps in the absence of this evidence, they questioned her struggle.

Of course, I don't think removing one's jeans means an irrevocable "yes" either. A girl can change her mind at any point, IMO.

The best cure for this, IMHO, is less casual sex. Sex implies a HUGE amount of trust, even for the guy since he may leave himself open to possible accusation later. Get to know a person well. Take some time. It amazes me that people who would feel nervous walking down a dark street have no issues jumping into bed with someone they just met. :confused:

almayah
12-05-10, 12:41
WHAT :eek:
Those *!#?=)"!?=&# :mad:

:throws away all skinny jeans:

remote91
12-05-10, 12:44
http://i37.************/2rynd7c.jpg

The hell?

george_croft
12-05-10, 14:11
Jesus Christ, this sounds like SUCH a joke. Of course you can remove someone else's skinny jeans without any help from the person wearing them. I've done it a thousand times.

Poor woman. Even IF she helped him remove them, she shouldn't be considered "in" on it. While being raped you're most likely too busy fearing you'll end up beat up or dead to think straight.

interstellardave
12-05-10, 14:18
This topic is an exhibition on why it's good that trials are conducted in a courtroom--and where guilt/innocence are determined through examination of all the facts and testimonies and not via short media stories meant to sensationalize.

xXhayleyroxXx
12-05-10, 16:09
omg thats pathetic and disgusting. Idiots. When i broke my wrist my sister had to put my skinny jeans on and off for me - no help from me whatsoever.

tomblover
12-05-10, 16:11
Um.

SRSLY?

Chocola teapot
12-05-10, 16:17
Oh Dear! :S

lara c. fan
12-05-10, 16:19
I dont think the media reported the full story.

Tbh I'm suprised most people in this thread are so quick to believe that people could actually believe such a stupid claim.

Exactly.
Plus, the title is a bit sensationalist :p

voltz
12-05-10, 16:41
Mistrial. She needs to refile her claim and have the judge put under a career review considering she doesn't know how to separate fiction from reality.

trXD
12-05-10, 16:44
This does not make any sense, people aren't this ridiculous are they? Are they?

interstellardave
12-05-10, 17:17
Mistrial. She needs to refile her claim and have the judge put under a career review considering she doesn't know how to separate fiction from reality.

It was a jury trial... the judge didn't render a verdict. And the jury saw and heard a lot of evidence and testimony that we didn't--and that isn't reported in that sensationalist story.

igonge
12-05-10, 17:25
:confused::tea:

What a joke.

Chocola teapot
12-05-10, 17:26
This does not make any sense, people aren't this ridiculous are they? Are they?

Sadly.

HappyShannon
12-05-10, 17:49
I'm sure the man would be able to pull down the girls skinny jeans, no matter how tight they were :/
So stupid.

Draco
12-05-10, 18:00
It was a jury trial... the judge didn't render a verdict. And the jury saw and heard a lot of evidence and testimony that we didn't--and that isn't reported in that sensationalist story.

Sucks being the sole voice of reason doesn't it?

Kelly Craftman
12-05-10, 18:01
All those Emos :eek:

Buffy87
12-05-10, 18:27
It was a jury trial... the judge didn't render a verdict. And the jury saw and heard a lot of evidence and testimony that we didn't--and that isn't reported in that sensationalist story.

This is exactly the case :) In a jury trial the judge has no say on the outcome of the case at all - the judge is ( at least in the U.K. legal system which as far as I know the Australian system is pretty similar to) simply there to advise the jury on any legal questions they may have and to give them directions i.e. the burden of proof, who has to prove what, what they do if there is an issue of mistaken identity etc etc.

As it stands the media reports only what it knows will provoke an instant reaction - the case will have centred upon far far more than a pair of jeans. This is exactly the problem with the media reporting on every trial these days - the public ( who often do not fully understand exactly how the legal system works and what sentences a judge is legally ALLOWED to give - everyone blames the judge but for the most part the government tells them what they are permitted to do and what they are not permitted to do. A judge interprets law they don't make it.) latch onto a specific issue and go crazy over it. Often it can spark up vigilantism which is most certainly not a good thing.

Besides most criminals/those awaiting trial seek a jury trial as it is far far more likely they will be acquitted because often ( in rape cases especially) some jurors do not want to believe that people are capable of such heinous acts and will convince themselves that it isn't true and will acquit. Sad fact.

P.S. I certainly don't intend to suggest that anyone here is going to resort to vigilantism or have no understanding of the legal system. That isn't my intention. I am simply highlighting the fact that what is reported is not always the entire story. We have no idea of the circumstances - whether there was any previous relationship ( often a couple may split, get together at a later date consensually and then one party decides that actually they didn't mean to do that and claim it wasn't consensual etc etc ) We haven;t got the full facts here.

EDIT : In any case maintaining that you can;t get skinny jeans off without helping the attacker is somewhat moronic but that's a separate issue.

Uzi master
12-05-10, 18:44
I find that people shouldnt just choose random people for juries, they have no idea if they are mentally stable enough to handle what happened (maybe not the right wording) really they should get people chosen specifecly otherwise I dont consider it fair, to expand on what you said about the jury.

voltz
12-05-10, 18:44
Does a judge not have the authority to reverse a jury decision when they see what's obviously wrong?

Uzi master
12-05-10, 18:45
form what I know, no.

interstellardave
12-05-10, 18:49
Sucks being the sole voice of reason doesn't it?

LOL... yes. :(

lunavixen
13-05-10, 13:14
Of course, I don't think removing one's jeans means an irrevocable "yes" either. A girl can change her mind at any point, IMO.

never mind the IMO, legally either of the participants can change their mind at any time and it be legal, in australia, being drunk can actually be
This is exactly the case :) In a jury trial the judge has no say on the outcome of the case at all - the judge is ( at least in the U.K. legal system which as far as I know the Australian system is pretty similar to) simply there to advise the jury on any legal questions they may have and to give them directions i.e. the burden of proof, who has to prove what, what they do if there is an issue of mistaken identity etc etc.

As it stands the media reports only what it knows will provoke an instant reaction - the case will have centred upon far far more than a pair of jeans. This is exactly the problem with the media reporting on every trial these days - the public ( who often do not fully understand exactly how the legal system works and what sentences a judge is legally ALLOWED to give - everyone blames the judge but for the most part the government tells them what they are permitted to do and what they are not permitted to do. A judge interprets law they don't make it.) latch onto a specific issue and go crazy over it. Often it can spark up vigilantism which is most certainly not a good thing.

Besides most criminals/those awaiting trial seek a jury trial as it is far far more likely they will be acquitted because often ( in rape cases especially) some jurors do not want to believe that people are capable of such heinous acts and will convince themselves that it isn't true and will acquit. Sad fact.

P.S. I certainly don't intend to suggest that anyone here is going to resort to vigilantism or have no understanding of the legal system. That isn't my intention. I am simply highlighting the fact that what is reported is not always the entire story. We have no idea of the circumstances - whether there was any previous relationship ( often a couple may split, get together at a later date consensually and then one party decides that actually they didn't mean to do that and claim it wasn't consensual etc etc ) We haven;t got the full facts here.

EDIT : In any case maintaining that you can;t get skinny jeans off without helping the attacker is somewhat moronic but that's a separate issue.
the Australian system was derived from the UK system, but judges can actually create law, but not in cases like this, judge made law is for minor things
Does a judge not have the authority to reverse a jury decision when they see what's obviously wrong?
only in appellate courts, (eg. if this was heard in the local court, she could appeal to the district court, if denied, she can appeal again to the supreme court and then if she has the time and money, to the high court

before you all ask, yes, i have done criminal law at uni

Buffy87
13-05-10, 13:22
the Australian system was derived from the UK system, but judges can actually create law, but not in cases like this, judge made law is for minor things



^ Thanks for this :) Always good to know about the differences between the systems. :)

MelMel
13-05-10, 13:30
Hmmm well if skinny jeans are hard to get off then it means they'll be good protection. :) I want a pair now. :vlol: