Skinny jeans means rape couldn't happen

None of us really know what was the defendant's or the accuser's complete case.

The story is obviously taking the skinny jeans thing out of context to stir people in precisely the way we're seeing in this thread.

To talk about precedents with the amount of information supplied in the article is laughable...

So, it just comes down to whether you want to be viewed as a champion of the oppressed or not (or maybe gender loyalty), so you automatically pick the side which you habitually would.

Maybe it would set a dangerous precedent, I'm definitely not saying it couldn't. What I am saying is that I don't feel the article provides enough information for us to really know.

I can see the skinny jeans being used in the context of an absence of any other evidence of resistance from the supposed victim. Obviously, if the supposed attacker had a gun pointed to the girl's head, she would take it off. But, nowhere in the article does it state that is what in fact happened.

So, the skinny jeans could be one circumstancial detail among many that indicated the difficulty of rape occurring or, it could not. Another one could be neighbors within earshot...we don't know.

The fact is, the article does not make any of it clear.

Edit: My initial point was simply that, I don't see how actual (not attempted) rape can be proven in a court of law without evidence of violence in the victim's body (including the genitalia) - unless there was a credible witness. This has nothing to do with whether "no means no", which is a gross oversimplification of the issue in the first place.

 

If that's what you choose to focus on, fine. It might set a bad precedent. If you think that's a bullshit reason to let someone off on a rape charge, fine. I personally think that, depending on other factors, it could be a relevant defence. What I take issue with is the foregone conclusion among almost everyone here that the guy is a scumbag rapist who was allowed to walk for a stupid reason. That may be so, or it may not be, but the knee-jerk reaction is unsettling.

And you can fuck off with your condescension. I tried to discuss it with you reasonably. I see no way of justifying the statement that 'it has nothing to do with this case' when that's what we're discussing to begin with. Perhaps it will have wider implications than this case alone, but to say it has nothing to do with it is ludicrous.

I think Cherea's analysis is probably the best of any of them anyway.

 

Perhaps your aggression is the problem with having anyone choose to debate with you. Or are we all stark raving mad.

If he did rape her, then it is a miscarriage of justice that this was used. If he did not then there possible a problem with evidence in the first place and not enough to convict or he really is innocent and it worked.

That is why to me it is irrelevant, except that it could be used as a defense again and again. If we presume that this male was innocent, how many others who will then possibly be able to use this will not be.

The precedent could be staggering. I was around when rape was a joke, I am that damn old. All was acceptable in open court with regards to the person raped. From their past intimate sexual history to what colour of underwear they wore. It was nothing more than a further violation on the person raped.

I would not like to see that again. It is hard enough today to prove a rape let alone allowing this type of argument. Which has been over turned before. I am hoping that the crown appeals this decision. I have looked and have not found out if they are as of now.

I do not wish to see this become acceptable in courts of law.

 

I have said all I have to say, for now. But, please speak for yourself. I have noticed aggression coming from both sides of the issue.

 

Point taken. I'm stark raving mad.

 

I agree with Zorba on Grape on this incident. I think it's a perfectly legitimate defense if this guy is legimately innocent. If they can show in the court how this defense is legitimate i.e. have a maniquinn or whatever and show the amount of force and etc. it would have to take why is this not a good defense? Him facing a long term prison sentence because some girl had it out for him and lied about her being rape is worse than him being let off. We especially in the U.S. live by the rule 'innocent until proven guilty.' Her story without solid evidence: bruises, marks, neighbor testimony etc. should not stand. What I think many woman fail to see is if she is in fact lying this guy is troubled for the rest of his life pretty much worrying about future women claiming this exact same thing even without having to face jail time, It can seriously impact his relationship with women.

I think rape is a terrible thing but I have heard women extremely Exaggerate cases before probably based on some sort of psychological or emotional issues.

 

Maybe they should just do a lie detector test. I don't know why they don't use them more.

 

They do use them still but in most countries they are not admissible as they are not always conclusive. They can be manipulated not only by those being questioned but by those who do the questioning.

As a tool for investigation they are acceptable, as concrete proof they have been shown to be faulty.

 

Because they don't detect if you are telling the truth -- they detect the brain activity in areas' related to nervousness.

The logic being, that if you are telling the truth you will be more confident, and if you are lying you will be more nervous.





Personally, I think Cherea won this thread.

And that people really need to read foreign news stories more often.

 

Duck your statement is not accurate.

A polygraph does not measure brain waves or anything else to do with the brain. It measures physiological responses like blood pressure, reparation for rhythms and ratio and electrical variances on the skin.

An Electroencephalography or EEG measures brain but has nothing to do with a polygraph.

 

Did I say you did? Its great to know how self absorbed people are these days.

 

Ah god damnit people, ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE DOESN'T MATTER IN THIS CASE. Jesus it's in the first paragraph of the story, the jury found him not guilty based on the fact they ruled to take off skinny jeans requires collaboration on the part of the person wearing them. The entire main defense was whether jeans can be taken off or not if they're tight.

I guess the only plus side in this is the guy lost his appeal to have his legal fees covered:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/austra...-skinny-jean-rape-case-loses-appeal-for-costs

This is why jury trials suck and your peers are idiots, judge won't grand the financial appeal on the basis there's more than enough medical evidence of sexual assault, jury on the other hand goes "wellllll, dem are some mighty tight jeans, and if she's wearing skinny jeans she's asking for it anyways"

 

They can't be used in court because it isn't 100% accurate and it can be beaten if the person knows how.

 

Zorba's ample vocabulary seems to be a bit caustic in this discussion. Surely disagreement can be versed with a greater measure of civility -no?

 

You have stated most eloquently why I do not believe in the jury system. Frankly I'd like to be able to define who my peers are.... and it sure as hell ain't an age group.... and it AIN'T people who would tolerate a defense lawyer making any person clearly victim of unwanted sexual contact (rape) to be victimized a second time by skillful lawyering that would turn a group of twelve suggestibly ignorant minds collectively into something to be added to a culpable defendant's legal arsenal.

 

This reminds me of the OJ Simspon trial, trying the glove on, stretching his hand saying "Look it does not fit" or "I would not wear those ugly ass shoes", all the while there is a video of him wearing the shoes. Where the fuck was justice with that shit?? Oh wait karma came back and bit him on his lame ass.
If someone is scared they are gonna take their pants down if they are told to. I hope the defense attorney and judge and jurors never have to see someone in their family suffer from being raped, then have the whole world know the perp got away with it cause she had tight pants on. Maybe karma will visit them in the future.
What a crock of shit.

 

Remember people, if you're ever on trial, you have the right to a jury trial, you also have the right to waive said right. Actually no don't waive said right. I assume if anyone here is on trial it won't be for rape(my money is on drugs or assault for most people here), and juries by far are a defense lawyer's best resource, all you need is 1 person to agree with your lawyer for whatever bogus pseudo science, emotional, ect defense he makes up.

On the flip side though if you're actually innocent you may get the 12 idiots who go "pfft, he broke the law, obviously he's guilty, let's stretch this out till we get dinner than vote to convict"

 

There's no justice like angry mob justice...

 

1) Polygraph is only one (albeit the most common) form of lie detection.

2) What the fuck does it matter? My post was not about how lie detectors work.
You only supported what I was saying (that lie detectors measure nervousness).



What was the point of this?

 

Your statement was inaccurate, that was all I was pointing out. Nothing else. EEG's are not used for detection of lies. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why so defensive about that....lordy.