Austrailian rape case, victim had to have helped because of her tight jeans?

Shivetya

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jan 16, 2008
1,543
223
A few days ago, an Australian jury voted to acquit 23-year-old Nicholas Gonzales of rape. This is not particularly surprising, because like most countries, Australia has a low rape conviction rate. But the reasoning behind this acquittal is more outrageous than usual. The jury, prompted by the defense lawyer, refused to believe that the alleged victim's skinny jeans could have been removed without "collaboration."
http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/australian-jury-says-you-cant-get-raped-in-skinny-jeans/

http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/05/05/skinny-jeans-lead-to-acquittal-in-australian-rape-case/



Really? Apparently this excuse is used in more than Australia. I don't care how slutty a girl dresses (and my girlfriend can be borderline cop bait at times) I know when its available and when its not.
 

Macaddicttt

macrumors 6502a
Apr 22, 2004
992
2
San Diego, CA
Really? Apparently this excuse is used in more than Australia.
I remember the defense was used successfully in Italy a couple years ago.

I don't care how slutty a girl dresses (and my girlfriend can be borderline cop bait at times) I know when its available and when its not.
The defense isn't, "She was dressed too slutty," but rather, "Her jeans were so tight that a third party could not have removed them if she didn't want him to."
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,377
UK
A low rape conviction rate? REALLY? I had no idea that enforcement was so bad with regards to this crime. Disgusting.
The same is true here, its only 5% here. AFAIK the US has a good record on it compared to us, and probably most other countries.
 

Tomorrow

macrumors 604
Mar 2, 2008
7,116
1,246
Always a day away
A low rape conviction rate? REALLY? I had no idea that enforcement was so bad with regards to this crime. Disgusting.
Yeah, but is it really an enforcement issue? After all, you can lead the accused to a jury, but you can't necessarily make them convict; sounds like the problem is with the courts, not the cops.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
That's a pretty brash statement. You want a high conviction rate no matter whether the accused is actually guilty or not?
A high conviction rate is only good if you are arresting and charging the right people, and the women who are accusing them aren't lying. If every woman was telling the truth, and every cop was trustworthy, and every arrest was free of mistake, then a very high conviction rate would be a wonderful thing.

I handled one rape case (thank goodness it was only one), and I won it. That guy was wrongfully accused, and he was looking at a LONG time in prison. I've seen domestic battery accusers make all sorts of crazy claims. A high conviction rate is only part of the equation.

That being said, no means NO.

'Third party'..... Am I missing something here?
Yes, they are talking about anyone who is not her, and is removing the pants without her permission. Thus, a third party.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
If she did truly help remove the jeans, could the accused/acquitted have threatened her to kill her if she didn't remove the pants? You can't say it is consensual just on the basis she helped. Was she threatened to be killed? The, " tight jeans were so tight, they couldn't be removed without help" defense can't work with a competent prosecutor. While it may not be true, the prosecutor could turn right around and say, " The accused threatened to kill my client if she didn't remove her jeans". Both of those tactics can't be verified, and I would bet the jury would tend to believe the threatening to kill move then it was really consensual.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
If she did truly help remove the jeans, could the accused/acquitted have threatened her to kill her if she didn't remove the pants? You can't say it is consensual just on the basis she helped. Was she threatened to be killed? The, " tight jeans were so tight, they couldn't be removed without help" defense can't work with a competent prosecutor. While it may not be true, the prosecutor could turn right around and say, " The accused threatened to kill my client if she didn't remove her jeans". Both of those tactics can't be verified, and I would bet the jury would tend to believe the threatening to kill move then it was really consensual.
If he threatened her, that would have been her testimony. If she testified that he pulled her jeans off quickly, and they easily came off, then she was lying. If she is ok to lie about that under oath, then why wouldn't she lie about other stuff.

If it was a struggle, she could have testified about that too. If not, lie.
(edit) Remember, the standard is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
(edit2) If a prosecutor tried to turn around and make a claim that was not supported by the evidence... well, let's just say they would not stay the prosecutor.
 

Scooterman1

macrumors 6502a
May 15, 2008
939
12
Houston, Tx
Yes, they are talking about anyone who is not her, and is removing the pants without her permission. Thus, a third party.
1st party - the victim
2nd party - the accused rapist

3rd party - someone other than the principals who are involved in a transaction (look up anywhere on the web)

Again, am I missing something here?
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
1st party - the victim
2nd party - the accused rapist

3rd party - someone other than the principals who are involved in a transaction (look up anywhere on the web)

Again, am I missing something here?
1st party - the girl who was giving it up.
2nd party - the guy who she was giving it up to voluntarily.
3rd party - any person the girl would not be having sex with voluntarily. Not a party to the "transaction" thus the moniker.

The law regularly deals with a "reasonable person" as a standard. A third person would be a neutral person who would not be having consensual sex with the victim, and if that third person could not remove the jeans without assistance, then that might imply that the victim was consenting.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
If he threatened her, that would have been her testimony. If she testified that he pulled her jeans off quickly, and they easily came off, then she was lying. If she is ok to lie about that under oath, then why wouldn't she lie about other stuff.

If it was a struggle, she could have testified about that too. If not, lie.
(edit) Remember, the standard is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
(edit2) If a prosecutor tried to turn around and make a claim that was not supported by the evidence... well, let's just say they would not stay the prosecutor.
I am not advocating lying, but that is a counter strategy the "victim" could use. As long as the jeans are verified to be tight( the defense wouldn't bring that up if they weren't), it becomes a he said she said situation and I would tend to believe the jury would side with the "victim" then the accused just as long as the other evidence supports the prosecution as well.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
A high conviction rate is only good if you are arresting and charging the right people, and the women who are accusing them aren't lying. If every woman was telling the truth, and every cop was trustworthy, and every arrest was free of mistake, then a very high conviction rate would be a wonderful thing.

I handled one rape case (thank goodness it was only one), and I won it. That guy was wrongfully accused, and he was looking at a LONG time in prison. I've seen domestic battery accusers make all sorts of crazy claims. A high conviction rate is only part of the equation.

That being said, no means NO.
I see what you guys are saying.
 

Scooterman1

macrumors 6502a
May 15, 2008
939
12
Houston, Tx
1st party - the girl who was giving it up.
2nd party - the guy who she was giving it up to voluntarily.
3rd party - any person the girl would not be having sex with voluntarily. Not a party to the "transaction" thus the moniker.

The law regularly deals with a "reasonable person" as a standard. A third person would be a neutral person who would not be having consensual sex with the victim, and if that third person could not remove the jeans without assistance, then that might imply that the victim was consenting.
O.K., - Since you come across as a lawyer, let's take the 2nd definition into account.

The noun THIRD PARTY has 2 senses:
1.
someone other than the principals who are involved in a transaction
2. a political party organized in opposition to the major parties in a two-party system

two-party system. Neither agrees on almost ANY transaction. Both are opposing parties. 1st party Democrats, 2nd party Republicans, and the 3rd party is the one not Raping, or being Raped.

Back to you ... Mr. Attorney. That's why I thought I was missing something when a third party was mentioned above.
 

Macaddicttt

macrumors 6502a
Apr 22, 2004
992
2
San Diego, CA
O.K., - Since you come across as a lawyer, let's take the 2nd definition into account.

The noun THIRD PARTY has 2 senses:
1.
someone other than the principals who are involved in a transaction
2. a political party organized in opposition to the major parties in a two-party system

two-party system. Neither agrees on almost ANY transaction. Both are opposing parties. 1st party Democrats, 2nd party Republicans, and the 3rd party is the one not Raping, or being Raped.

Back to you ... Mr. Attorney. That's why I thought I was missing something when a third party was mentioned above.
Geez. You serious? You know what was being said. Or do you like just arguing for fun?
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
It becomes a he said she said situation and I would tend to believe the jury would side with the "victim" then the accused just as long as the other evidence supports the prosecution as well.
In a he said, she said situation, then the state has failed to meet its burden of proof. That would be a finding of innocent.

O.K., - Since you come across as a lawyer, let's take the 2nd definition into account.

The noun THIRD PARTY has 2 senses:
1.
someone other than the principals who are involved in a transaction
2. a political party organized in opposition to the major parties in a two-party system

two-party system. Neither agrees on almost ANY transaction. Both are opposing parties. 1st party Democrats, 2nd party Republicans, and the 3rd party is the one not Raping, or being Raped.

Back to you ... Mr. Attorney. That's why I thought I was missing something when a third party was mentioned above.
If the second party is a Republican, and since they are used to raping this country on behalf of their corporate sponsors, then, maybe 2nd party is the right term.
 

Scooterman1

macrumors 6502a
May 15, 2008
939
12
Houston, Tx
In a he said, she said situation, then the state has failed to meet its burden of proof. That would be a finding of innocent.

If the second party is a Republican, and since they are used to raping this country on behalf of their corporate sponsors, then, maybe 2nd party is the right term.
LOL.... Maybe I should have said, Republicans, Socialists, and the rest of us.... LOL
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
In a he said, she said situation, then the state has failed to meet its burden of proof. That would be a finding of innocent.
But, there is also not a way to verify that she helped take off the jeans as means to consent. It could be said that she was threatened to help take them off. There is no way to prove either side says. As long as the other evidence sides with the prosecution, the jury would most likely still side with the prosecution.

I know women have falsely accused guys of rape because they themselves felt guilty of having sex, so they turn it into he raped her,etc. But, I find the, " tight jean" defense as a weak one as well.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
But, there is also not a way to verify that she helped take off the jeans as means to consent. It could be said that she was threatened to help take them off. There is no way to prove either side says. As long as the other evidence sides with the prosecution, the jury would most likely still side with the prosecution.
As long as the victim provided that as her story on the day they were interviewed by the police, and testified consistently with that initial story, then her testimony has more credibility. If at trial, after cross examination, she changes her story to cover for a defense strategy, then it looks a lot less credible.

I know women have falsely accused guys of rape because they themselves felt guilty of having sex, so they turn it into he raped her,etc. But, I find the, " tight jean" defense as a weak one as well.
I can tell you that a bad defense is better than no defense. This guy may have had almost no good defenses, and this may have been all he had.
 

JediZenMaster

Suspended
Mar 28, 2010
2,180
641
Seattle
This is stupid. That's like saying because My bank is open from 9-5 and has a bank vault that if someone robbed that bank that "They Helped" because they were open.
:rolleyes:
 

NeuralControl

macrumors 6502a
Dec 3, 2009
917
30
This is disgusting.
Is there some sort of historical perspective as to why Australia has such a low rape conviction rate? Innocent men should not be charged as guilty, but I have a hard time believing only 5% of all men accused of rape actually committed the crime.