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

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Shivetya, May 13, 2010.

  1. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #1
    http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-...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.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    A low rape conviction rate? REALLY? I had no idea that enforcement was so bad with regards to this crime. Disgusting.
     
  3. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #3
    I remember the defense was used successfully in Italy a couple years ago.

    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."
     
  4. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #4
    That's a pretty brash statement. You want a high conviction rate no matter whether the accused is actually guilty or not?
     
  5. Scooterman1 macrumors 6502a

    Scooterman1

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    #5
    'Third party'..... Am I missing something here?
     
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #7
    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.
     
  8. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #8
    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.

    Yes, they are talking about anyone who is not her, and is removing the pants without her permission. Thus, a third party.
     
  9. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #9
    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.
     
  10. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Scooterman1 macrumors 6502a

    Scooterman1

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    #11
    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?
     
  12. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    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.
     
  13. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #13
    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.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    I see what you guys are saying.
     
  15. Scooterman1 macrumors 6502a

    Scooterman1

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #16
    Geez. You serious? You know what was being said. Or do you like just arguing for fun?
     
  17. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Scooterman1 macrumors 6502a

    Scooterman1

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    #18
    LOL.... Maybe I should have said, Republicans, Socialists, and the rest of us.... LOL
     
  19. Scooterman1 macrumors 6502a

    Scooterman1

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    #19
    Yes, Yes, No.
     
  20. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #20
    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.
     
  21. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #21
    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 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.
     
  22. JediZenMaster macrumors 68000

    JediZenMaster

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Portland,Oregon
    #22
    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:
     
  23. northy124 macrumors 68020

    northy124

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    #23
    Makes sense although I'd raise the question of if she was threatened? if she were wouldn't that cancel out the fact she helped so he would of been convicted of rape if it was raised?

    IDK rambling :/
     
  24. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #24
    Um, no.
     
  25. NeuralControl macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page