Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
There was an infamous Italian rape case where a judge reached a similar conclusion
a pair of tight jeans probably isn't going to stop a rapist.
The guy was being defended by Crocodile Dundee. So no surprise he got off there.
really depressing. we can just hope that the juror quoted was some massive doofus and that the other jurors reached the verdict because there was other evidence proving it was consensual.
not sure if it's better or worse than blaming rape victims for wearing skimpy clothes.
possibly worse cos of the total logic fail...? as though all women who wear skinny jeans require a servant to help them get undressed at night?
aaaaaaaaaargfhh rape liek, sux.
I'm pretty sure if British juries were required to give reasons for their decisions they would say equally moronic things.
Like the time a juror wrote to the defendant's mother to say they only reached a guilty verdict because the trial was going on too long and they wanted to go home.
Or the ouija board.
I don't understand why people place so much trust in a jury. You wouldn't let 12 people make a decision about who should run the country for example, so why this?
Sure you get some bad decisions but if there's a better way to judge a criminal trial I sure as Hell haven't heard of it.
He could sit at the front of the courtroom and "judge" proceedings.
Anyways, nobody's saying it means we should scrap juries. It's just pretty regrettable that this is apparently the best system. I personally think juries should have to give reasons for their decisions to prove that they've actually followed the judge's directions. "Beyond reasonable doubt" should be made clearer as well. I'm pretty sure the main reason we don't hold them to account for their decisions is because it could provide grounds for an expensive and time consuming appeal.
And people should be able to do academic research into them - in the jury room. But people don't want that because they're too scared of what they would find.
But yeah fairness and justice guys.
These are clearly quite different things.
My point was that a massive flaw in the decision-making process in rape trials is that there seems to be an assumption that if a woman's shown an interest in a man up to a point she must therefore have consented to sex as well. Which obviously isn't the case.
Women don't generally say "yes you can have sex with me now btw, and you don't have to pay me" etc etc
Obviously *in the absence of express disapproval*, something has to provide consent and in a lot of circumstances getting undressed would be sufficient implied consent. It would be reasonable in the absence of express disapproval, in most cases, to think the woman was consenting because of it.
That's why we should all be very careful when we take off our jeans.
and therefore can't simply say 'no' even when your jeans are off.