Italy overturns ruling that women wearing tight jeans 'cannot be raped'

[pantsonfire321@aol.com]

Italy overturns ruling that women wearing tight jeans 'cannot be raped'

Italy's top criminal court has overturned its ruling that a woman wearing tight jeans could not possibly be raped.



By Jon Swaine

Last Updated: 8:16AM BST 23 Jul 2008

The Court of Cassation provoked international outrage in 1999 when it quashed the conviction of a previously convicted rapist, saying it would be impossible to forcibly remove a woman's tight jeans if she resisted.

It agreed with the then-defendant, a 45-year-old driving instructor from Potenza, that it would have been impossible for him to have taken off an 18-year-old client's jeans "without the collaboration of the person wearing them" and that she must therefore have consented to sex.

However, in a separate appeal by a 37-year-old man convicted of sexually assaulting his partner's 16-year-old daughter from a previous relationship, the court has now ruled that "jeans cannot be compared to any type of chastity belt".

The court ruled that: "The fact that the girl was wearing jeans was not an obstacle" for the man, from Padua, who has been identified only by the initials RP under the strict Italian privacy laws, to have "inserted his hands inside the front of her jeans".

The man had in his defence cited the 1999 case, and claimed that it would have been impossible for him to have attacked the girl because she had at the time been seated and wearing jeans. He said that she would have had to unbutton them and therefore consented to his advances.

After the decision in 1999, female politicians, including Alessandra Mussolini, the granddaughter of the Italian fascist dictator, wore jeans to parliament in protest. Ms Mussolini said she was pleased with the new ruling, but regretted that "it has taken until 2008 for the Court of Cassation to acknowledge an obvious fact - that women's clothing has nothing to do with the violence to which they are forced to submit on a daily basis".

[Victoria]

You know I think this must be one of the few crimes where the victim is as much on trial as the attacker.

A womans dress style, past relationships, even what she was doing at the attack site at the time of the attack can be used against her.

Thing is in court the first thing said in his defense is 'she consented' and if 'she' hasn't been punched black and blue or cut he gains credibility

Advice is not to fight, but not to go to second location, normally the second location is the kill site or safe place for the attacker to carry out his crime. How does the woman stop herself being taken to site two if not by fighting back/resisting?

But when faced with the threat of a knife or extreme violence many woman and too frightened to resist.

Again this backs the defence claim 'she consented'

Bearing in mind also that in the UK the crown brings the case and the victim is just a witness called to give evidence. This is often more than many women can bear and so they never report the attack.

[suzy_creamcheese]

i cant believe that was ever a defence!

shocking!