Italian courts say jeans are no barrier to rape

[RamboLiberal]

Source: MSNBC/AP

ROME - It was less than a decade ago that Italy’s top criminal court ruled that it was impossible to rape a woman who was wearing jeans. The court concluded back then that nobody could forcibly remove a woman’s jeans unless she cooperated.

Since then, the court has changed its mind.

It has now upheld the sexual assault conviction of a man who argued that it would have been impossible to carry out the attack on a teenager because the girl had been seated and wearing jeans at the time.

The court says the jeans were "no chastity belt."

The opposite ruling nine years ago prompted outrage across Italy’s political spectrum.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25804366/

[Vidar]

1. Damn, something dumber than our own Supreme Court!

[Tab]

3. No, they're finally getting with it

They got a lot of crap for the ruling by one judge that a particular woman couldn't have been raped because she was wearing jeans at the time (I remember the case, the ruling drew a ton of controversy, and rightly so).

I don't know why it took until now to figure out the truth, but they finally have done so.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Hey! I Think That Most Of SCOTUS Is Quite Good!

Only one is totally nuts, one is extraordinarily bad, and two are pretty bad. But five are generally OK. Those five may have been the only thing that kept Bush somewhat in check. Without them, we might well all be in Halliburton-operated cages.

[Zavulon]

5. I count four that are okay

and one that jumps from side to side in the apparent hope that he'll be viewed with some degree of acceptance and understanding on both sides.

[Bicoastal]

2. Isn't this headline a bit misleading?

It doesn't appear that the Italian justice system had some all-encompassing rule that no woman with jeans could possibly get raped--we're talking about the particulars of one case here.

It would be a bit like the fictitious headline "American legal system says that eating too many Twinkies a valid excuse for murder." An unorthodox ruling creates a precedence, but not necessarily a new statute.

[LiberalFighter]

6. From an article their Supreme Court has 420 judges (410 male /10 females)