Blue Jeans, Rape, and the De-Constitutive Power of Law
By Kitty Calavita
Calavita’s article focused on the absurd ruling by the Italian Supreme Court, which overturned a rape conviction on the grounds that tight jeans would be impossible to take off without consent from the person wearing them, and how legal moments like this have the power to undermine the very beliefs and values it stands to uphold. These de-constitutive moments tend to happen during periods of cultural unrest and are often so out-of-touch with popular belief that they are easily brought to the foreground of our attention.
The case this particular article discusses is absolutely insane. It uses outdated, unsound reasoning to come to a conclusion that does truly undermine the legal system, making unproven assumptions about case that act as evidence of innocence. Yet the circumstances are so absurd, that it’s obvious the ruling did anything but seek justice. And it’s amazing how much of law is based on precedence, on the cases that went before.
It’s scary how much precedence can affect future cases. All the decisions that came before influence the ones that court continues to make in the future. The media outrage commented on how now all future rapists have a means in which to defend themselves in the future – “of course it was consent, how could I take her tight jeans off without her help?” Technically, the precedence from this case could be used by the defense to show that a defendant is not guilty of rape.
A similar ruling that sets an odd precedence occurred in my hometown. Several years ago, a couple kids tried to pull a prank on a friend. They went to his house and tapped on the windows at 8 pm on a Friday night. The friend wasn’t there, but his brother was. He came outside to investigate with a .22, and shot one of the teens in the back of the leg as they fled into the woods. A bunch of really shady incidents occurred after that, and it’s somewhat unclear about who actually called and ambulance and how helpful the brother was once he realized he’d shot a family friend. The family of the boy who was shot tried to press charges, but the case never made it past the grand jury. A year later it was picked up the state district attorney, but the charges being pressed didn’t apply well with the specifics of the case.
In the end, the brother got off without even a slap on the wrist. Now it was a stupid prank, and there was probably some reasonable fear the brother could have been feeling at the time when he decided to step out into the night with a gun, but think about the precedence that sets when he gets off without any punishment at all. He shot somebody. And nothing happened. They didn’t even take away his guns after that. Basically, this case can be cited in the future the next time someone shoots a person who’s on the property and claims that they feared for their life. I see scary similarities, however ridiculous, between this case and the one in Italy. Both the resulting rulings were absurd. Both set scary precedents. Both undermined the system of justice they were meant to preserve, and therefore were de-constitutive.
Calavita’s article focused on the absurd ruling by the Italian Supreme Court, which overturned a rape conviction on the grounds that tight jeans would be impossible to take off without consent from the person wearing them, and how legal moments like this have the power to undermine the very beliefs and values it stands to uphold. These de-constitutive moments tend to happen during periods of cultural unrest and are often so out-of-touch with popular belief that they are easily brought to the foreground of our attention.
The case this particular article discusses is absolutely insane. It uses outdated, unsound reasoning to come to a conclusion that does truly undermine the legal system, making unproven assumptions about case that act as evidence of innocence. Yet the circumstances are so absurd, that it’s obvious the ruling did anything but seek justice. And it’s amazing how much of law is based on precedence, on the cases that went before.
It’s scary how much precedence can affect future cases. All the decisions that came before influence the ones that court continues to make in the future. The media outrage commented on how now all future rapists have a means in which to defend themselves in the future – “of course it was consent, how could I take her tight jeans off without her help?” Technically, the precedence from this case could be used by the defense to show that a defendant is not guilty of rape.
A similar ruling that sets an odd precedence occurred in my hometown. Several years ago, a couple kids tried to pull a prank on a friend. They went to his house and tapped on the windows at 8 pm on a Friday night. The friend wasn’t there, but his brother was. He came outside to investigate with a .22, and shot one of the teens in the back of the leg as they fled into the woods. A bunch of really shady incidents occurred after that, and it’s somewhat unclear about who actually called and ambulance and how helpful the brother was once he realized he’d shot a family friend. The family of the boy who was shot tried to press charges, but the case never made it past the grand jury. A year later it was picked up the state district attorney, but the charges being pressed didn’t apply well with the specifics of the case.
In the end, the brother got off without even a slap on the wrist. Now it was a stupid prank, and there was probably some reasonable fear the brother could have been feeling at the time when he decided to step out into the night with a gun, but think about the precedence that sets when he gets off without any punishment at all. He shot somebody. And nothing happened. They didn’t even take away his guns after that. Basically, this case can be cited in the future the next time someone shoots a person who’s on the property and claims that they feared for their life. I see scary similarities, however ridiculous, between this case and the one in Italy. Both the resulting rulings were absurd. Both set scary precedents. Both undermined the system of justice they were meant to preserve, and therefore were de-constitutive.
Posts
If someone is breaking into your home or has entered your home can't you then protect yourself? I think that is okay under the law. Perhaps because of the tapping on the window, it can be taken like an intruder were trying to gain entry and thus protecting oneself with a gun would be lawful right? I feel like I could stand up for this case... If i were home alone and someone was tapping on the windows I would certainly get very frightened. I would probably first get a knife or some sort of weapon and then call the police... Is the fault of the intruder that the person inside was ready and assertive, with a good shot? hmm, well, what is the neighborhood like? Is it far from other homes?
ReplyDeleteI think the blue jeans case is disturbing because it places a certain amount of blame on the victim. Had she worn a skirt, the court might've said, "Oh, well, she was wearing a skirt - she made it too easy for someone to rape her." This is similar to blaming strippers or prostitutes for their victimization because they trade in sex. I didn't read the blue jeans article, but if the assailant cut open her pants, held a weapon to her, beat her senseless, or knocked her unconscious, blue jeans wouldn't have presented much of a problem. Even without these factors, a person cannot be blamed for his/her victimization, especially given the circumstances regarding such incidents.
ReplyDeleteWell, Alexandra, I do agree that there is a right to protect oneself in one's home. If someone breaks into your house, you do have a right to protect yourself, and the law is on yourside. In this case, which was a simple little prank by some teenage boys, the person in the house made a decision to go oustide with a gun. The law does not allow that. If person has broken into your home, yes, things are different, but he made a conscious decision to literally leave the safety of his house - and not call the police, wouldn't you do that if you were really scared? You said u would, as would I - and go hunting for trouble.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of burglar taps on the windows repeatedly? What kind of burglar visits at 8pm on a friday night? Pretty much all burglaries happen during the day. The point is, this person did not behave rationally, made another stupid and dangerous decision to counteract the one made by the the teenagers, and then never paid the price for it. The precedence is what matters. In this instance, the court said, hey, that's okay. You can run out into the night wielding a gun. You can go ahead and try to kill anything on you property if you think you're scared. Don't even bother the atuhorities. That's what made me think it related to the blue jeans case, because the law was clearly violated, yet in both cases the victim was blamed - though the degree of responsibility was definitely different here - and the legal decision following made what I believe to be a scary precedence that essentially cirumvents the very reason the law exisits. To protect us.
Hmm, a lot going on here...I'll bite. First off, the case of that prank is interesting, but I think it says more about gun's than about defending oneself. I mean where does it escalate from checking outside to shooting a kid? But on the jeans issue, this makes me sick. That's like saying a guy couldn't commit rape because he was wearing pants that were too tight to get out of. There is really no debate against rape unless it was extremely clear that it was consensual, and extremely evident that there is no way it could be misconstrued. It does remind me of the theoretical and I'd even guess, real excuse regarding skirts that Luy brought up. Honestly, where is humanity going when we try and say that someone in tight jeans could not be raped because she would have had to help take off her pants? It's a statement that shouldn't dignify a response beyond a swift punch in the face and a prison term for the perpetrator.
ReplyDelete