A New Study on campus rape and the one in five number

Parents Forum
1781

dstark - I confess to not reading that website other than to click on some transcripts. It seems to be one of the few places that links to actual transcripts and court documents, so I’m glad it exists and provides these resources. If you are saying that the rest of the website is heavily misogynistic then I guess I’ll believe you. Trouble is, almost everyone who writes about this topic is horribly, horribly biased.

Didn’t realize you were taking about JohnDoe4. He hasn’t posted here in a while. I think his posts speak for themselves.

I have sons and daughters, a mother and a father, a brother and a sister. I try to be fair and let the truth guide me. I also try to be an optimist and assume that - even if it takes years - truth, justice, and the American way will win out :slight_smile: And I say that with a perfectly straight face and with no hint of irony.

1782

Would it surprise you that Yeasin admitted at the conduct hearing that the majority of the tweets in question were in fact about his ex? So for those tweets there is no question as to whom they were about and directed to.

Well it’s not really o.k. – it’s up on appeal.

1783

As far as the tweets, none of us has seen either order. Leaving @hanna’s opinion about the question of whether governmental entities act extra constitutionally on a routine basis, I think the simplest way to describe what is going on on this thread is people are struggling with the distinction between tweets that it is foreseeable that the accuser can view, and tweets that are directed at the accuser by tagging her, sending it to her, whatever. Not to speak for @Demosthenes49 , but it is in this vein that the case he mentioned about hanging the sign on private property that may be viewable from other areas is important. As I understand the law, speech that is not directed at the accuser is protected, while speech directed at the accuser may be evidence of stalking, etc.

1784

@Al2simon, I don’t have an iq of 170 but I am a great listener. :slight_smile: There are a lot of people who would tell you this. A lot.

I respect you very much. You are one
of my favorite posters. I don’t want you or anybody esle to take anything I say as gospel. That is why I provide links. So people can see for themselves and make their own decisions.

I wanted to talk about rapes today. I didn’t want to talk about the murky area of what is a sexual assault. I wrote a post or two about this. Posters wanted to talk about number 3. Ok. Whatever.

I am very fair. I believe in truth, justice, etc. I am not sure the legal system is the place to get justice. There are a lot of people who don’t get justice in this country.

We have an accused and an accuser. The accused did the crime and he gets off. Was justice really served? These issues are complicated.

From the link I posted, a senator says justice is served if a school handles the judging process properly and expels a student on a preponderance of evidence standard. Others say that is not justice. Schools should not be involved. Courts should decide based on a reasonable doubt standard. I think courts deciding based on a reasonable doubt standard is too tough a standard and that argument sets women back.

Im listening. :wink:

I am very positive too. The process will de done better. I think I said that already. :slight_smile:

1785

In general, this is true. I admit that I understood scenario #3 as her “making it very clear she wanted to have sex with him” by doing something physical. If she just talked drunkenly to him, I would not think that was assault, and maybe that’s what he meant.

It’s a little different, as you point out, with a guy who did that to a woman, just because his being there in itself is a menace. He has already shown that he doesn’t care about obtaining consent, because he is in her room without an invitation. She knows he can overpower her if he wants to. She could understandably feel like he won’t take No for an answer with respect to sex either, and she knows that he can force her if he chooses to.

Tweets are broadcast. Ordinarily, they’re broadcast to the whole world, but in his case his Twitter feed was private, so his tweets would be broadcast only to anyone he approved to follow him. I defer to actual Twitter users about this, but I’d expect that he’d have a lot more followers than 3, more like 50 or 100.

1786

And his tweets were not “directed” at her they were posted for his followers, his friends. Should he have not vented, sure, but many people vent now and then to their friends and that isn’t illegal. The court covered that when they had him remove her. I would vote that they were not “assaults” against her and while not “private” in the sense of no one but the person writing the note can see them, no , but they were also not quite public. This is an interesting aspect of social media that I’m sure the courts will have fun interpreting and they have already begun interpreting. I have a Twitter account that I use to follow the news, but I could allow family and friends if I posted Tweets which I don’t . My settings are very tight on my account. There’s all kinds of these sorts of methods of instant messenger communication these days even beyond the more well known Snapchat and Instagram.

1787

Because he doesn’t speak English, and doesn’t realize that when talking about a third party one uses a third person pronoun (she) and not a second person pronoun (you)? Yeah, sure. I’d believe that. If I forgot how my native language works, I’d believe that.

1788

Well, in my version of English, directed means sent to, not about.

1789

Not my version.

This guy knew exactly what he was doing. I guess I worked in the financial industry too long. I saw too many cons.

1790

In my version of English, directed to means said to. And if you’re using a second person pronoun, that’s the language for speaking to someone, not speaking about them.

1791

The tweets were only the tip of the iceberg here, no? I think the University was looking at his “conduct” overall – the arrest for the car incident, the verbal threats, his violation of probation and the diversion agreement (what even is that?). This was just an escalating situation and his continued tweets just gave them more reason for concern. I am with @hanna on this one .

1792

CF - Yes, I think this is the source of the miscommunication. Here’s the description of scenario #3 from post #1740 -

I - and several other people - read this and didn’t see even an accusation of physical contact or threats. That’s why we thought it was wrong to call this an assault.

Now, I see that there was an additional line in the Washington Post story - “making it very clear she wanted to have sex with him” - which might (or might not) be a euphemism for physical contact. At least I see now how it might be an assault, though I think we’re in agreement that there are important differences between men and women perpetrators. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

1793

This was my summary, and my mistake. I’m sorry for the confusion.

The initial description in the Post was ambiguous: “About 15 minutes later, he said, the woman came into his room, very drunk and making it very clear that she was interested in him. He was sober, he was tired, he had a girlfriend, he had absolutely no intention of having sex with her, he said.” Obviously I didn’t summarize it well, making it seem like there was clearly no physical contact. I’m sorry for the error.

1794

@“Cardinal Fang” if the comment was “said to” the accuser, I would agree with you. But since it wasn’t said to her, then you are still talking about foreseeability.

And by the way, assault, as the term is commonly used legally, does not require physical contact. That would be battery. Another example of using language that has specific legal meaning loosely.

1795

But sexual assault, even when used legally, is a physical contact. Some jurisdictions call it sexual battery, but some call the crime of unwanted sexual contact “sexual assault.”

1796

@HarvestMoon1: A diversion agreement is where charges are not prosecuted in exchange for (usually) some kind of probationary period. Classes like anger management/drug counseling are often also required. If the accused keeps clean for the probationary period, the charges are dismissed.

@“Cardinal Fang”: Courts generally agree that “Contacting,” as a verb, means in common usage physically touching or communicating." Cooper v. Cooper, 144 P.3d 451 (2006).

In a fairly similar case, People v. Welte, 920 N.Y.S.2d 627 (2011), the defendant was accused of, and did not contest that he, “obtained a list of the complainant’s friends from the complainant’s own Facebook account. He then contacted each one of these individuals, advising them that the complainant, Maureen L. Perry, was denying him access to his children. The supposition is that by doing so, the defendant was intentionally indirectly contacting the mother of his children, because she would hear of the allegations from her said friends and family.” That sounds to me the same theory by which some claim the accused contacted the accuser in the case we are discussing.

The court ultimately held that this did not qualify as “contact”:“the defendant’s action in contacting the complainants friends and family via her “Friends List” would not in the normal course of events violate any provision of law. In addition, the defendant was not directed to stay away from the friends and family of the complainant. Lastly, the accusatory instruments do not allege that the defendant was intentionally attempting to contact the complainant through her friends list, only that the defendant was not to contact her through a third person.” Those are essentially the same facts as we have in this case and therefore I think it likely the Kansas court would rule the same way. This may be why no further proceedings occurred in that court.

There are analogous cases supporting your position, see, e.g., Alford v. State, 965 N.E.2d 133, 135 (2012) (posting a negative review on a third party website constituted “contact”), though I frankly doubt the constitutionality of so broad a speech restriction. See State v. Ancira, 27 P.3d 1246 (2001) (the limitations in no contact orders must be strictly limited to that which is necessary for their function). Ultimately though, the closest case on point rejects this type of scenario as within the definition of “contact.”

It is also important that we disambiguate the court’s order from the university’s. The court is the one that would look to the definition of “contact.” The university must first determine that the regulated speech occurs within its jurisdiction (I do not think it did), then whether it could permissibly regulate it (I do not think it could, but this one could go either way), and then whether it was permissible to enforce the order in this case (whether as applied the speech restriction was overbroad, which I think it was, whether he met the definition of “contact” in the first place, which precedent suggests he did not, and whether the university followed its own rules in bringing the enforcement, which the Kansas court held it did not).

1797

My point is that we are using terms one way in a survey, another in a college tribunal and another in the legal system. It leads to confusion. It is why I have always had problems with extrapolating survey data and using the results as some evidence that specific crimes are occurring.

At least in Ohio, there is no crime called sexual assault. There is rape, sexual battery and gross sexual imposition (to name the big three). I looked at California as well, and can’t find the crime of sexual assault there either, although it appears that the California sexual battery statute is euphemistically referred to as the sexual assault statute. If there are states that have both crimes on the books, I would be curious how they are defined and why.

1798

@Ohiodad51: California has no specific “sexual assault” law, but Title 9 of the California Penal Code is entitled “Of Crimes Against the Person Involving Sexual Assault.” Sexual battery is, of course, not in Title 9, but in Title 8 , because that’s how we do things in California.

1799

The last time I tried a case in Cali, we spent two months in Alameda County doing pre trial motions, and then about seven days of actual, you know, trial. You guys sure are different!

1800

I read through a number of the WaPo anecdotes. It seems to me there’s a few obvious takeaways.

  1. Acquaintence rape is almost always unprove-able. Very few of those anectdotes would or should result a guilty finding in court or even in a reduced due process college tribunal per Dear Colleague. Acquaintence rape rarely produces sufficient incriminating evidence.
  2. Acquaintence rape can very frequently be avoided with some firm and unambiguous non-consent by the victim. Effective resistance is often something short of physical self-defense. A loud and enthusiastic "NOOOOO!!!!" can be enough.
  3. If the victim "freezes up" or expresses non-consent in a lower key way, she'll wind up raped.
  4. Bystanders often prevent rapes from happening.
  5. A lot of college girls are naive in their dealings with young males.
  6. Alcohol. Alcohol. Alcohol.
  7. The term "sexual assault" is so broad that it can border of meaningless. That's not helpful.
  8. Female on male sexual assault is really not something we need to worry about. Guys certainly don't worry about it. Come on.

Best bang for the buck is focusing on 2-5. As a practical matter, that is so much easier and more effective than trying to behavior modify the percentage of guys who are bad guys. Especially since the bad guys know about #1.

6 would be a huge help, but not sure how much you can really accomplish.