<p>@TatinG - I have! </p>
<p>Sabaray, did you ever see the movie Casablana? When Rick’s joint was shut down because gambling was going on?</p>
<p>There is underaged drinking going on so if the president wants to shut down the frats for two months, she has a built in excuse.</p>
<p>Also, there are safety concerns. If the president did not shut down the frats and somebody was raped, then we would see a heck of a lawsuit.</p>
<p>The president of UVA said herself the RS story is not the whole story.</p>
<p>Me too! </p>
<p>Evidence was one of my favorite subjects. </p>
<p>C’mon mamalumper, not everyone can react in what you think is the superior way.<br>
Btw, Tatin, how much does your legal experience allow for all this hypothetical speculation? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes-- they should use the “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof, not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. And if you don’t think the example I gave would render a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, just add in enough evidence to the hypothetical so that it does. I’m interested in the case where there is clear and convincing evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt evidence, that a student raped another student.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s not. The standard of proof for a criminal conviction is too high for civil matters, and the court system takes too long.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are the tribunal judge. You got the facts, and you got the shiny new rulebook which says the applicable standard is Yes means Yes. What would you do?</p>
<p>LF and what superior way do you think I expect people to act. I am not sure what you are talking about. The hypothetical girl in CFs example or wanting to be quoted properly before judged?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because many, if not most, of us know from personal experience that it is simply false. <em>I</em> have consented to sex while “drunk.” And neither you nor some victims rights advocate gets to tell me I didn’t know my own mind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It MAY INTERFERE. If you would qualify it, I would agree to some extent.</p>
<p>But here’s the thing: I do not think that when two drunk kids have sex–and she chose freely to drink (that is, no one was drugging her or deliberately trying to get her drunk) and chose freely to have sex–that the guy can by any stretch of the imagination called a rapist. It is simply ludicrous to do so. This is what happened in the Occidental case. The young woman regretted the sex that she enthusiastically PLANNED and executed. Other people persuaded her that because she was drunk, her obvious consent at the time <em>didn’t count</em> and he should be punished as a rapist. This should be offensive to all women who don’t believe that they are some kind of frail vessels with inferior mental capacities to men who need the protection of laws that clearly presume their childish inferiority.</p>
<p>Another article I came across that reminded me of the discussion here:</p>
<p><a href=“What the U-VA Rape Case Tells Us About a Victim Culture Gone Mad”>http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/05/what-the-uva-rape-case-tells-us-about-a-victim-culture-gone-mad.html</a></p>
<p>Cardinal: You seem to be saying that ‘she said’ is enough evidence to convict. I assume you would have sent both Bill Clinton and Al Gore to prison. Or if those instances had happened in college, they would have been expelled. </p>
<p>What are the exact facts being presented to me, the university tribunal?</p>
<p>If the only thing I know is that both people were drunk and one or the other is accusing the other one of rape, and there is no more evidence-- no eyewitness testimony, they were alone throughout, no photos, no videos, no physical evidence, nothing but a bare accusation-- then I would acquit. How could I not? I can’t even get to a preponderance of the evidence standard.</p>
<p>But there might be other evidence. There might be texts, cell phone videos or photos, testimony from other people as to the condition of the people, several accusations against the same guy or the same woman. Then I would have to evaluate the other evidence before rendering my verdict.</p>
<p>Consolation I was responding to someone’s notion one can be intoxicated and not impaired. But intoxication is defined by impairment. We aren’t talking tipsy or buzzed.</p>
<p>Tatin! Title IX only asks for preponderance. And CF is not saying “she said” is enough. T9 requires some consideration, blah blah, by the campus. And protections to the accused while this occurs. Yes, some coleges have clearly F’ed this up. Maybe you ant to toss T9 out, because some mishandled. ?</p>
<p>And T9 doesn’t dictate the punishment.</p>
<p>I think many gals want the problem to be resolved. They don’t want it to recur, they want the feeling to go away and move on, if they can. They want to feel safe. And heal. And not hear that another gal faced the same as they did. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I asked you for proof about the manhattan institute story, why did you post two one sided opinions, no evidence links?</p>
<p>The guy lied about Stanford, TatinG. He lied. He lied to you.</p>
<p>Instead of replying to various separate posts and answering all sorts of disjointed questions I will try to articulate some coherent thoughts into one longer post. So, random musings in no particular order.</p>
<p>1- Verbal consent is a tricky subject. I started thinking about it and thought how stupid it would be for me to have to get verbal consent from my wife every time we were intimate. Then I thought: wait a minute, I already do. One of us usually says “hey, wanna fool around?”. Then, the more I thought about it, I realized that there are occasions where one of us doesn’t ask. When she walks in and isn’t in her big fluffy pajamas, or is wearing something “special”, I know what that means and don’t ask. </p>
<p>So, my summary of this first section is that I like the CA law where consent can be given either verbally or with actions. This solves the problem of “no means no” because in cases where that is a law you can have problems with victims who are unable to say no. Men though wouldn’t be able to say I didn’t get a no from her because they also wouldn’t be able to say but her actions of X, Y, and Z showed she was consenting.</p>
<p>2- a few people have asked about consent while intoxicated. I don’t think a person should have to be passed out to be unable to give consent. The excellent link that someone provided (and dstark reposted) to the New Zealand PSA is a good example. That girl wasn’t completely incapacitated but she was far enough along the spectrum to be unable to give consent. </p>
<p>OTOH, someone who has a glass of wine and is tipsy but wakes up in the morning regretting their actions should not be able to claim rape either. IMO the answer lies somewhere in-between. There is a reason people can’t sign legal papers when they have been drinking and it is because they are considered unable to make an informed decision. </p>
<p>3- SWDYDH keeps asking about whether or not men have been raped when both parties were very drunk and had sex (or when the guy was drunk and the girl wasn’t). I think we all know the answer to that. A male who is in great fear or incapacitated can’t get an erection and therefore can’t consent. The fact that they could perform the act basically implies they consented. </p>
<p>There is also the huge difference in the way humans are “wired” and, also because of the anatomical differences between the sexes, there is a world of difference between being penetrated and penetrating someone. Dstark used a good example earlier that was closely related what I was going to say. He used a male on male example but I think we could take it one step further. Many (most? almost all?) men would not consider a woman taking advantage of them being drunk as rape (assuming it was someone they were reasonably attracted to, which they should be or they wouldn’t have started the whole mating ritual in the first place). </p>
<p>Some women in the situation where they were very drunk do feel like they were raped. I would bet dollars to donuts that if a very drunk man were to be told “wait there while I slip into something more comfortable” they would feel raped when the woman came out and had slipped into a strap-on and then had anal sex with them. </p>
<p>If she came out in a sexy negligee and they had sex I bet they wouldn’t feel raped. </p>
<p>“Several accusations against the same guy”, again Clinton and Gore. </p>
<p>But if I recall my Evidence correctly, evidence of prior crimes is usually not admissible to prove that the defendant committed the crime for which he is currently being tried. There are exceptions like showing the same modus operandi. Even prior convictions aren’t brought into evidence, not just mere accusations. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not. I am saying that there is a difference between clear and convincing evidence, and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In your mind, think of a hypothetical case where you believe that Student R raped Student N, but you are not sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Hypothesize that the people on the college tribunal think the way you do: they believe the rape occurred, they believe there is clear and convincing evidence that the rape occured, but they are not sure beyond a reasonable doubt. </p>
<p>This college has enough to nail Student R on a civil charge. If Student N went to civil court with the evidence, Student R would win. Should this guy stay on campus? Should it be up to Student N to wend her way through the court system at great time and expense to get the rapist off campus, or should colleges throw out students they strongly believe are rapists?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have a few facts</p>
<p>1) They didn’t say anything throught the act (both agree)
2) Neither pushed the other back, or said No (both agree)
3) Neither said Yes (both agree)
4) Both are saying they feel the other party consented through act, but they themselves didn’t, and were not enthusiastic
5) In one case you know that both were drunk (both agree)
6) In the other case you know that the boy was drunk but the girl was not (both agree)
7) Finally, you know that the girl is pressing charges of rape against the boy
8) And there are no other evidence, period.
9) You can call up the friends, of course, but they were not around. It happened in an isolated dorm room. Let’s say the girl came to the boy in come case, and reverse it in another case. Will your decision change?</p>
<p>You also know that the new standard is Yes means Yes. </p>
<p>This is not a trick question, really. This is very real. It happens. Quite often. (Except for the girl accusing the boy, as most - overwhelming majority - of girls are sane. But some are not, like those in the Slate story.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This, frankly, is a very good question that stomped me. I have to think about this one. Let me just say that if there is due process with presentation and fact finding and cross examination and all of that, using regular court standards and not the stupid Yes means Yes standard, and there is clear and convincing evidence, then I would be inclined to kick the boy out but not attach a a rape conviction to his record (only a criminal court can do that). I will have to refine my thoughts and come back to this.</p>
<p>Now, I do not believe for a second an university can set up such a system though that parallels the civil court system in the country. Not a chance. There’s simply not enough money in the system.</p>
<p>“The young woman regretted the sex that she enthusiastically PLANNED and executed. Other people persuaded her that because she was drunk, her obvious consent at the time <em>didn’t count</em> and he should be punished as a rapist.”</p>
<p>That case was very troubling, too. I thought that the texts and planning did not reflect the sort of impairment that precludes consent.</p>
<p>Is ‘she said’ enough to expel a man? Or a woman? </p>
<p>By ‘she said’ I mean there is no evidence other than her statements. </p>