<p>Whenever you guys mention “founding fathers” in connection with rights of an accused rapist, it just sort of turns my stomach. Some of those founding fathers were rapists according to how we define rape these days. I am not the first on this thread to point that out. However, since the thread moves so quickly, it seemed worth repeating.</p>
<p>adding: I can’t remember who pointed it out first and I just can’t go back through the entire thread, but thank you.</p>
<p>“News reports say that the accused has two title ix lawyers representing her. I have no idea who is paying for that. Could be FSU.”<br>
You have no idea, by your own admission, but persist. How much did you look into this? Her initial attorney was a family contact. Absolutely nothing I found says the U paid for her lawyer. It was this one who brought in two highly experienced T9 attorneys, Clune and Kerr, who would also investigate. Not all attorneys specialize in the same arenas or have sufficient expertise to cover any topic out there, just as you super urologist may know little about your other medical issues. </p>
<p>“Point is, both sides need to have lawyers if the kangaroo court…”<br>
Awc, see how easily people resort to this sort of talk- saying it’s kangaroo is opinion, not fact. It raises notions and alarms. Isn’t that spin, of its own?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is making an effort to dismiss the details. People have said that it is a shame that she lied (actually, IF she lied since nobody really knows for sure at this point, although it sure seems like it). There is a difference in saying that even if she was lying that there is an issue. We could be making all these same arguments if this case had never come up and someone had just started a thread about the T9 investigation. </p>
<p>Could you also please clarify what you mean by
? Do you mean you don’t understand why rape is a crime? You certainly can’t, but from the quote that is what is seems like. I assume I am misinterpreting what you are saying. </p>
<p>That sure got my attention. I was hoping it was just another typo, and also not some sort of Freudian slip.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do wonder where the bandwagon will eventually lead. </p>
<p>What other crimes people will latch on to and want adjudicated via tribunals because they (tribunals) are easier to rig via a system of “we have this in place for you to use (on paper),” but psych, we will not let you use it in reality for no one holds us accountable to implement fairly, e.g., lawyers, appeals, evidence presentation etc. </p>
<p>Talk about a slippery slope… Could there soon be a thing as “campus murder”, “campus grand larceny”? Why not, given the current argument about rape? Rape is a crime and a felony, just as murder and grand larceny are crimes and felonies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally agree. That is why some of these discussions are more theoretical that practical. For all intents and purposes the two laws have very little practical difference since it is still “he said/she said”.</p>
<p>If we are talking about rape and not sexual misconduct i do not believe it belongs in the college at all. All it does is potentially put a serious offender/serial rapist into the community. Why on earth would anyone think that “choosing” a college honor tribunal for a serious rape case makes any sense. I highly doubt the colleges think it makes sense. I don’t understand why victims don’t understand the moral obligation to press charges if it’s rape. I think I am pretty clear about what rape where I wanted to press criminal charges would be if it happened to me. I’ll really never understand it. The colleges are ill prepared to deal with criminal charges of that magnitude and they are literally pushing the problem out into society. </p>
<p>LF the advocate people are most certainly making an effort to dismiss the details and that started the second questions were raised about Jackie’s account. Well, it doesn’t matter it’s still a problem was the response and that continues although now it’s beginning to sound desperate because ordinary people are examining the one in five rape number that was gaining wide acceptance and it isn’t exactly standing up to the scrutiny since it includes things that are a long way from rape and while they may be disrespectful, annoying, or sleazy they are not criminal. The category I don’t quite get is “campus rape”. Rape is rape and more of it happens off-campus than on, anyway.</p>
<p>I am sorry I’m trying to catch up but this was posted a few pages ago.</p>
<p>
Yup. it is not enough someone saw Jackie at the Boar’s Head Inn. Someone should have seen Drew with Jackie because it’s quite possible Jackie was there dating herself.</p>
<p>
post #2342, pg. 157 Interesting. I hadn’t thought of this. </p>
<p>
You should not presume stuff. Cough. cough.</p>
<p>
This statement always pops up during a rape discussion. I’m presuming (ooops, I just disregarded my own advice above), it’s directed at posters who give advice about being drunk, engaging in toxic sex, dressing in a particular attire and giving lap dances? Giving advice is separate from blaming a victim. I’m not sure why one can’t see the difference. </p>
<p>I was a victim of fraud years ago from an entity that was recommended by colleagues. Back then, I thought I knew a Ponzi scheme from a mile away. As it turns out, my Ponzi detector malfunctions when an investment is pitched by relatives, close friends and colleagues. After I found out I was a victim of fraud, one of my older co-workers told me when the numbers or returns look too good to be true, it likely is. Was he blaming me for being a victim of fraud? Of course not! That’s ridiculous. The thought never even crossed my mind. I knew he was giving my advice—something I already knew perhaps but as I said my guards went down when it is pitched and allegedly vetted by people close to me. I’m not sure what is the thought process behind a conclusion that conflates blaming the victim with giving advice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree and it is easy for us as adults to say this. For a young woman I can see why it isn’t so easy. First they are told that it either didn’t happen or, that if it did, there is nothing the police can do about it. I am talking about cases that are not stranger rape, btw which most apparently are not). Then, if they do press charges the odds of a conviction are extremely low (I think I remember reading at least one estimate that only 1 in 20 rapists get convicted, and that doesn’t even separate our the stranger from the acquaintance rapes). </p>
<p>I can understand why a woman would take what they could get in terms of punishment for their accuser. I also agree with those of you that say this should be tried by colleges. </p>
<p>What other crimes people will latch on to and want adjudicated via tribunals because they (tribunals) are easier to rig via a system… BS alarms ringing loud. Henny penny, the sky is falling! OMG, OMG! “Next they’ll set up rigged tribunals if you pour too much cereal in the dining hall!!!” Or, “OMG! What if i believed my roommate did say I could use hs printer?!!! I’ll be expelled!”
Cut the projections.</p>
<p>“LF the advocate people are most certainly making an effort to dismiss the details and that started the second questions were raised about Jackie’s account.” So maybe they are and maybe they aren’t. Is that how you make your conclusions about sexual violence and what should be done to reduce it, reply to complaints and improve the climate? hope we can get away from the Roseanne Roseannadanna stuff. Lol. Hoping your post ends agreeing the problem exists. </p>
<p>As for the return to whether the one in five holds up, I’m way past that. And said so. </p>
<p>^^^^^^^</p>
<p>Isn’t that backwards? The point is rape is serious so battling about it as though it’s a playground offense at elementary school strikes some of us as a little off somehow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand the statement, but fail to see which posts have supported that the rights of the accuser are secondary? What posters, like me, have been saying is that the civil rights of both the accuser and accused are to be enforced.</p>
<p>If I have ever advocated that accuser’s rights are not as important as the accused rights, please point that out to me.</p>
<p>More specifically, please point where I ever stated or advocated that an accuser should lose certain cvil rights, or not be allowed to exercise certain civil rights, but the male accused should have those rights? </p>
<p>I understand you believe that my posts have said as much, but now that you have made the charge, I do respectfully ask that you back it up using my actual posts as examples. </p>
<p>@awcntdb I’m not sure I feel like taking the time to go back through thousands of posts to find an example but I probably will. </p>
<p>I could ask the same thing then. Please give me examples of several people saying that the rights of the accuser are more important than the accused.</p>
<p>Agree marie1234. Agree also awcntdb. I don’t recall any posters ever that claim we should put the accused rights ahead of the accusers rights. They both have rights. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t what backwards? It is hard enough figuring out what you are trying to say without having to do it without any context. Please start using quotes from posts that you are replying to so that we know what in the blazes you are referring to. Thanks in advance. </p>
<p>^^ Mom3: and then what?</p>
<p>Who is treating this as a playground offense? In itself that is more minimizing, don’t you see it? You want this to be treated as a major crime, handled exclusively by police, NOT handled at all by the campus (?) – and then say the present standard is a playground response. At least come back into the gray middle.</p>
<p>@TV4caster I fixed it. Sorry.</p>
<p>@Marie1234 re: 2617- No problem. With a thread that moves this fast it is hard to keep up when what you read one minute is different than what you read 1 min earlier. </p>
<p>Marie1234, about the details. Looks to me like you are distorting what some of us said. On purpose? </p>
<p>I am going to talk for myself. </p>
<p>First, I am not a member of any advocacy group. I am not into groups. However, advocacy groups do great things. Things that we take for granted now exist because of advocacy groups. Women have the right to vote. Child labor laws. Civil rights. Women can’t get fired for being pregnant. Women can have a credit card… I can go on and on…</p>
<p>Advocacy groups have a point of view. Duh, right? This trashing of advocacy groups doesn’t speak to the sexual assault issue. We can use many sources to decide if there is a sexual assault issue. We don’t have to just listen to advocacy groups. </p>
<p>People want to talk about sexual assault while others want to trash certain advocacy groups. It is a diversion.</p>
<p>The president of UVA says she wants to change the culture. The president of the school said it. Other professors say the culture should be changed. Some students say the culture should be changed. </p>
<p>When I visited Michigan, I did not bring up sexual assaults. The school did. I doubt Michigan would have brought up the sexual assault issue if there wasn’t one.</p>
<p>When I said the details don’t matter in the Jackie case, I was talking about rape and sexual assault at the macro level. Of course it matters at the micro level. There is a difference, right? We don’t want to hang people that don’t deserve to be hanged. Whether sexual assaults are a problem is not determined by one case… In this case the Jackie case.</p>
<p>Are rape prevention advocates saying the Jackie case doesn’t matter at the micro level?
Where?</p>