4458
I thought arrest records were always public information. Is that incorrect?
Most places I’ve lived, the local newspaper regularly publishes local arrests. I’ve just been assuming they publish a complete list.
Yes, he was arrested so that is public record. There are cases such as the college tribunal cases where there is no arrest. But, not that one. It’s another reason the alternate system has issues, though.
We are encouraging women to report to police. If they report and there is enough evidence for an arrest, that arrest will be public record. And then we are concerned because there is a public arrest record for someone who may be innocent?
al, I think the judge did tell Duke to give him his degree reasoning that they could rescind it if he lost the case.
Frankly if I had a son or daughter embroiled in a sexual misconduct suit in the courts I’d probably have them take a leave of absence since their mind won’t be focused on school work. I might even insist on a leave of absence if it was only the college tribunal depending on distance needed to travel on short notice,the situation etc. Plus they would need to be free to work with an attorney gathering witnesses, testimony, preparing a rebuttal etc. I don’t think colleges should expel or suspend someone if the courts have allowed them to be out on bail if charged or in the middle of an investigation and I certainly don’t think college should expel or suspend prior to the tribunal. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to offer a leave of absence. That said, if they have a two time or three time offender i think that’s very different and I’d feel different as a parent if it were a second or third offense, but many of these cases are not that at all - they are “good” men and women who are caught up in one event that is not defining of their college career or their future contributions to society as a whole.
Greenwich:
ahl, you would probably need to file a freedom of information act. But generally the investigation precedes the actual charge - and many times the investigation becomes public before any charges are even brought.
Consolation as a parent I’d have a real problem if one of my kids name’s was connected to something or by guilt through association and I’d lawyer up faster than you shake a stick just like that frat member did in the UVa case. If I didn’t have the money, then I’d be looking for the money to clean up the internet mess at a minimum from the media source or sources. I don’t think some of these kids that are pulling these PR stunts understand all the media attention might be a major, major impediment to future employment even a minor media picture of a person screaming at the tops of their lungs with their fists clenched might give a hiring manager pause if there is an equally qualified person who doesn’t appear to have an anger management problem. Not my problem but it does cause me to shake my head and wonder at the advice their parents are giving.
The Vanderbilt rapists are out on bail. Should Vanderbilt keep them on campus, allowing them to attend class so that their victim can run into the people who raped her, peed on her and sent out videos of the event to their friends? You have no problem with this? And they should be allowed to continue to play football, because they haven’t been convicted yet? Or are you OK with sanctions that stop short of suspension?
One of the alleged rapists is presently playing football for another college. Brandon Banks is playing for Butte College.
Momofthreeboys - Not arguing with you, but I do like to learn more about this stuff because the knowledge is useful. This is from an article dated August 2, 2014. According to it he didn’t receive his degree but seems to have avoided deportation for now. My observation: these guys seem to try to get a female lawyer. If McLeod wins, I’ll be curious if his employer hires him or tells him there’s no longer a need for his services. Personally, if I were his employer I’d be in the latter camp if McLeod wins for any reason other than he was actually innocent.
(Edited for brevity)
I am concerned not that there is an arrest record–those are a little more difficult to find–but that there are newspaper stories, and in some cases tv stories, showing the accused’s face, and quite frankly presuming guilt. In one local case I know of, these stories still persist via google, but the TV station that broadcast the accused’s face and name never covered the fact that the charges were dropped. I don’t know if the accused was guilty or not, but I think that if a news outlet is going to publicly accuse someone of a crime, they should be sufficiently responsible as to follow up on the disposition of the case. Things are different in the age of google. (In my view, it is just as bad to assume guilt as it is to assume that the accuser is lying, and I think that IRL there are people in both camps.)
Are you suggesting that everyone who is arrested for a crime is guilty, and deserves public infamy? Yes, I AM concerned about this: in general, not only in regard to sexual crimes.
Consolation: I don’t want anyone’s name smeared, but if a woman reports to police, and if the accused is arrested, the accused name will inevitably be made public. We have been talking about how many guilty men we let go free to avoid convicting one innocent man, but this argument seems to be we can’t even make an accusation. What am I missing here? I absolutely agree with you there is too much irresponsible media coverage of these events. You may or may not have read my post refusing to speculate on the most recent Duke case.
Edit to add:
Thousands of posts ago, I stated I was closing my eyes when other posters were attempting to identify Jackie’s alleged rapists. I googled nothing about that fraternity.
Is there any law or regulation that prevents a school from enacting the following…
If you are arrested, you are subject to suspension or expulsion.
Yes, they should allow them to continue until proven guilty. Presumably the college has separated the women (so they aren’t in the same classes and have mitigated the chances of encounters) and any man that attends her college as that is also part of Title IX. If she is smart she asked for a restraining order on top of whatever the college did. I have never had an issue with presuming innocence until guilt is determined - it’s not always pretty, but as someone said pages ago i’d rather see guilty people go free than innocent people punished. i can accept that risk. Plus these guys are on trial - i believe they are not going to go out and roofie someone with the whole world watching them. They are far, far less risk today in my opinion than they were before the alleged rape.
In no way, shape, or form did I suggest any such thing. I find it almost impossible to converse when people persist in making this kind of leap.
BTW, in the Duke case the accuser actually persisted in attending social events at the fraternity–and home–of her supposed rapist, despite an order preventing him from being in her vicinity, and then lied about it. f he is to be believed, he had to vacate his own home several times. I’m wondering what people think should have been the consequences, if any, to her?
well then, sincere apologies for misreading you, Consolation.
The more I read about these publicized cases, the more I like affirmative consent, and the more I like the new California law. And the more I hate the “She didn’t say No” defense.
The Duke guy says the sex was consensual and stopped when she started crying. That doesn’t sound consensual to me-- Did he bother to ask her beforehand, or did he just think that if she didn’t register an objection beforehand he was entitled to have intercourse with her? (There are also issues with that case of whether she was too incapacitated to consent. But if she didn’t consent anyway, it doesn’t matter whether she was able to consent.)
The two women who accused the guy in the anonymous Higher Ed article said that he began to have intercourse with them without asking them first.
The Steubenville rapists defended themselves because they began to molest her and she didn’t register any objections. The fact that she was unconscious didn’t make any difference-- she didn’t say no, so it was OK.
In the Juneau rape case, the guy started having intercourse with her while she was asleep. But she didn’t register any objections before he started (being asleep) so he thought it was fine.
In cases where women are drugged by roofies or GHB, they don’t say no. So their rapists think it’s fine to rape them.
Clearly, the Vanderbilt rapists thought that there was nothing wrong with them raping the victim: they sent out pictures, for heaven’s sake. She didn’t say no, so it must have been OK.
Obviously, a lot of these guys are using the rule that if she didn’t say No beforehand, they can do anything they want with her body. They can drug her into insensibility, and they believe that’s fine. They can find a woman who is unconscious or almost unconscious and have intercourse with her, and that’s fine. They can terrify or shock her into compliance, and that’s fine. They don’t think they have to get her consent-- as long as she can’t or doesn’t say no, even if she can’t or doesn’t say no because they prevented her, they can do anything they want with her body.
These guys have got to stop thinking that a woman’s body is their sex toy unless and until the woman registers an objection. We need to change the rules. She has to say Yes. Beforehand.
Dstark, fwiw, re: Brown and the four years: “The university cited the fraternity’s “history of disciplinary infractions involving unauthorized events and alcohol violations” and the seriousness of the violations not in dispute as reasons for imposing the sanctions effective immediately.” History. I can’t go look for the original U words, but that’s what’s said about it.
Was she under any restraining order or college order restricting her movements?
4472
I can’t see any downside to affirmative consent. It’s correct it can’t solve the he said/she said issue, and people will lie, but I think it is as good a rule as we are going to be able to come up with at present. It changes how we think about sex. imho
During the course of this thread, I’ve been thinking a lot about whether we can shift the model to girls asking boys for sex, instead of the other way around. A lot of young women I know have no difficulty asking.
A person is presumed innocent in a court of law…
I couldn’t believe that when i read it, what are these accusers thinking? He would leave the house - if I were his mom I would have told him to get a restraining order against her to keep her away.
Al I believe you are indeed correct. They let him finish up but didn’t grant the diploma. He lost the job. He lost his visa to work in the US and he’s back home in Australia. A British newspaper says a verdict is expected in Febraury. It will be interesting. My vote is the college gets penalized, the college really screwed this one up from all reports.
My vote in the incapacitated rape trial is one or all of them gets charged with sexual misconduct in the second degree as charged.
My vote in the Occidental case is the college loses.
My vote is Vassar will also lose (the case where the father was a prof of the accused and friends of the father sat on the tribunal.). Makes me wonder what on earth these colleges are thinking.
“A person is presumed innocent in a court of law…”
Many are unjustly arrested and will be proven innocent at trial.
Their names will still be in the news. Their reputations will be damaged.
Under our legal system, some will have damaged reputations even though proven innocent.
I don’t see a way around this. The media is bad, but we want freedom of speech and press.
For me, it’s one of those choice between evils situations.
Consolation: again I’m very sorry for misinterpreting your post.
I don’t think affirmative consent will solve the he said/she said issues when someone lies.
But in a lot of these cases, seemingly both parties are telling the truth. She didn’t say no-- because she was asleep, because she was paralyzed with fear and shock, because she was unconscious, because she was barely conscious and not coherent enough to form words, because she was six years old, because her assailant had drugged her. That poor Vanderbilt survivor had an ongoing relationship with one of the guys-- and she didn’t say no. And her not saying no is, in their minds, their Get Out of Jail Free card for anything they choose to do with her body short of killing her.
We need to take away the Get Out of Jail Free card from rapists. Some rapists will still rape, and they’ll lie about it. But some guys will realize that if she doesn’t say yes, she can at least haul their butt into a college tribunal for sexual assault, which will be inconvenient at the least for them.