<p>The absolute heartbreaking thing about Jackie is if she would have reported her rape she’d be protected by the rape shield laws and the “outter” would have been breaking the law by publishing her name. Right now I believe he’s only guilty of being a cad (and that is the nicest word i can use). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The current one works pretty well to protect the innocent, which it is designed to do. I guess my question is are you willing to move away from a system that is BY DEFINITION and through the hard work of generations of thinkers puts a MUCH higher value to protecting the innocent than punishing the guilty?</p>
<p>Please understand, I acknowledge that our current system is not victim friendly at all. It is actually far more friendly towards the guilty, by intention. But that intended help is not towards the guilty, it’s towards the probable innocent who may get caught up.</p>
<p>Are you OK with moving away from this fundamental belief - protect the innocent? The exact shape of the new system is minutiae, but the core principle is paramount.</p>
<p>I would say that as a far-left anti-authority anti-establishment person I like the current system. I like my rights, as they say.</p>
<p>All I know is that now I know the full names of both Jackie and the alleged “Drew” (the Phi Psi lifeguard who is lawyering up) and I am just sick over the fact that I know both of these names, because both of these young people are being smeared all over the internet, and one is a truth-teller and one is a bald-faced liar, and I don’t know that I can say which one is what at this point. </p>
<p>This. Why would they use her real first name? It’s just too easy these days with a few details to think that keeps her anywhere close to anonymous. Really, I don’t even know how anyone could let this mess happen. Anyone.</p>
<p>One of the namers is an extortionist. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Zaps where?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On a lighter note.</p>
<p>I was also hospitalized though not with an irregular heartbeat. I was having knee surgery from a sports injury. This was in 2006. I woke up and the nurse asked me how I was feeling. I asked her if Bush was still the President. When she said yes, I asked her then what kind of a question was it? </p>
<p>sowhat: I am only just now, at age 58, smart enough to see the problems. I have zero solutions.</p>
<p>I am counting on my kids’ generation for solutions. We had our chance and failed.</p>
<p>Are you a student? Are you a young adult? a parent? It is difficult to judge this on the Parents Forum. So many of the 20somethings are so clever. I think it does matter though in terms of the discussion. Anyway, it helps me out to have this information. </p>
<p>I realize the silliness, and maybe the irony, of assuming what anyone writes here is “true” especially on this particular thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NO. We, on this thread, are discussing this issue, and my comments are directed at the people on this thread. Please do not try to censor my comments. </p>
<p>SW, I’m fine. Didn’t take the test either. That was 10 years ago.</p>
<p>Sometimes a 1 to 2 percent chance is HUGE! </p>
<p>I was a professional gambler. ;)</p>
<p>@SoWhatDoYouDoHuh, I’m curious if you are at UVa. Also, do you have specific knowledge about the UVa-Jackie case that’s not in the news? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why just with a new partner? The Columbia mattress dragger was raped by someone who she had slept with twice before, the evening started consensually, and then the guy switched to anal. So, it has to be every sex act with every partner. Also remember, yes from a prior sex act doesn’t count. </p>
<p>What I am trying to do here, of course, is explain that Enthusiastic Yes for every minutiae of a sex act (because, who knows, one partner may not like just this one detail) and for all sex acts and with all partners, even married couples (because marital rape is quite real), is just plain nonsensical. No mean No works much better, go with the flow, explore, and when one partner asks to stop, stop.</p>
<p>This has worked for a generation. Even in the alternative sexual communities that partcipate in some really scary sexual acts that can cause permanent damage - like sadomasochism - no one asks for Enthusiatic or even Affirmative Yes during the sex act. But everyone, WITHOUT FAIL, listens to a safeword. Of course, everyone also lists out before the sex act what is out of bounds. </p>
<p>But they don’t get consent for every single act, as that would be stupid. This Enthusiastic Yes standard is bring brought forward by 19 year olds who really don’t have much experience with sex. We adults shouldn’t encourage them, and definitely NOT at the cost of No means No. No means No is the bedrock that lowered rape and I worship that. And safewords, definitely safewords, I worship safewords too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was not my intention. Please accept my apologies if it came across that way. I was merely saying that whatever system we prescribe, we have to vet it against existing criminal law standards, due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc.</p>
<p>“In reading pieces about this issue I ran across one in which the accused were able to prove their innocence with a video tape. Temple U, maybe? The tape showed the woman participating of her own free will.”</p>
<p>Well, that’s fabulous.; How is that going to help discern the truth in the Jackie / UVA story? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As it relates to colleges deciding whether or not to expel a student accused of sexual assault, no, they do NOT have to vet it against criminal law standards. Students are expelled for a variety of reasons, many of which are decided upon using standards not as high as those in criminal cases. Civil cases are decided as well with a different standard. In criminal cases, the standard is very high as you are deciding whether to take away a person’s freedom, likely for many years. No one has a constitutional right to attend a given college, so the standard of evidence to decide upon expulsion is not and has never been as high as that of a criminal court.</p>
<p>I am curious, I have read in several reports that the reason we should believe that something happened to Jackie is because rape survivors rarely lie. What backs up that claim?</p>
<p>Our society also has a problem with domestic violence but women lie about that, for purposes of custody disputes, divorce or just plain revenge. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but if the case is not watertight the college will get sued. Checks and balance. So, of course, colleges will expel the low and middle SES kids and leave the rich kids untouched. </p>
<p>But even preponderance of evidence is hard for rape as it is almost always he said she said. What would you do if you were part of the deciding body? I am genuinely curious. If you say that you will just believe the victim, trust me, the lawyers for the college will fast remove you from your post.</p>
<p>As they don’t like to get sued.</p>
<p>I sincerely hope Jackie is getting the counseling / psychological help she needs. If (HEAVEN FORBID) it were my D in that situation, I would have her move in with the therapist, and I’m really not kidding here. If something bad did happen - even if she was mistaken on some of the specifics, the name of the frat, the exact date, etc. - that’s horrendous enough, but now to be outed - it’s more than I can bear. </p>
<p>This sounds like a horrible soap opera, but I almost want Jackie and the guy who is being named to meet and have him apologize to her (assuming he did it) because I almost care more about her closure than I do about punishment. I know that’ sprobably wrong of me to feel that way.</p>
<p>Dstark doesn’t have to be risk-averse to object to a 1% chance of heart attack, just numerate. Only an innumerate would subject themselves to a 1% chance of a heart attack without a damn good reason.</p>
<p>If you subject yourself to that much risk every day, you won’t make it a year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Usually, people point to a certain FBI statistic, where it was determined 92% of the cases reported were real. And it may be true. When the Jackie story came out, I took it as real (I had no evidence to the contrary). When the holes in the story were exposed, I took it as fake. What I don’t understand is this - why don’t people just move with the facts as they come out? </p>
<p>But as I keep saying, what we believe is irrelevant. What can be proven in a court of law is relevant. So, the humane thing to do is to always support someone who claims that they have been raped. Comfort them, provide them with a support group, help them recover. That’s just people helping people. Even if she was not raped, that she had to claim such a thing means that she is going through some serious trouble, and can use support anyway.</p>
<p>But when a person is accused of rape, I always believe that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. I am conditioned to do this. It just comes to me naturally. When I was younger I used to wonder why it doesn’t come naturally to others as well, but now I have given up on that. America as such is a very vindictive and angry country. Otherwise we wouldn’t send so many poor black kids to jail for selling drugs meant for consumption by the rich and the white.</p>
<p>It may sound contradictory, but you can still support the accuser and believe that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. There is no need really to take sides. As I say, there is his side, her side, and the side of the truth as it will come out under cross examination. :-)</p>
<p>I am on the side of the truth under cross examination.</p>