<p>@TV4caster - Thanks for your post, #1926. I appreciate your reasoning, and I understand it and accept in general what you say.</p>
<p>Where I take difference is here:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because the same thing happens in the current judicial system is not a reason or an excuse to allow the same to occur elsewhere. I do not see that any different really than turning a blind eye and purposely defining deviancy down. </p>
<p>For the sake of argument, I will accept your stupid person decision-making argument. At least though, in the judicial system, there are several levels of appeals and then some, so there is a chance to correct the decisions made, if erroneous. However, there are no appeals processes in place for these tribunals, as far as I can tell - meaning the decisions by stupid people are continued to stand for the men who cannot afford to sue the schools. </p>
<p>To compare apples to apples, I rather a system where terrible decisions are not made by stupid people, but made by smarter properly-trained people. At least then, I can have a reasoned discussion with the smart people, as to why they are wrong. There is no chance to have a reasoned appeal and discussion with stupid people. </p>
<p>As it stands, if there is not consent- and if one reports it as so- it needs to be investigated by the colleges. One’s outsider idea that, “Nope, I see drunk sex as consensual, by default. After all, snicker-snicker, the other party was (or both were) too drunk to say No,” doesn’t matter. </p>
<p>The issue remains consent. Was it there? Not a matter of degree, who was drunker. </p>
<p>The drunkenness interferes with the ability to give consent. In itself, that is a No. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>All of these university proceedings have appeal procedures. It’s required. You may not like them, but they are there.</p></li>
<li><p>Some of the most important decisions in the judicial system are not subject to appeal. Prominently, a prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute, or not to appeal an adverse ruling. An acquittal by a jury. </p></li>
<li><p>As a big fan of due process, you surely know that the current state of the law is that due process under the U.S. Constitution does not require the government to provide an appeal mechanism for a criminal conviction.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>If I understand correctly the argument is that making fun of rape diminishes the horror with which we regard it. Joking about rape is sometimes given as an example and evidence of rape culture. It is commonplace. We don’t think anything of it. </p>
<p>Secondary to the lack of clarity about what exactly is happening with rape in college, it is not clear to me what victims of rape want to happen to their attacker. If they want him to go to jail, there is no way around taking the case to law enforcement. If what they want is for him to keep his distance, then perhaps universities can help victims obtain temporary restraining orders against their attackers. This may require filing a police report, but it would obviate the need for the man to be expelled, while carrying consequences if he violates the order. </p>
<p>Post #1928, already wrote the first part of what I was going to say.</p>
<p>My second part is it seems to me that what people mean by face value differs vastly in meaning. This is not just semantics; this is definitional. I get this sense that face value to a lot of people is something much larger than how it is normally used. </p>
<p>By face value, I mean that the accuser’s claim is taken as is, presumed to be an accurate account, and a formal report is filed and an investigation commenced. Pretty much that is where face value MUST stop because if an investigation shows zilch the authorities cannot arrest, charge and prosecute solely on the accuser’s claim.</p>
<p>For some, taken on face value seems to mean arresting, charging, and prosecuting on the faith of the accuser’s word alone devoid of anything criminal supporting the claim. For obvious reasons, that would not and cannot be allowed to fly. </p>
<p>I also wonder about the idea that the police treat rape victims poorly. Is there anything more to this assertion than anecdotes or stereotypes? I’m pretty sure that both the police departments and DA’s offices of major cities have sex crimes units that are specially trained in dealing with victims of sexual assault. I personally know someone who worked at one of those offices, and she was highly trained to work with the victims.</p>
<p>Expanding on LF’s post, when intoxicated or under the influence, one cannot legally make certain decisions. For instance, if you are on a drug which clouds your decision-making, then a doctor cannot obtain consent that a certain medical procedure is ok despite certain risks. </p>
<p>Except if you are male, then it doesn’t matter. </p>
<p>SWDYDH, I’m not sure what you are saying in #1916. </p>
<p>You say that rape is caused by sociopaths who are rapists, but then you say that if we want to prevent rape on campus we should focus on binge drinking and the hookup culture. </p>
<p>I’m not really picking on you, but that post seems to contain the themes that just keep getting twisted around over the last 130 pages. </p>
<p>In my view, most of us want to prevent rape, so we want to identify and punish rapists, sociopath or not. </p>
<p>Drunken regret sex is something we don’t want to encourage, but also don’t want to criminalize. </p>
<p>Men and women both need to consent. Certain sex acts may imply consent because the mechanical act requires a male to actively perform it, implying there was a decision made by them, but this argument cannot apply to situations in which decision making is compromised by alcohol. If the crime is determined to have occurred because the ‘decision’ made to consent is invalidated because of a blood alcohol content exceeding X amount, then this applies to both genders equally. If they are drunk and one forces themself on the other while the other resisted, that is a completely different situation since we are no longer talking about the <em>decision to consent</em>. </p>
<p>*perhaps universities can help victims obtain temporary restraining orders against their attackers. * This safety mechanism is part of Title IX.</p>
<p>Bay, I do agree many officials do care to do it right. The problem, to some extent, is these cases can be hard to clarify and some may take the frustration as a dismissal or disbelief. Trying hard not to generalize.</p>
<p>Collegealum, just as we finally get to accuser and accused needs, why snip about the male side not mattering? </p>
<p>@Bay
It could be that 1000 or so reports received by these 5 detectives just were not credible. Or maybe the police don’t always listen. There are many good and dedicated detectives, but then there are these guys.</p>
<p>SoWhat, you’re a nice guy, and you wouldn’t rape someone. So you think that other guys are nice guys too, and wouldn’t rape someone. </p>
<p>But I put it to you that a lot of guys who rape don’t think they are doing something wrong. I’m not talking about the kind of drunk sex we’ve been discussing: I’m thinking about guys who don’t stop when she says No, or who rape a woman who is unconscious, or who use force against an unwilling woman. </p>
<p>Look at the Steubenville rapists. That wasn’t one lone predator. That was a bunch of boys, and they were proud of their rape. They videoed the victim, with one of the boys crowing and laughing about how hilarious it was that she had just been raped. People in the community defended the rapists, obviously thinking that raping this young unconscious girl was just one of those things that boys do, and besides they were such good football players. This was not one lone criminal acting in secret; this was an openly known rape, and it was acceptable to a lot of people.</p>
<p>If you want to say that rape is rare, you have to say not only that the Steubenville rapists themselves were an anomaly, but that their entire town and their many Internet defenders were a rarity too.</p>
<p>That doesn’t look like vanishing rarity to me. It looks like significant populations of men who think that rape is A-OK. If a guy thinks that rape is fine, and he gets a chance to rape a woman (which he will in the binge-drinking bunch, if he tries) he will rape her. This is not rare.</p>
<p>I’m stealing this from Hans Bader but it bears reading:
</p>
<p>So again, we are using “fuzzy” language. Incapacitated I can understand. It’s a word that I can understand. It’s a line that I can agree to - no sex with someone who is incapacitated. Intoxicated is a word that needs to stay with the honor code - I can have two drinks and perhaps be intoxicated according to police and not supposed to drive my car, but 2 drinks is not enough to make me incapable of making decisions - I’m capable for instance after two drinks to know that I should not drive my car. So perhaps incapacitated sex goes with crimes like rape. </p>
<p>And again, all we need to do is watch California because someone is going to be intoxicated (not incapacitated) charge someone with sexual assault and the courts will end up defining which is which and what they “really” meant by how they wrote their laws, and some business will probably pay large sums of money to someone else and then “we as a society” will have determined the legal difference between incapacitated and intoxicated.</p>
<p>It is not a like or not like issue; it is a does it function as one issue. </p>
<p>If stupid people create an appeals process which does not function for allowing the fair presentation of exonerating evidence, then it is sham. Just saying that there is an appeal process, does not mean it functions as one, as understood by our judicial principles. There are more than enough examples on here of males not allowed to submit information during and after the tribunal decisions. No need to repeat those examples.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but these tribunals are not judicial people, and more importantly, these are not legal people trained to take such decisions. We can call these tribunals whatever we want and tell people they are a real judicial system for the colleges, but if people do not trust them, they are toast anyway. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tribunals are mom and pop operations and are people masquerading as judicial arbiters. That is an important distinction compared to the real judicial system.</p>
<p>And yes, the Constitution does not require an appeals process, but it does require the accused be given certain rights. However, if those certain rights are not afforded throughput the process, then the ONLY check and balance left is a competent appeals process. </p>
<p>The key word here is “required.” Just because something is not required does not also mean it is not the right thing to do or should not be done given the circumstances of everything else. And given the array of procedural issues with the tribunals’ processes, it is the right thing to do to provide an accountable, trustworthy appeals process. </p>
<p>Anyway, I am confident that because the tribunals are run by stupid people that they will vaporize under their own weight of stupid stuff. You can only pay out but so much money before realizing that something you are doing makes no sense.</p>
<p>The Rolling Stone writer was looking for the most sensational story she could find. </p>
<p>Alex Pinkleton, one of the students featured in the article, said she is a friend of Jackie’s as well as a survivor of an on-campus sexual assault.</p>
<p>She said the reporter asked her about her own assault but chose Jackie’s story because it was the most extreme.</p>
<p>“She was looking for a piece that would have easily been sensationalized,” Pinkleton said.</p>
<p>Pinkleton, a U.Va. junior, said Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Erdely had an agenda for her story: find a very innocent victim and a monstrous perpetrator.</p>
<p>“It’s not hard to find a lot of survivors here, and it’s also not hard to find a lot of survivors that have stories that are more verifiable,” she said.</p>
<p>Pinkleton said the trauma Jackie suffered and the pressure put on her from the reporter are responsible for the inconsistencies in Jackie’s story.</p>