Wait a minute. Aren’t you one of the people who thinks that an accuser’s willingness to file a complaint is evidence that the complaint is probably true? If so, why wouldn’t an accused’s willingness to fight the charge be evidence that the complaint is probably not justified?
I think the accused consults @Hanna to get advice on how best to approach matriculating at another college, not to fight the charge. At least that was my understanding of that piece of her practice.
“that your practice is exploding means that more students are being expelled from their colleges for sexual offenses, right?”
It looks that way from here, but I can’t prove it. It might mean that the number of expelled students is constant, and I’m doing a better job of promoting my services.
But you’re right that I work with students who may be guilty. Heck, I have a bunch of clients who were exonerated by their colleges and want to transfer anyway, and I don’t assume that they’re not guilty, either. It’s not knowable. I take a pretty broad pro-education view that it’s generally better for everyone if kids who want to be in college can be in college.
I think the FBI says the above and posters repeat that.
This is a different situation but I am open to any information that says the above is true.
@hunt, do you have any info? I would like to read the info.
dstark, doesn’t the FBI’s data involve women who bring complaints to law enforcement?
I think that is a different population. There’s a big difference between going to the police and being willing to endure a trial involving cross-examination and the production of actual evidence, vs a college hearing where the accused is virtually assumed to be guilty and no one can cross examine you.
I also think that the crime has been redefined in the college context.
Although I’m still inclined to think that the majority of accusers are telling the truth, I think it’s pretty obvious that the college processes make it MUCH easier for a person with an iffy story to make an accusation.
I think it is a different population. I think the numbers are a little higher for college students. Don’t know for sure.
No, I don’t think so. People who commit crimes usually deny it. For most crimes, I’d venture to say that people who come forward to say they were a victim of the crime usually were a victim of the crime, and people who were accused of committing the crime mostly deny that they did it. In this case, I don’t think sexual assault is different from any other offense.
Just to be clear, here: I am totally against the idea that the fact that a person is willing to report a crime can ever be used as evidence that the accusation is true in any court or other proceeding, whatever standard of proof is being used. I’m not sure anybody is actually advocating that, of course.
Somewhat off topic, but my undergraduate degree is in nursing, and when I worked in a tough city hospital, we had a number of prisoner patients. Some would be handcuffed to the bed (bet they don’t do that anymore) and have two police guards around the clock. Some prisoner patients would volunteer things like “I was arrested for shoplifting.” “People who commit crimes usually deny it” (Cardinal Fang), and if they can’t deny it, they minimize it.
I don’t think anyone is actually advocating that. I certainly am not. Each accusation must be evaluated on its own merits.
However, we can observe, as a matter of statistical fact, that, say, when people go to the police to report a burglary, in most cases, they were victims of burglary. And we can, I contend, observe as a matter of statistical fact that when people go to the police to report that they were raped, in the majority of cases they were raped.
^^a good percentage of the accusers are connected to the police when they go for their rape kit. I’m not sure how many accusers wait a couple days (or don’t get a rape kit)…but waiting a long time to report is generally not a positive thing. The college stuff where weeks, months and years go by is ridiculous, if anything colleges need to put some limitations around that.
I don’t know if the admitting or denying guilt makes any difference. We told our kids to keep their mouth shut and call a lawyer if they ever felt like they were being approached by law enforcement so I doubt they would admit guilt right out but equally unsure if they would deny out right. They all play chess and usually think before they open their mouths. I only have one left in college but I told him in no uncertain terms if the college approached him about any misconduct issue to call a lawyer or call his dad or I so we can connect him with a lawyer before talking to anyone about anything. Just because someone “says” something or reports something doesn’t mean it’s true and as one of my kids said “maybe they are off their drugs.”
@Hunt, California’s [People v. Linwood](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1191027.html) deals at great length with the alleged vagueness of California statute 261 (a) (3), that says a person can be convicted of rape “Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.”
Linwood said the statute was impermissibly vague. The court smacked him down:
The court had a lot to say, including this:
And there’s more. In sum, the court comprehensively rejected the idea that the statute is too vague and doesn’t give enough guidance to jurors.
I understand what the court says. Unfortunately, much of it is baloney. In particular, I think the following is obviously nonsense in the context of the cases we are discussing: “Moreover, the average juror has the ability to cull from everyday experience a standard by which to assess the ability of a defendant to know the status of his or her victim.”
I don’t think the average juror has such an ability at all. What everyday experience?
What’s really going on here is that judge thinks she “knows it when she sees it,” and thinks a jury will be able to do so as well. I just don’t believe it.
Also, the case you cite is really not very much like the gray area cases we have been discussing here. In the case before the court, it was not too difficult to find against the defendant, considering his actions, including beating the woman, and his statements. As I’ve said before, I’m a legal realist, and sometimes it’s not a good idea to try to apply the general statements made in one case to a case with different facts.
The issue is not whether you think it’s baloney, but whether the court has ruled on the issue. They have. They say the statues are not too vague, even though in your opinion they are too vague. They explicitly say that someone can be convicted of rape by intoxication when the victim is conscious and able to speak, even though you think that should not be the standard.
We can have opinions of what the law ought to be in California. We might disagree. But the court tells us what the law presently IS in California. In California, people can be, and sometimes are, convicted of rape by intoxication when their victim was able to speak.
I’m not arguing about what the law is in California. I’m just noting that I know baloney when I see it.
By the way, would it be unfair for me to say that you’d be whistling a different tune if you didn’t agree with the court’s interpretation?
I brought up California law because Occidental is in California. Some people said that the Oxy decision in the John Doe/Jane Doe case was ridiculous, because legally, rape by intoxication only occurs when the intoxicated person is physically unable to indicate consent. I point out this is untrue: by California law, rape by intoxication may occur even when the intoxicated person is physically able to indicate consent.
I understand that you disagree with California law with respect to rape, Hunt. I disagree with the some other states’ laws with respect to rape. For example, in some other states, a husband who lives with his wife can’t be convicted of raping her, even if there is ample evidence that she didn’t consent (e.g. screaming, bruises, broken bones). I think that’s baloney.
This is materially different from this:
The language you cite does not say anything about a person’s active consent being invalidated by intoxication. And that is what the Occidental case was about.
Big difference between stating that the accused should have been able to detect that she was unable to resist, and saying that even though she actively pursued sex the accused should have known that she was too intoxicated to make that decision for herself. (Especially when the accuser became drunk without any participation by the accused, and when the accused was also drunk.)
The screaming paternalism of the idea that men can make decision when drunk but women can’t, wrapped up with the view that sex is something that men “do to” women, as opposed to women seeking it out in an equal way ought to make any woman with a feminist bone in her bone furious.
Yes.
@Consolation: A person’s “active consent” (whatever that means) can be invalidated by intoxication under CA law. There’s a fairly thorough discussion of the law surrounding Occidental case in the last few pages of [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1778126-a-new-study-on-campus-rape-and-the-one-in-five-number-p77.html%5Dthis”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1778126-a-new-study-on-campus-rape-and-the-one-in-five-number-p77.html]this thread/url.
@Consolation, did you read the Occidental report of investigation?