The LAPD/LASD report does not break the convictions down by category, frustratingly. However, the majority of the reported rapes were non-stranger rapes.
Reading between the lines of the report, though, if they did break the convictions down, the comparison would be misleading in one way. In a stranger rape, a big problem for law enforcement is identifying and locating the accused rapist. Law enforcement can be convinced that a rape occurred, and have the DNA of the rapist, but if they don’t know whose DNA it is, they can’t arrest, much less convict, and that brings down the percentage of convictions in those cases. In an acquaintance rape, identifying the suspect is not an issue. If law enforcement doesn’t arrest a suspect, or doesn’t charge a suspect, it’s not because they don’t know who the suspect is.
The Guardian article’s expert misleadingly compares the conviction rate of reported burglaries with the conviction rate of reported rapes. But the low conviction rate for burglaries has got to be because law enforcement doesn’t have a suspect-- someone reports a burglary, but they can’t identify the burglar. That’s different than acquaintance rape, where the accuser names the suspect.
This case is odd. Jane Roe accused John Doe of three offenses: basically having sex with her when she was too drunk to consent, trying to “fool around” (my words, you can read the complaint for the exact act) the next morning when she told him not to, and retaliating afterwards.
The panel found him responsible for the second offense, not the first or the last, which really surprises me. I think it’s pretty clear that I’m not a fan of murky too-intoxicated claims, but in this case, the accuser’s explanation sounds credible to me.
The adjudicator took a surprisingly lenient approach on drunk consent:
John Doe was not found responsible of retaliation either.
But . . .he was found responsible for the second offense which is, to me, a classic he said/she said situation. She said it happened, he denied it. The panel believed her and disbelieved him. There were neither evidence nor witnesses, and it is unclear to me why Jane was credible on this count but not on the others.
John Doe was sanctioned with a one quarter suspension. Then after he appealed, the sanction was INCREASED to one year, and then after a second appeal to the provosts, his sanction was again INCREASED to one year plus one quarter! How can that be fair? Appeals that result in an even more severe sanctions? No new evidence was submitted and the charge didn’t change.
It seems fair to me. He asked them to reconsider the case, and the evidence. They did.
I’m reading through the case, and the lawyer is making me mad. First, they say that a suspension is a de facto expulsion. No it isn’t; that’s nonsense. It’s a suspension.
Then, they say
What claptrap. Of course someone who engages in unwanted sexual touching is engaged in sexual misconduct. (Not to say that John Doe did engage in unwanted touching, but if he did it would be sexual misconduct.)
Then this:
(My bold.) “As if”? He asked them to reconsider the evidence, in case they got it wrong. They reconsidered the evidence and decided, Yes, they did get it wrong.
As I read the Appeal for the second act, the one John Doe was sanctioned for, he didn’t deny touching her private parts while she was explicitly telling him not to. As I read it, he doesn’t deny fingering her while she was telling him to stop; he just says that fingering her while she was repeatedly telling him to stop does not constitute sexual misconduct. That’s weak sauce. I wouldn’t buy it, and I’m not surprised the adjudicator didn’t buy it.
I don’t know who’s telling the truth, and as I said I would have found him responsible for non-consensual sex. I’m just surprised that sanctions can be increased under appeal. Is this common procedure?
It doesn’t seem like there is a disagreement about what happened. As I read the appeal, he doesn’t dispute her claim that he fingered her against her clearly expressed consent: he just says that’s not sexual misconduct. Good luck with that.
As to the college being able to increase sanctions after an appeal, I’ve heard of it before.
Yes, it is common procedure. In fact, I’d be quite surprised if this wasn’t the case at almost all (private) colleges. Moreover, even if the accused is found innocent at a hearing, the accuser can appeal and they can be found guilty at the appeal.
Frankly, though I haven’t read the details of the UCSD case myself, unless I’m missing something it seems to me like the guy was an absolute idiot for appealing a one quarter suspension. Of course, I think the people who think the accused would be better off being subject to a criminal trial for rape instead of a criminal trial are also completely misguided and definitely don’t understand the risks involved.
Here’s what I think confuses most people. Because rape is a criminal offense, many people think the college hearings are akin to a criminal trial. That’s completely wrong. By rule and tradition, they are most similar to a civil procedure, such as in a civil court or a binding arbitration. That’s why there’s no protection against “double jeopardy” or penalties being increased at appeal. Even the vocabulary that’s usually used in this thread messes this up. We talk about “accusers” and “accused” and "verdicts of " “innocent” or “guilty”. We should really be talking about “complainants” and “respondents” and "findings of " “not-responsible” or “responsible”, but this terminology is usually cumbersome and confusing .
In principle, the college is not even a party to the proceedings. It’s one student against another with the college as the adjudicator and either investigating or appointing the investigator. However, potential conflicts of interest can exist because the victims support and counseling people quite often reside in the same office as the people who appoint the investigator and the review panels (though many would say the biggest conflict of interest is that many colleges might want to sweep all this under the rug). And for obvious reasons they almost never consult the most experienced practicing lawyers in the college - the college’s own lawyers in the general counsel’s office - other than perhaps when they are revising the rule book every few years. (Some of what I wrote may be different for public colleges.)
@momrath: Yes, sanctions may increase on appeal if someone appeals the sanction. UCSD demands the sanction be “grossly disproportionate” to justify modification. I can see that for the increase to a year but not really as to the year and a quarter. I haven’t read the complaint so I don’t know if he is appealing on those grounds.
In the country where I live, which has a notoriously corrupt legal system, it’s quite common for sentences to be increased on appeal. The objective is to deter the person convicted from challenging the authority of the judge. Consequently, it’s well known here that appeals are risky business, but I didn’t think this was common practice in America.
The UCSD policy on appeals:
Point b. seems a little ambiguous grammatically. I guess Point d. means they can do whatever they like. I think they need a disclaimer about the risk of ending up in a worse position than before the appeal.
In his first letter of appeal John Doe continues to deny that he committed the act that he was found responsible for.
The point the John Doe was trying to make in the second appeal was that the decision in his first appeal was unfair because the Dean was biased toward alleged victims. Convincing or not, I don’t see how making the argument earned John another quarter of suspension.
Personally, I agree that he should have accepted the one quarter suspension, but I’m a little unsettled about the possibility of appeals handing out even harsher sentences, especially if the complainant can also appeal.
According to the article John Doe was meant to be back in court on May 1 to seek an extended stay of his suspension, I haven’t seen the result.
I only read the first 100 pages of the complaint. Reading this…I have come to the conclusion that there should be two mandatory seminars for college students when they start college. One seminar would be about understanding himself or herself. The other would be a sex education class including understanding the opposite sex. These young people do not know what they are doing,
The young woman in this case is religious. She is a virgin. She has strong sexual feelings for John. She is in conflict. She likes John. She is willing to have sexual intercourse with John if…she feels he is worthy. So she tells the guy she doesn’t want to have sexual intercourse with him and she might if she is drunk. The woman is leaving it up to the guy to protect her. If the guy proves himself worthy by not having sexual intercourse with her while she is drunk, he will pass a test and prove he really likes her. She will have sexual intercourse with him. She should not do that. She needs to learn and understand herself and protect herself.
John wants to get laid. John likes her. John likes her because this young woman is willing to play with his private parts. These two are not on the same page. The result are the results.
I have no idea why John won on the first complaint of sexual intercourse. I know there were witnesses with conflicting views of the woman’s level of incapacitation. When there are conflicting views, judges can choose which views are more credible. I think John got lucky here.
From the guy’s point of view, John sleeps with a woman at night. He wants more action in the morning. John thinks this is ok. He sticks his fingers into the woman’s vagina. The woman objects. Now things get tricky. Does John stop right away? Does John continue to finger this woman? Should John have asked for consent?
Reading only the first 100 pages, John should have accepted the one quarter suspension. If the rest of the 400 pages prove otherwise, sorry. I agree with @al2simon. Those that advocate for criminal trials in cases like this are playing with fire. Does John really want a criminal trail and a criminal record?
Skimming that document makes it so clear why that Canada program works. At least one of the sessions is a workshop for the young women on figuring out their sexual and relationship goals and how to go about achieving them. Even if John Doe is telling the truth, he comes off as a jerk-- only jerks have he gets oral sex/she gets nothing relationships. And she was a young fool to be involved with him. It may be easier to teach her not to be a fool than to teach him not to be a jerk.
And this is what so many choose to ignore when they jump on the bandwagon of the “silliness” of college tribunals. The political climate is such that something had to change. Women were up in arms and were not backing down when it came to the criminal justice system’s handling of rape cases. But bearing down on that system with reform would have meant the increased likelihood that UMC college males were going to find themselves with felony convictions and even jail time. I think there were a lot of men (and women) that just were not going to let that become a possibility. So the college tribunal system made sense, especially in view of the fact that everyone agrees that the college’s are contributing to the problem by not enforcing drinking laws. They can help clean up the mess then.
I see the college tribunal systems as an exercise in risk management. While it partially addresses a pressing concern for women it primarily benefits men – especially in the more egregious cases. I will take suspension/expulsion over jail time any day.
The system needs a lot of “tweaking” to prevent outcomes like the Amherst case.
Maybe Roe’s suspension was increased because his appeals revealed that he, or at least his lawyer, thinks that nothing short of penetration counts as sexual violence, sexual misconduct or sexual assault.
HarverstMoon1, why don’t you like the outcome in the Amherst case? The guy was so intoxicated he had no defense.
So it came down to whether the woman’s story is more likely or not.
I like your post. People are complaining about the college tribunal system like it is never going to be improved. The college tribunal system will be improved.
CF, yes. I agree. In the mean time, if guys are poking women, they have to take personal responsibility for this. The sex act may be done after the poking but the ramifications of the sex act may not be over. Guys have to understand this and understand there are consequences because of their actions.
@al2simon: The college is investigating. How does that not make it a party to the action (I guess technically an agent of a party, but still)?
Also, I don’t think anyone is claiming that the accused would necessarily be better off in terms of outcome but rather in terms of process. I have no qualms about the outcome. If someone sexually assaults someone else, then that person should at the very least be on probation. If they don’t like it, they should remember that the next time they decide to sexually assault someone. In terms of process, however, the accused has a right to a fair hearing, and college tribunals are anything but.
Yes. The guy was pouring vodka with a liberal hand for this Mormon freshman who had told him she wanted to remain a virgin. If he ends up having sex with her after he has made her too drunk to consent, he is raping her. If he ends up having sex with her when she is very drunk, but not too drunk to consent, he is not raping her, but he is a jerk. He’s going to be drunk too, and he might not be able to discern the line between drunk and too drunk. No good is going to come of this. He’s playing with fire.
I think it’s pretty difficult to answer an accusation if you don’t have access to all the investigative materials. That in itself disturbs me deeply.
I think it’s smart of the UCSD attorney to include all the background surrounding the climate of Title IX and colleges and universities in the exhibits. It would be presumptuous to assume that a judge would be up to speed on the climate and pressures within campus administrations that directly impact students civil rights and contractual rights with universities and colleges.
@dstark I think that there were text messages that should have been introduced at the Amherst hearing that for whatever reason were not. Texts between Jones and the Residential Advisor alluding to how much they both “hated” John Doe are relevant and would have bearing on how I would weigh their testimony.
Also the DCL pretty much makes it clear that privileges or prohibitions have to be applied equally to the accused and the complainant. They delved into his sexual history but shut it down pretty quickly when it came to hers. Jones’s answer to a subtle question relating to her activities after John Doe left her room was comical. There was no follow up whatsoever.
And John Doe’s “advisor” had to be incompetent. Johns defense was basically “I cannot confirm nor deny complainant’s allegations.” He might as well have skipped the hearing, packed up his dorm room and headed home.
@Harvestmoon1, Didn’t John in the Amherst case bring up his own sexual history? I was blacked out and I would never commit sexual assault.
Well, I would respond the way Amherst responded. I am paraphrasing.
Have you ever blacked out before? How many times? Have you ever committed sexual assault while intoxicated? I would respond something along those lines.
