The MPD actually did a pretty good job in the past, imo. The head-scratching thing was when they had gathered good evidence and then the cases weren’t prosecuted. Hopefully things will dovetail better now.
It will be interesting to see if more reporting results in more convictions. I note, though, that the UK statistics suggest that the cases that are most likely to result in convictions are already the ones that are most likely to be reported–that is, rapes by strangers. Rapes by partners are the least reported. I think it is likely, then, that (say) a 50 percent increase in reporting will probably result in some increase in the number of convictions, but probably substantially less than a 50 percent increase. As noted above, it will probably also result in a decline in the rate of convictions. What those numbers actually are will color whether the changed procedures will be viewed as a failure or a success.
The programs are already working. The culture is changing. Victims are being treated differently.
The culture changes. The rest follows.
The DOJ is watching.
Well, it may be enough for victims to be treated differently. That’s a good thing in itself, even if it remains just as difficult to convict the offender.
@Hunt, Yes.
I am not delusional. Getting Convictions are very difficult. They are still going to be very difficult. We are going to have more convictions. The percentages will probably drop. That’s ok. I am not a perfectionist. Better is good.
People are going to fight change. They always do. @Hunt, I hope you watched the Amy Schumer skit on the rape culture. It’s excellent. It’s only 5 minutes. The bs excuses are in the skit.
In one or two more generations, our culture is going to be so much better for women and victims.
Change takes time.
Hunt, in previous threads you have assured us that rape victims should not go to their college; they should go to the police, and colleges should not adjudicate sexual assault cases. Now you’re telling us that the police and justice prosecute the right number of rape cases; police are right to discourage acquaintance rape victims from proceeding, and prosecutors are right not to pursue acquaintance rape cases. Or, at the very least, you’re saying that prosecutors won’t prosecute more rape cases.
In other words, you think that too many men are currently being be sanctioned for rape: colleges shouldn’t sanction anyone, and the justice system shouldn’t or won’t sanction any more. Momofthreeboys goes further: colleges shouldn’t sanction anyone, the Justice system is convicting the right number, and once someone is convicted of acquaintance rape or has pled guilty, like Beau Donaldson did, we should really think twice about whether they should go to prison.
All’s for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Problem solved by declaring there is no problem.
My position is that colleges should not adjudicate felony offenses. Please be careful when you paraphrase. I have written at length my opinion on scope of responsibility of colleges.
No, I didn’t. And please stop putting words in my mouth. But to respond more specifically:
Never said that and don’t think that.
Never said that and don’t think that.
Never said that and don’t think that.
Would you like it if I said you were an alarmist who ignored the facts and saw a crazed rapist behind every tree? That you were in favor of locking up innocent people in order to scare the huge army of guilty ones? That you think any woman who has sex after having a beer has been raped? I think you’d be offended if I twisted your arguments in that way. So stop doing it to my arguments.
@Hunt, so you do think that colleges should adjudicate rape cases, but with more protections for the accused?
That’s what I’ve said about ten thousand times. I don’t think college tribunals should be used to circumvent the protections of the criminal courts, which is what I think is happening now.
Let me add a more nuanced answer: because there are a lot of cases that are very difficult to prove in a criminal court beyond a reasonable doubt, the idea that women should simply go to the police and not the college is unsatisfactory. It’s unsatisfactory because the criminal system responds in a binary way: the case goes forward to a conviction, or the complainant gets no relief at all. A college system, with appropriate protections, can provide intermediate forms of relief, like mediation, counseling, a “stay-away” order, temporary suspensions, etc. But some people don’t like that, which is why we hear about this or that college’s failure to expel students for sexual assault. So I think the college tribunal system should be rethought–but not in order to turn it into a quasi-criminal court that is able to impose serious punishments without adequate procedural protections.
@Hunt, ok.
You don’t think colleges should expel students for sexual assault or rape?
dstark, you should also try not to put words in my mouth. I don’t think colleges should expel anyone for anything without robust procedural protections, including a standard of proof more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence. I think I’ve also said that about ten thousand times. But since I think that there are many cases of sexual misconduct that probably can’t meet a proof standard sufficient to allow expulsion, a college should be able to access other forms of relief that can be imposed with a less rigorous procedure.
To be completely explicit here, I think colleges can and should expel students for rape, sexual assault and other serious infractions. I don’t think they need all the protections of criminal courts either–just some of them.
@Hunt, Firrst of all, I didn’t put words in your mouth. I asked you a question.
You wrote this…
Tell me how what you want is different from what was happening in 2008?
What was happening where?
I believe that some colleges were doing a terrible job addressing sexual assault on campus, and others were probably doing a good job. But it’s my opinion that at the colleges that were doing a terrible job the central problem was not that the accused received too many procedural protections. It is more likely that those that were doing a bad job simply didn’t take the problem seriously enough, and put the procedures into the hands of untrained amateur people. You don’t solve that problem by just changing the standard of evidence.
@Hunt, There is more than changing the standard of evidence going on.
Victims are going to be treated differently. When they report a crime, one of the first questions out of an official’s mouth is not going to be, “Do you have a boyfriend?” Victims are going to be treated like victims until proven otherwise…like victims of other crimes.
Schools, the police, and prosecuters are going to support the victims more. There is going to be a better understanding about sexual assaults and how victims react.
The culture of how people behave and what is acceptable is changing.
From post 251, what do you mean with your last sentence? Any examples? Can you be more explicit?
@Hunt, if evidence is presented in a case, can you tell the difference between preponderance of evidence and clear
and convincing evidence? Can a jury?
Juries figure out nuances every day in every state on all kinds of cases. Judges generally also give very clear instructions to jurors.
Actually whether it’s the accuser or the accused it seems very relevant whether one or the other or both had a significant other. If I had an exclusive boyfriend and was accusing someone of rape, I’d want everyone to know I had someone I was exclusive with. If I was a male accused, I’d want everyone to know I had a girlfriend. Theoretically if you are a trust worthy person you wouldn’t be cheating. Now if you had cheated on your boyfriend at some point in time that might surface in an investigation you might not want someone to know you had a boyfriend and that you cheated. Seems like a really fair question to ask when the issue is sexual assault and can work for or against.
It’s as innocuous as the police asking “did you leave your keys in the car” if you report your car stolen. They are all quite obvious and straightforward questions.
If they can’t understand the difference, they can’t be trusted to be on a jury in the first place.
What I mean about some of the protections is that I don’t insist in “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Many colleges have used “clear and convincing” for all serious infractions. I don’t demand all the procedural protections–for example, I don’t necessarily think the accused should have the right for a lawyer to cross-examine witnesses. But I do think the accused should be able to present evidence and witnesses, and to provide questions that somebody will ask the “prosecution” witnesses. I think the people running the procedure should be well-trained.
@Hunt, Ok… And except for the clear and convincing standard, I think we are going to arrive where you want to go.
State power?
How does a state manifest power over a college?