Depart of Education reviewing Obama-era sexual assault charge guidelines

[Jolly_Penguin]

Department of Education in the US is reviewing the Obama-era guidelines on sexual assault charges on campus.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced Thursday that the department will review Obama-era guidance on campus sexual assault, citing concerns that the current policy denies due process to individuals accused.

"One rape is one too many, one assault is one too many, one aggressive act of harassment is one too many, one person denied due process is one too many," DeVos said speaking at George Mason University's Arlington, Virginia, campus.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/betsy-devos-education-department-title-ix/index.html

I am surprised Derec missed this.

I agree with DeVos on her quote above. Prosecution should not be arbitrary and decisions should not be based on near zero evidence. There should still be a presumption of innocence.

 

[laughing dog]

Department of Education in the US is reviewing the Obama-era guidelines on sexual assault charges on campus.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced Thursday that the department will review Obama-era guidance on campus sexual assault, citing concerns that the current policy denies due process to individuals accused.

"One rape is one too many, one assault is one too many, one aggressive act of harassment is one too many, one person denied due process is one too many," DeVos said speaking at George Mason University's Arlington, Virginia, campus.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/betsy-devos-education-department-title-ix/index.html

I am surprised Derec missed this.

I agree with DeVos on her quote above. Prosecution should not be arbitrary and decisions should not be based on near zero evidence. There should still be a presumption of innocence.

"Near zero evidence"? Is that a state of the art term used by the Obama administration or is that some straw man interpretation?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

"Every survivor of sexual misconduct must be taken seriously. Every student accused of sexual misconduct must know that guilt is not predetermined," she continued. "These are non-negotiable principles."

Can anybody really say that they disagree? Or that her wanting to get input from everyone rather than making a decree from on high like Obama did in creating the law on this?

It is fascinating watching the reaction from "feminist" groups hating on her for what she has said on this so far, which is very little other than she wants things to be fair and just. Somehow the above quote is interpreted as her wanting to sweep sexual assault under the rug.

 

[repoman]

A couple random ideas.

First women of traditional college age are more likely to be assaulting off of campus by people who are dumber, have less discipline and have less to lose than college students.

I actually sympathize with the urge to treat skeezy rapey guys with less rights than other sudpected criminals. The downsides are dangerous though.

If they did this for financial fraud suspects in 2008 that would have been glorious. Would have been at least 10,000 people "expelled" from their jobs.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I actually sympathize with the urge to treat skeezy rapey guys with less rights than other sudpected criminals. The downsides are dangerous though.

All guys are skeezy rapey guys if so accused and not allowed to defend themselves. Even when they are allowed to defend themselves, it is a charge that is very hard to answer, even when it is not remotely true of you. Yeah, huge downside.

 

[RavenSky]

Department of Education in the US is reviewing the Obama-era guidelines on sexual assault charges on campus. http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/betsy-devos-education-department-title-ix/index.html

I am surprised Derec missed this.

I am too, though I suspect he is making hurricane preparations now

I agree with DeVos on her quote above. Prosecution should not be arbitrary and decisions should not be based on near zero evidence. There should still be a presumption of innocence.

Why would you agree with her strawman?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It isn't a straw man. What Obama put in place really does result in kangaroo courts that make decisions with near zero evidence. It results in both crazy unfair treatment of accused as well as crazy unfair treatment of accusers. These people are not suited for making decisions on whether or not somebody was raped and who raped them,etc. The police and criminal courts should be doing this, and the funding being given out could go to legal help for both the accused and accuser. The schools could then decide their actions based on the court decision of whether or not a rape actually took place.

Here is a better article that makes the case very well.

But there is another side to the system’s evils, one that has been drowned out by social-justice blathering and a select few Girls Who Cried Rape. Because the guidelines are vague and uninstructive in crucial aspects — such as the rights of sexual-assault victims and the accused, as well as the standards for keeping public statistics of conviction rates — schools vary wildly in how they treat these cases, ranging from extreme bias against men accused of sexual assault to cruel prejudice against sexual-assault victims. For every school that reaches a guilty verdict without so much as text messages submitted as evidence, there is another willing to exonerate a wealthy student at any cost.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449759/betsy-devos-campus-sexual-assault-end-kangaroo-courts

 

[laughing dog]

It isn't a straw man. What Obama put in place really does result in kangaroo courts that make decisions with near zero evidence. It results in both crazy unfair treatment of accused as well as crazy unfair treatment of accusers. These people are not suited for making decisions on whether or not somebody was raped and who raped them,etc. The police and criminal courts should be doing this, and the funding being given out could go to legal help for both the accused and accuser. The schools could then decide their actions based on the court decision of whether or not a rape actually took place.

Here is a better article that makes the case very well.

But there is another side to the system’s evils, one that has been drowned out by social-justice blathering and a select few Girls Who Cried Rape. Because the guidelines are vague and uninstructive in crucial aspects — such as the rights of sexual-assault victims and the accused, as well as the standards for keeping public statistics of conviction rates — schools vary wildly in how they treat these cases, ranging from extreme bias against men accused of sexual assault to cruel prejudice against sexual-assault victims. For every school that reaches a guilty verdict without so much as text messages submitted as evidence, there is another willing to exonerate a wealthy student at any cost.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449759/betsy-devos-campus-sexual-assault-end-kangaroo-courts

First, if you had even bothered to read your own link, it says that 80% of the schools had already adopted the preponderance of evidence standard (which I assume, is your "near zero evidence" reference) before the letter from the DOJ came out.

Second, if you bothered to read your link, there are statistics or actual evidence other than a couple of anecdotes.

Third, if your post continues to confuse public criminal proceedings with private civil matters.

Fourth, for some bizarre reason, the cited article (and presumably you) feel that there should be uniformity in how institutions treat such civil allegations when there is no evidence that such uniformity exists in the criminal justice system (the system that you feel should be emulated).

In short, you have presented zero evidence that institutions use "near zero evidence" to come to any conclusions, let alone wrong ones.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In short, you have presented zero evidence that institutions use "near zero evidence" to come to any conclusions, let alone wrong ones.

Preponderance is in effect near zero. The problem is that it's pretty hard to provide evidence it wasn't rape. Thus it comes down to allegation vs nothing, convicted under preponderance. Thus allegation generally equals conviction. That's not the American way.

 

[RavenSky]

In short, you have presented zero evidence that institutions use "near zero evidence" to come to any conclusions, let alone wrong ones.

Preponderance is in effect near zero. The problem is that it's pretty hard to provide evidence it wasn't rape. Thus it comes down to allegation vs nothing, convicted under preponderance. Thus allegation generally equals conviction. That's not the American way.

horseshit

n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.

and since this is a civil matter - whether a school rule has been violated - preponderance of evidence is the correct standard

 

[zorq]

In short, you have presented zero evidence that institutions use "near zero evidence" to come to any conclusions, let alone wrong ones.

Preponderance is in effect near zero. The problem is that it's pretty hard to provide evidence it wasn't rape. Thus it comes down to allegation vs nothing, convicted under preponderance. Thus allegation generally equals conviction. That's not the American way.

You are clearly confusing the standard of evidence you use to evaluate the innocence of your favored authority figures with the the way most humans weigh evidence.

The very definition of "preponderance of evidence" is that more evidence favors one conclusion over the other. Bald assertions may be all the "evidence" you need to form conclusions but that's not how most educated people think. Including the people involved in these university investigations.

Was "Mattress Girl" Emma Sulkowicz's accusation enough evidence to get her alleged assaulter kicked out of University? No, it wasn't. You are clearly wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

In short, you have presented zero evidence that institutions use "near zero evidence" to come to any conclusions, let alone wrong ones.

Preponderance is in effect near zero.

Nonsense.

The problem is that it's pretty hard to provide evidence it wasn't rape. Thus it comes down to allegation vs nothing, convicted under preponderance. Thus allegation generally equals conviction.

You confuse kneejerk rape apologia propaganda with reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Preponderance is in effect near zero. The problem is that it's pretty hard to provide evidence it wasn't rape. Thus it comes down to allegation vs nothing, convicted under preponderance. Thus allegation generally equals conviction. That's not the American way.

horseshit

n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.

and since this is a civil matter - whether a school rule has been violated - preponderance of evidence is the correct standard

Calling it horseshit doesn't make it go away. The actual effect is to make the guy prove he didn't rape her--something that's generally all but impossible. Otherwise you have her allegation vs nothing, preponderance to her.

- - - Updated - - -

Preponderance is in effect near zero.

Nonsense.

The problem is that it's pretty hard to provide evidence it wasn't rape. Thus it comes down to allegation vs nothing, convicted under preponderance. Thus allegation generally equals conviction.

You confuse kneejerk rape apologia propaganda with reality.

Everyone is attacking this but nobody attempting to refute it. Looks like I hit the bullseye.

 

[laughing dog]

Everyone is attacking this but nobody attempting to refute it.

zorq showed you are wrong in post 11 Ravensky showed you are wrong in the post you quoted. There is no reasonable interpretation of "preponderance of evidence" to mean "no zero evidence".

Hence, your responses are bullshit/nonsense and resemble rape apologia.

 

[RavenSky]

horseshit

n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.

and since this is a civil matter - whether a school rule has been violated - preponderance of evidence is the correct standard

Calling it horseshit doesn't make it go away. The actual effect is to make the guy prove he didn't rape her--something that's generally all but impossible. Otherwise you have her allegation vs nothing, preponderance to her.

- - - Updated - - -

Preponderance is in effect near zero.

Nonsense.

The problem is that it's pretty hard to provide evidence it wasn't rape. Thus it comes down to allegation vs nothing, convicted under preponderance. Thus allegation generally equals conviction.

You confuse kneejerk rape apologia propaganda with reality.

Everyone is attacking this but nobody attempting to refute it. Looks like I hit the bullseye.

In other words, when I GAVE you the legal definition of "preponderance of evidence" you just went and pretended no one refuted your unfactual opinion.

Basically, your position is that every civil case ever tried is judged on "near zero" evidence.

You not only did not "hit the bullseye" - you didn't even hit the target.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

horseshit

n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.

and since this is a civil matter - whether a school rule has been violated - preponderance of evidence is the correct standard

Calling it horseshit doesn't make it go away. The actual effect is to make the guy prove he didn't rape her--something that's generally all but impossible. Otherwise you have her allegation vs nothing, preponderance to her.

- - - Updated - - -

Preponderance is in effect near zero.

Nonsense.

The problem is that it's pretty hard to provide evidence it wasn't rape. Thus it comes down to allegation vs nothing, convicted under preponderance. Thus allegation generally equals conviction.

You confuse kneejerk rape apologia propaganda with reality.

Everyone is attacking this but nobody attempting to refute it. Looks like I hit the bullseye.

In other words, when I GAVE you the legal definition of "preponderance of evidence" you just went and pretended no one refuted your unfactual opinion.

Basically, your position is that every civil case ever tried is judged on "near zero" evidence.

You not only did not "hit the bullseye" - you didn't even hit the target.

You're still sticking your head in the sand.

Evidence for the rape: Her testimony.

Evidence against: His denial.

Unless the false reporting rate is >50% this means the preponderance of the evidence means he's going to be found guilty.

His only defense is to prove the rape didn't happen--something that is generally impossible and the universities make it as hard as possible for him to do so anyway.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They also both lack the expertise and lack the procedures and rules a court has. The accused is often given less ability to defend himself (one guy even got declared a rapist without being allowed to testify at all), and in other cases they go out of their way to defend rich rapists.

Accusations and "findings" of rape by any tribunal is a big deal, can ruin somebody, and should not be handled lightly or by kangaroo courts that lack expertise and accountability. Same for declarations that a woman's complaint will be ignored.

Funding to support both accused and accuser to go through a proper civil court is a much better option, and that extends to and includes everyone, and not just students.

 

[fromderinside]

Going through civil court may ideally be the best solution. However the equality with regards to sex is still almost biblical in construct. He has the right to demand she submit and she has the duty to be complicit with 'go forth and multiply. even when she no longer is in the position to necessarily be doing that. She is still supposed to be the source and responsible one for babies. By law!!

It extends to physicality as well. If you have a relatively weak son and he puts up his hands to defend himself he can't be murdered at the physical hand of another.

When laws are so biased one needs more modern, administrative, means at institutions teaching modernism and extant culture to adjudicate, in effect bypassing badly constructed law which is civilizations out of date, to arrive at a fair decision among those moderns.

You'd only believe current law is just law if you were a Luddite.

 

[RavenSky]

Evidence for the rape: Her testimony.

Evidence against: His denial.

Unless the false reporting rate is >50% this means the preponderance of the evidence means he's going to be found guilty.

His only defense is to prove the rape didn't happen--something that is generally impossible and the universities make it as hard as possible for him to do so anyway.

Wrong. No matter how many times you say it, and no matter how many personal insult you say it with, you are still not demonstrating that you understand the concept of "preponderance of evidence" or how the concept applies to a University's conduct code.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I am too, though I suspect he is making hurricane preparations now

I agree with DeVos on her quote above. Prosecution should not be arbitrary and decisions should not be based on near zero evidence. There should still be a presumption of innocence.

Why would you agree with her strawman?

It's difficult to tell without a specific case at hand as an example.

I male student may be found innocent in a proper trial I don't know how strict all the colleges are. For instance if sex in Dormitories was forbidden and it took place regardless of consent that would breach college rules.

If new rules fail to protect women and or raise the possibility of genuinely innocent males then there is a problem.

Worse if women who have been raped are put off from raising a case, then there is also a problem.

I think your concerns are real. Through history women have been disadvantaged in the legal system. Cultural nonsense such as a woman is a husband's property or initial consent does not allow a withdrawal of the same have only recently been dispensed with in modern societies. Changes or reforms in such areas whether in educational establishments or in the courts will raise concerns.