College sex tribunal gets it right for a change

[laughing dog]

And there are indications she was not capable of consenting.

All of those indications occur some time after she consented and after they had sex. Evidence suggests she was coherent and ambulatory when they actually had sex.

Nah.

 

[Derec]

All of those indications occur some time after she consented and after they had sex. Evidence suggests she was coherent and ambulatory when they actually had sex.

Nah.

So how do you interpret her behavior immediately before and during the sex?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because our government is increasingly avoiding bothering with the pesky constitution that requires things like search warrants and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is merely one of many examples.

The feminists harp on a supposed college rape epidemic (reality: a woman is less likely to be raped in college than one of the same age not in college) so they throw suspects out of school with kangaroo "courts".

This isn't a constitutional issue.

Avoiding the requirement for adequate proof is.

 

[laughing dog]

Nah.

So how do you interpret her behavior immediately before and during the sex?

Before - leading on, but she may have been too drunk to know what was she was doing. Afterwards she was stumbling around and actually said she was too drunk to know what was going on.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And there are indications she was not capable of consenting.

All of those indications occur some time after she consented and after they had sex. Evidence suggests she was coherent and ambulatory when they actually had sex.

Overall, sure, but even you have to admit that the guy running away is weird. I mean her not remembering and him running away does not rise to calling him guilty, but it's enough to question wtf happened. And it's even possible he raped her but the system did what it is designed to do.

 

[J842P]

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Universities are held to the same standard that any other institution should be. Public Universities ought to be held to an even higher standard.

What "held to an even higher standard" mean in this situation?

I don't think it applies in this situation, but my point was that public universities should not be able to act like any private organization. For example, they shouldn't be able to expel you for listening to secular music or watching R-rated movies, à la Liberty University.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Accusations of rape, where charges are brought should be tried in the courts, not the Universities.

universities, which can set whatever standard they want and expel students for whatever reason they want, are not putting people on trial or convicting anyone of anything.

this is the same sort of moronic right-wing shit-for-brains freakout that makes people say unbelievably stupid things like "cancelling glenn beck's show is a violation of the 1st amendment" or whatever utter pig-fucking stupidity gets spouted when some jackass says something retarded and doesn't get to be on TV anymore because of it.

Their kangaroo courts waddle and quack.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Whether the accused student should face disciplinary charges at the university and whether the accused student should face criminal charges are different issues. There certainly are cases where a student might engage in perfectly legal conduct that violated a university's code of conduct. A student who engaged in such acts--let's say: cheating on a test--this is definitely something that is against a university's code of conduct but it is not illegal. There should be university disciplinary procedures filed and followed. However, such a student should not face criminal charges. It isn't against the law to cheat on a test, no matter how much it is against a university's code of conduct.

Sure. And he may have broken rules for poor conduct etc as well. But if the school makes allegations or "findings" that he raped her, or sexually assaulted her, and tarnishes his image in doing so, then he really should sue for slander. They are not a competent court to make such a determination and should not be making such statements.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are not omniscient, sure. But we can judge the decision based on what we, and they, knew. And there were many indications that she consented at the time.

And there are indications she was not capable of consenting. And if you bothered to read the article, the fact she could not remember what happened worked in favor of the young man - it was only his rendition that eventually mattered.

Have you not understood what's been said in this thread?

Plenty of witness testimony that showed it was consensual.

 

[J842P]

This isn't a constitutional issue.

Avoiding the requirement for adequate proof is.

What? Where in the Constitution does it say adequate proof is required for a University to expel you?

 

[JonA]

Avoiding the requirement for adequate proof is.

What? Where in the Constitution does it say adequate proof is required for a University to expel you?

A government that does not also secure the rights it grants its citizens is only slightly better than useless.

 

[J842P]

What? Where in the Constitution does it say adequate proof is required for a University to expel you?

A government that does not also secure the rights it grants its citizens is only slightly better than useless.

What right would the government not be securing here? You are making a category error.

 

[J842P]

universities, which can set whatever standard they want and expel students for whatever reason they want, are not putting people on trial or convicting anyone of anything.

this is the same sort of moronic right-wing shit-for-brains freakout that makes people say unbelievably stupid things like "cancelling glenn beck's show is a violation of the 1st amendment" or whatever utter pig-fucking stupidity gets spouted when some jackass says something retarded and doesn't get to be on TV anymore because of it.

Their kangaroo courts waddle and quack.

No, they do not. Their officials cannot send men to arrest you and force you to come to trial. They cannot deprive you of your freedom based on their decisions. They hold no power outside their institution. It is not a legal proceeding, and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

 

[laughing dog]

And there are indications she was not capable of consenting. And if you bothered to read the article, the fact she could not remember what happened worked in favor of the young man - it was only his rendition that eventually mattered.

Have you not understood what's been said in this thread?

Plenty of witness testimony that showed it was consensual.

At the crucial time, there was only one witness - the young man. So, no there was not plenty of witness testimony showing it WAS consensual.

 

[Toni]

Whether the accused student should face disciplinary charges at the university and whether the accused student should face criminal charges are different issues. There certainly are cases where a student might engage in perfectly legal conduct that violated a university's code of conduct. A student who engaged in such acts--let's say: cheating on a test--this is definitely something that is against a university's code of conduct but it is not illegal. There should be university disciplinary procedures filed and followed. However, such a student should not face criminal charges. It isn't against the law to cheat on a test, no matter how much it is against a university's code of conduct.

Sure. And he may have broken rules for poor conduct etc as well. But if the school makes allegations or "findings" that he raped her, or sexually assaulted her, and tarnishes his image in doing so, then he really should sue for slander. They are not a competent court to make such a determination and should not be making such statements.

Even if he raped her?

It is clear to me that she was far past being able to give consent to...anything at all. That means that it was rape.

Rape cases are not easy to prosecute, particularly when there is drugs or alcohol involved that impairs the memory of the victim. And people are extremely quick to blame the victim for...existing, actually. I've mentioned before but many years ago, when a classmate was visiting her 80+ year old grandmother, someone broke into the house and raped the grandmother. The cops blamed my friend who they were sure was the intended victim. Let that sink in. Oh, and least you imagine that my friend was some kind of prick tease: she was extremely introverted and her family was even more poor than most of us. Her clothes were mostly castoffs from...her grandmother. Or the bottom of the Goodwill barrel. Long before this was considered 'vintage' or 'quirky.' They were ill fitting, unfashionable in their heyday and not necessarily well cared for. There were also a number of issues going on with the girl's grooming and she had a chronic sinus infection. But it was still her fault that some sicko broke into her grandmother's house and raped her grandmother---instead of her because she would have totally deserved it.

Suppose a person has been accused by multiple other students of drug or alcohol enabled rape. Police decline to arrest; DA declines to bring charges--until this one case. The accused is acquitted because the jury thinks alcohol or drugs cannot sufficiently impair someone to prevent them from consenting to sex. Or he was the star athlete of name the sport. Or the son of the coach. Not because it was demonstrated that no assault took place or they had the wrong guy. The jury just doesn't think it's rape.

This is his second or third or fifth time of such incidents at that school. Should he remain at the school?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We are not omniscient, sure. But we can judge the decision based on what we, and they, knew. And there were many indications that she consented at the time.

And there are indications she was not capable of consenting. And if you bothered to read the article, the fact she could not remember what happened worked in favor of the young man - it was only his rendition that eventually mattered.

But blacking out isn't incapacitated. She didn't remember being helped by a person or police either.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And there are indications she was not capable of consenting. And if you bothered to read the article, the fact she could not remember what happened worked in favor of the young man - it was only his rendition that eventually mattered.

Have you not understood what's been said in this thread?

Plenty of witness testimony that showed it was consensual.

plenty?

 

[JonA]

A government that does not also secure the rights it grants its citizens is only slightly better than useless.

What right would the government not be securing here? You are making a category error.

Basic human rights of dignity, access to education, and the freedom to live one's life to the fullest possible within one's means.

 

[JonA]

Have you not understood what's been said in this thread?

Plenty of witness testimony that showed it was consensual.

plenty?

Enough for sure to have no grounds, even within the loose standards for university rape cases, to uphold the accusations against the young man.

 

[JonA]

All of those indications occur some time after she consented and after they had sex. Evidence suggests she was coherent and ambulatory when they actually had sex.

Overall, sure, but even you have to admit that the guy running away is weird. I mean her not remembering and him running away does not rise to calling him guilty, but it's enough to question wtf happened.

Sure. It is weird until we consider that he is also a human being capable of deep emotions and that he, like her, probably regretted having drunken sex with a stranger. The difference is he hadn't been convinced by our sexually suppressed, slut-shaming society into thinking his morning regrets raised the incident from an oops to a rape.

And it's even possible he raped her but the system did what it is designed to do.

Not the university system, for sure, but yes, definitely what the system - all systems - should do.