Depart of Education reviewing Obama-era sexual assault charge guidelines

[laughing dog]

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.

No, it does not logically or operationally mean that. A even split does not meet the preponderance of evidence standard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Preponderance = 50% + 1.

 

[laughing dog]

Preponderance = 50% + 1.

Which is not "near zero" by any normal standard.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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teaching modernism and extant culture to adjudicate, in effect bypassing badly constructed law which is civilizations out of date, to arrive at a fair decision among those moderns.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.

I honestly don't know if I agree or disagree with what you are trying to say here. I don't understand what your meaning to say.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

At least you are somewhat focusing on the key difference between criminal rape trials and university code of ethics hearings.

The first does require the higher standards for conviction.

The latter is more like a civil proceeding, which uses "preponderance of evidence".

I don't understand why that is so difficult for Loren to understand.

 

[RavenSky]

Preponderance = 50% + 1.

Which is not "near zero" by any normal standard.

Not only is "50% + 1" not "near zero" by any standard, Loren is even misrepresenting what the "50% + 1" means. He claims:

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.

He is completely wrong. What "preponderance of evidence" means is that her testimony/evidence alone must must make it more than 50% likely that the sexual assault (or other code of ethics violation) happened. Yes, he can rebut, and his rebuttal may weaken her case; but if her testimony/evidence alone doesn't meet the "preponderance of evidence" standard he doesn't have to present any defense at all.

And Loren's last claim is beyond ridiculous. Percentages of so-called "false reporting rate" as nothing whatsoever to do with it (except that he just HAD to interject his "all women lie about rape" implication into the conversation)

 

[Derec]

Preponderance = 50% + 1.

Which is not "near zero" by any normal standard.

You look at it too linearly (you think 50% is a lot, when in reality, evidence wise, it is almost nothing). A preponderance of evidence standard leads to an unacceptably high false positive rate, especially when colleges use mere accusation plus evidence of drinking (even if not to excess) as meeting that standard while preventing accused male students from introducing exculpatory evidence such as text messages between the accuser and themselves.
Colleges use "clear and convincing" standard for everything else other than sexual cases (because they are barred by the federal government). I have seen no good argument against using that standard for sexual cases as well.

 

[Derec]

He is completely wrong. What "preponderance of evidence" means is that her testimony/evidence alone must must make it more than 50% likely that the sexual assault (or other code of ethics violation) happened.

Even if applied fairly (as colleges tend not to do, for example by preventing accused students from introducing exculpatory evidence or giving too much weight to the accusation itself) this standard is too low.
When you have a knife-edge standard like that, there is no middle ground where you say that we cannot say which way the evidence points because the evidence is too close. Either it is more likely than not that sexual assault took place, or that the girl lied (and should, if the process wasn't biased against male students, be expelled for making false accusation). In reality, in most cases there just isn't ' enough evidence to reliably conclude either one of the alternatives.

Think about it scientifically. The Null hypothesis is that no sexual assault took place. The alternative hypothesis is that sexual assault took place. Is it really reasonable to reject the Null hypothesis based on p<0.5?

Yes, he can rebut, and his rebuttal may weaken her case; but if her testimony/evidence alone doesn't meet the "preponderance of evidence" standard he doesn't have to present any defense at all.

Unfortunately colleges are putting very much weight on her say-so. Even if contradicted by actual evidence such as communication between the two ("I had a great time. Let's do it again" or something to that effect is not exactly what one would write after a sexual assault) after the alleged rape. Composing text messages can also reliably prove that a person was not to drunk to consent at the time. For example in the UGA case the male student was expelled because the college concluded that she was too drunk to consent based solely on people having seen her drink earlier that night. They completely ignored evidence that she walked home after the sex (i.e. she had enough gross motor control to walk unaided) and she wrote text messages (proving she was both coherent and had dexterity and fine motor control to use the phone keyboard). But they made up their mind to expel him and damn evidence and reason! Some of her friends seeing her drink must mean she was too drunk to consent. Somehow. Even though such a standard applied evenly and equitably would make 95% percent of UGA student body both rape victim and rapist, regardless of gender.
And when they conclude that actually consensual sex was non-consensual merely because the girl was drinking, they never say that she also raped the guy if the guy was also drinking. If two drunk people have sex, why is it invariably the guy who gets punished?

And Loren's last claim is beyond ridiculous. Percentages of so-called "false reporting rate" as nothing whatsoever to do with it (except that he just HAD to interject his "all women lie about rape" implication into the conversation)

If you apply the Bayes' theorem the false reporting rate would be one term in the equation.

By the way, there have been numerous cases where the woman lied and people fell over themselves to believe her. UVA student catfished herself and completely made up a story (the guy who supposedly raped her was imaginary and a composite of guys she knew in high school) but the university still suspended the innocent frat for months.
Duke University threw three of their students, the Lacrosse team and its coach under the bus immediately, without investigating anything, based on a false allegation by a woman who wasn't even a student at Duke (she studied, or at least was enrolled, at UNCC).
At Amherst, two drunken students had consensual sex. The guy was expelled, the girl was not even though they did exactly the same thing.
At Vassar there was another expulsion based on a false accusation made a year after the supposed sex. Vassar refused to consider exculpatory evidence and expelled solely based on the girl's accusation.
And UNC a male student was expelled even though the case was so rotten that police actually charged her with making a false report. It still took UNC years to reverse themselves and readmit him.

Those are only some of the stories of universities jumping the gun to believe a lying female, just because it is politically correct to believe that a woman would not lie about rape.

P.S.: Weren't you the one who, in another thread, insisted that the girl might be telling the truth, even though all evidence (such as security camera footage both at the bar and her dorm) showed that she was lying about how drunk she was?

 

[RavenSky]

P.S.: Weren't you the one who, in another thread, insisted that the girl might be telling the truth, even though all evidence (such as security camera footage both at the bar and her dorm) showed that she was lying about how drunk she was?

What I actually said was that none of you could claim with any credibility that she was lying (as you just did again above), nor could you claim with any credibility that she was not raped based upon events from prior to them being in her room.

What I ALSO said, if you were being honest in your portrayal of my position on that case, is that the male student should not suffer consequences because there was not a preponderance of evidence that he did rape her.

I never claimed she WAS raped. I did say that YOU cannot claim she was NOT raped. Two completely separate concepts.

 

[Derec]

At least you are somewhat focusing on the key difference between criminal rape trials and university code of ethics hearings.

The difference is mostly one of what penalty real courts vs. college kangaroo courts can impose. Just because they are not real courts should not give carte blanche to colleges to be capricious, unjust, ignore evidence or apply behavioral standard differently to male and female students (male having consensual sex with somebody drunk = rapist, a female having consensual sex with somebody drunk = innocent victim).
The consequences of these tribunals are serious enough that high incidence of false positives due to, among other things, low standard of evidence, should not be ignored or played down as insignificant.

The latter is more like a civil proceeding, which uses "preponderance of evidence".

Preponderance of evidence is used for torts only. Other civil cases usually use "clear and convincing" standard, also used by colleges for non-sexual issues. Sexual issues, being very serious, should if anything be subject to higher standards, not lower standards.

I don't understand why that is so difficult for Loren to understand.

I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand, but here we are.

 

[Derec]

What I actually said was that none of you could claim with any credibility that she was lying (as you just did again above),

Well if you think male students should be expelled based on "preponderance of evidence" standard, don't you think females who lie about rape should be expelled based on the very same standard?
And I think that while we can't say for sure (we almost never can really) even the "clear and convincing" standard is met to conclude she is probably a liar.

nor could you claim with any credibility that she was not raped based upon events from prior to them being in her room.

Again, you want to punish male students based on weak "preponderance of evidence standard" but require certainty for concluding that a woman lied.

What I ALSO said, if you were being honest in your portrayal of my position on that case, is that the male student should not suffer consequences because there was not a preponderance of evidence that he did rape her.

Oh, how generous of you! But what about consequences for her. Surely at least the "preponderance of evidence" standard is met that she falsely accused him.

I never claimed she WAS raped. I did say that YOU cannot claim she was NOT raped. Two completely separate concepts.

So you can't claim she wasn't raped unless it is absolutely certain she wasn't raped. But you can claim (and expel innocent students) if it is only "more likely than not" that a rape took place? Double standards much?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Preponderance = 50% + 1.

Which is not "near zero" by any normal standard.

The problem is there is usually no meaningful defense evidence. 1 bit for conviction vs zero against = guilty.

 

[RavenSky]

1 bit for conviction vs zero against = guilty.

WRONG

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

At least you are somewhat focusing on the key difference between criminal rape trials and university code of ethics hearings.

The first does require the higher standards for conviction.

The latter is more like a civil proceeding, which uses "preponderance of evidence".

I don't understand why that is so difficult for Loren to understand.

We understand. What you don't understand is that in the case of a rape trial preponderance of the evidence usually means kangaroo court--and that's before the universities try to keep the accused from defending themselves.

How do you propose the accused defend himself beyond "I didn't do it"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is not "near zero" by any normal standard.

Not only is "50% + 1" not "near zero" by any standard, Loren is even misrepresenting what the "50% + 1" means. He claims:

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.

He is completely wrong. What "preponderance of evidence" means is that her testimony/evidence alone must must make it more than 50% likely that the sexual assault (or other code of ethics violation) happened. Yes, he can rebut, and his rebuttal may weaken her case; but if her testimony/evidence alone doesn't meet the "preponderance of evidence" standard he doesn't have to present any defense at all.

And Loren's last claim is beyond ridiculous. Percentages of so-called "false reporting rate" as nothing whatsoever to do with it (except that he just HAD to interject his "all women lie about rape" implication into the conversation)

You're so determined that she never lies that you don't see the problem here.

Usually we have only two bits of evidence: Her claim of rape, his claim of not rape. If there's nothing else to go on it comes down to the false reporting rate--if it's less than 50% then these two bits of evidence add up to more likely than not he's guilty and thus by preponderance of the evidence he's guilty. If the false reporting rate is over 50% then it's less likely he's guilty and should be found innocent.

Even when we get cases with other evidence you deny it--for example, the recent case where she claimed too drunk, yet her behavior on camera showed she was actively aiding him.

 

[RavenSky]

Not only is "50% + 1" not "near zero" by any standard, Loren is even misrepresenting what the "50% + 1" means. He claims:

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.

He is completely wrong. What "preponderance of evidence" means is that her testimony/evidence alone must must make it more than 50% likely that the sexual assault (or other code of ethics violation) happened. Yes, he can rebut, and his rebuttal may weaken her case; but if her testimony/evidence alone doesn't meet the "preponderance of evidence" standard he doesn't have to present any defense at all.

And Loren's last claim is beyond ridiculous. Percentages of so-called "false reporting rate" as nothing whatsoever to do with it (except that he just HAD to interject his "all women lie about rape" implication into the conversation)

You're so determined that she never lies that you don't see the problem here.

Usually we have only two bits of evidence: Her claim of rape, his claim of not rape. If there's nothing else to go on it comes down to the false reporting rate--if it's less than 50% then these two bits of evidence add up to more likely than not he's guilty and thus by preponderance of the evidence he's guilty. If the false reporting rate is over 50% then it's less likely he's guilty and should be found innocent.

Even when we get cases with other evidence you deny it--for example, the recent case where she claimed too drunk, yet her behavior on camera showed she was actively aiding him.

Loren, you just keep repeating nonsense while ignoring everything I've already posted - including refuting your bullshit claim in the last sentence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1 bit for conviction vs zero against = guilty.

WRONG

How about some evidence besides simply shouting?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not only is "50% + 1" not "near zero" by any standard, Loren is even misrepresenting what the "50% + 1" means. He claims:

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.

He is completely wrong. What "preponderance of evidence" means is that her testimony/evidence alone must must make it more than 50% likely that the sexual assault (or other code of ethics violation) happened. Yes, he can rebut, and his rebuttal may weaken her case; but if her testimony/evidence alone doesn't meet the "preponderance of evidence" standard he doesn't have to present any defense at all.

And Loren's last claim is beyond ridiculous. Percentages of so-called "false reporting rate" as nothing whatsoever to do with it (except that he just HAD to interject his "all women lie about rape" implication into the conversation)

You're so determined that she never lies that you don't see the problem here.

Usually we have only two bits of evidence: Her claim of rape, his claim of not rape. If there's nothing else to go on it comes down to the false reporting rate--if it's less than 50% then these two bits of evidence add up to more likely than not he's guilty and thus by preponderance of the evidence he's guilty. If the false reporting rate is over 50% then it's less likely he's guilty and should be found innocent.

Even when we get cases with other evidence you deny it--for example, the recent case where she claimed too drunk, yet her behavior on camera showed she was actively aiding him.

Loren, you just keep repeating nonsense while ignoring everything I've already posted - including refuting your bullshit claim in the last sentence.

Citing one case where they didn't go kangaroo isn't proof.

 

[whichphilosophy]

At least you are somewhat focusing on the key difference between criminal rape trials and university code of ethics hearings.

The first does require the higher standards for conviction.

The latter is more like a civil proceeding, which uses "preponderance of evidence".

I don't understand why that is so difficult for Loren to understand.

We understand. What you don't understand is that in the case of a rape trial preponderance of the evidence usually means kangaroo court--and that's before the universities try to keep the accused from defending themselves.

How do you propose the accused defend himself beyond "I didn't do it"?

Rape trials can be complex.

However in recent years, which I believe is that a woman can withdraw her consent at any time. In other words saying 'Yes' to begin with should not be a legal commitment, even if they are married.

As for consenting when intoxicated, the prosecution case would be that the woman who consented (if she is pressing charges) was of unsound mind due to intoxication, then consent was invalid.

In the case where he claims he did nothing, then the accuser should produce forensic evidence but this may not always be possible. It would be one person's word against the other in the absence of witnesses. Frequently a person falsely claiming they 'didn't do it can be caught on a lie, slipping up by mentioning something did happen. Likewise a female may slip up.

I am sure genuine rapes charges failed to achieve a conviction and some genuinely innocent people may have been convicted

 

[RavenSky]

WRONG

How about some evidence besides simply shouting?

Already gave it to you. You ignore anything and everything that doesn't act as confirmation for your preconceived nonsense. I'm done wasting my time with you on this one

- - - Updated - - -

We understand. What you don't understand is that in the case of a rape trial preponderance of the evidence usually means kangaroo court--and that's before the universities try to keep the accused from defending themselves.

How do you propose the accused defend himself beyond "I didn't do it"?

Rape trials can be complex.

However in recent years, which I believe is that a woman can withdraw her consent at any time. In other words saying 'Yes' to begin with should not be a legal commitment, even if they are married.

As for consenting when intoxicated, the prosecution case would be that the woman who consented (if she is pressing charges) was of unsound mind due to intoxication, then consent was invalid.

In the case where he claims he did nothing, then the accuser should produce forensic evidence but this may not always be possible. It would be one person's word against the other in the absence of witnesses. Frequently a person falsely claiming they 'didn't do it can be caught on a lie, slipping up by mentioning something did happen. Likewise a female may slip up.

I am sure genuine rapes charges failed to achieve a conviction and some genuinely innocent people may have been convicted

And all of this is still talking about criminal rape convictions, which is NOT the topic.