Depart of Education reviewing Obama-era sexual assault charge guidelines

[laughing dog]

WRONG

How about some evidence besides simply shouting?

You are the one making unsubstantiated claims. Such as
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., and
The problem is there is usually no meaningful defense evidence.

And remember to your own standard - one example is not proof.

 

[whichphilosophy]

How about some evidence besides simply shouting?

You are the one making unsubstantiated claims. Such as
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., and
The problem is there is usually no meaningful defense evidence.

And remember to your own standard - one example is not proof.

Threre are of course 2 levels of evidence

Civil Courts
Preponderance of evidence aka greater weight of evidence is used in civil cases

Criminal Courts
Beyond a reasonable doubt

It is wrong in my view for a University to judge a rape case based on the weight of evidence but allow a court to decide beyond reasonable doubt.
The university should however use the verdict in disciplining the student. It can also take action if any of its own rules were broken aside from this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

This does nothing to address the problem of it causing an impossible burden for him.

 

[Derec]

Threre are of course 2 levels of evidence

Civil Courts
Preponderance of evidence aka greater weight of evidence is used in civil cases

Criminal Courts
Beyond a reasonable doubt

It is wrong in my view for a University to judge a rape case based on the weight of evidence but allow a court to decide beyond reasonable doubt.
The university should however use the verdict in disciplining the student. It can also take action if any of its own rules were broken aside from this.

This is too simplistic. It is not just a choice between PoE and BaRD. Many civil proceedings use "clear and convincing" (CaC) standard, not preponderance of evidence. PoE is really only used in tort trials (and even there I do not think it should be used beyond small-claims level for the same reason of knife-edge and high probability of false positives I mentioned already).

Administrative type civil proceedings use CaC standard, as do colleges for non-sexual matters. Colleges, for the most part used CaC for sexual matters as well, until Obama/Biden forbade it.

And levels of proof do not even address the problem with these kangaroo courts that accused students are prevented from adequately defending themselves, such as by not being able to introduce exculpatory evidence. Not even Judge Judy does that!

 

[Derec]

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

Getting expelled is still very serious and one should not be subject to it capriciously, using a standard prone to false positives, and unable to introduce exculpatory evidence.

 

[Derec]

A even split does not meet the preponderance of evidence standard.

But a small amount of evidence either way does. Which is why I call it "knife edge standard". A little more evidence than 50% means he is judged a rapist and expelled. A little less and it is more likely than not that the girl lied, and should thus (if the standard be applied equitably and without gender bias) be the one expelled for making a false accusation of rape. I think that in situations where it isn't very likely that either party is guilty no action should be taken because the tribunal simply cannot tell with any certainty what happened.

Such a knife-edge standard is not appropriate because it means a high chance of false positives. It does not allow for doubt and a range of evidence levels too murky to decide either way like CaC and BaRD do.

 

[laughing dog]

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

This does nothing to address the problem of it causing an impossible burden for him.

Repetition of an unsubstantiated claim does not make it any more convincing. You have not provided any evidence to support any of your claims about this policy. Your position is based purely on belief/delusion.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What IS the result of a false allegation of rape once proved false? Do women who do this suffer any sort of penalty? Is it a harsh one? Or can they make false accusations with impunity?

 

[RavenSky]

You are the one making unsubstantiated claims. Such as
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., and
The problem is there is usually no meaningful defense evidence.

And remember to your own standard - one example is not proof.

Threre are of course 2 levels of evidence

Civil Courts
Preponderance of evidence aka greater weight of evidence is used in civil cases

Criminal Courts
Beyond a reasonable doubt

It is wrong in my view for a University to judge a rape case based on the weight of evidence but allow a court to decide beyond reasonable doubt.
The university should however use the verdict in disciplining the student. It can also take action if any of its own rules were broken aside from this.

As to the bolded, the university is not making a judgement as to "rape" but for a violation of their code of conduct.

 

[RavenSky]

This does nothing to address the problem of it causing an impossible burden for him.

"He" has no burden under "preponderance of evidence". This has been explained to you - with citations - several times. You (as usual) have ignored that and continue to post your misinformation.

This is exactly why I don't care to waste my time and just leave it at:

You are WRONG!

- - - Updated - - -

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

Getting expelled is still very serious and one should not be subject to it capriciously,

and it is not

using a standard prone to false positives, and unable to introduce exculpatory evidence.

which it doesn't

 

[Derec]

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

Getting expelled is still very serious and one should not be subject to it capriciously,

and it is not

using a standard prone to false positives, and unable to introduce exculpatory evidence.

which it doesn't

An argument is not just contradiction.

 

[RavenSky]

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

Getting expelled is still very serious and one should not be subject to it capriciously,

and it is not

using a standard prone to false positives, and unable to introduce exculpatory evidence.

which it doesn't

An argument is not just contradiction.

An argument is not just an unsubstantiated opinion either. When you supply an argument, I will consider responding with one.

 

[laughing dog]

What IS the result of a false allegation of rape once proved false? Do women who do this suffer any sort of penalty? Is it a harsh one? Or can they make false accusations with impunity?

Depends on the institution or the DA. Do you also worry about the result when an accused rapist lies about his or her actions?

 

[laughing dog]

A even split does not meet the preponderance of evidence standard.

But a small amount of evidence either way does. Which is why I call it "knife edge standard". A little more evidence than 50% means he is judged a rapist and expelled. A little less and it is more likely than not that the girl lied, and should thus (if the standard be applied equitably and without gender bias) be the one expelled for making a false accusation of rape. I think that in situations where it isn't very likely that either party is guilty no action should be taken because the tribunal simply cannot tell with any certainty what happened.

Such a knife-edge standard is not appropriate because it means a high chance of false positives. It does not allow for doubt and a range of evidence levels too murky to decide either way like CaC and BaRD do.

It is ridiculous to claim that the preponderance of evidence does not allow for doubt, since it explicitly means more likely than not.

Whether you or I like it or not, a private institution should have the freedom to apply its own standards for the expected conduct of its students and its own standards for judging those cases. No one is compelled to attend any university or college. And until someone provides actual data on the number of allegations for these violation, the number of expulsions, and the reason for the expulsion, it seems to me that some people are more worried about applying a strict standard of due process than dealing with these types of anti-social behaviors.

 

[Sarpedon]

Is there, in fact, any evidence that false rape allegations are more prevalent than false allegations of any other crime?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is there, in fact, any evidence that false rape allegations are more prevalent than false allegations of any other crime?

Depends on the crime, I'm sure. I'd guess it comparative to false allegations of theft and assault, and that false rape allegations just carry a bigger social stigma. But its hard to really know this.

What punishment do you believe is fitting for those who deliberately make false accusations of crimes? That's an interesting question.

 

[Sarpedon]

Its an interesting question. The traditional answer is the punishment is equal to the punishment for the falsly reported crime. The more contemporary take is that it is a crime on a level with fraud or something.

We've had so many threads on this topic over the years, I now feel compelled to drop in each one and ask the same question, just for the record.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This does nothing to address the problem of it causing an impossible burden for him.

Repetition of an unsubstantiated claim does not make it any more convincing. You have not provided any evidence to support any of your claims about this policy. Your position is based purely on belief/delusion.

I still haven't seen anyone showing how he's supposed to present evidence that it wasn't rape.

- - - Updated - - -

"He" has no burden under "preponderance of evidence". This has been explained to you - with citations - several times. You (as usual) have ignored that and continue to post your misinformation.

This is exactly why I don't care to waste my time and just leave it at:

You are WRONG!

Claiming it as been proven doesn't make it so.

How, exactly, is he supposed to defend himself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there, in fact, any evidence that false rape allegations are more prevalent than false allegations of any other crime?

Look at the FBI data.

Rape: 8%.
Crime in general: 2%.

While I do have my doubts about the accuracy of the FBI data (it's not going to count those cases that get laughed out at the start) I very much doubt it's understating the problem.

 

[RavenSky]

Repetition of an unsubstantiated claim does not make it any more convincing. You have not provided any evidence to support any of your claims about this policy. Your position is based purely on belief/delusion.

I still haven't seen anyone showing how he's supposed to present evidence that it wasn't rape.

- - - Updated - - -

"He" has no burden under "preponderance of evidence". This has been explained to you - with citations - several times. You (as usual) have ignored that and continue to post your misinformation.

This is exactly why I don't care to waste my time and just leave it at:

You are WRONG!

Claiming it as been proven doesn't make it so.

How, exactly, is he supposed to defend himself.

You have been answered multiple times. Here is the answer again:

Preponderance of the Evidence

Civil courts require a plaintiff to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the person who is suing (i.e. Plaintiff) must prove that there is a greater than 50% chance, based on all the reasonable evidence, that the defendant did the wrong that caused the damage. The plaintiff can use testimonial and physical evidence to prove her case.

The defendant does not have to do anything to defend their case if the plaintiff fails to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. And as a result, the defendant wins.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libr...he-evidence-vs-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html

I am sure that you will ignore this again