JMU Punishes Sexual Assault With Expulsion -- After Graduation

[Jimmy Higgins]

So now we are down from "sexual assault" (see thread title) to a mere "prank". And does a non-criminal prank really require a puinishment so severe as an expulsion, especially with demands of immediate expulsion?

Also the reason what exactly is on the video is important because obviously removing someone's top can be either consensual or non-consensual. Relying on the synopsis provided by the accuser or thinking the decision by the university kangaroo court must be correct (when so many are so obviously wrong) is highly naive.

And we can't trust the school because they don't believe girls lie about getting their tops ripped off. And we couldn't trust the police because they have too much pressure from the PC crowd. And if the guys were convicted, we can't trust that because the judge probably told the jury they had to convict because women don't ever lie about their top being ripped off.

As a consequence, in the future, to ensure justice, Derec must watch every available video of alleged assault. Because no one else can be trusted to not be seduced by the Women Never Lie About Anything lobby.

Just as an aside, a school could very well have a policy against consensual sexual acts between students being distributed electronically around campus.

Even if you want to dismiss the removing of her bathing suit top (???), the fact alone that they shared the video of her humiliation should be enough to take disciplinary action that does not include forcing the woman to withdraw from the university because they've allowed the men to remain.

Nobody is forcing her to withdraw from the university. If she wants to withdraw because the video is already circulating around campus, immediately removing those accused of taking/sharing it would not remove all the copies of the video either.

Mama Mia, are you that apathetic or lack in any understanding about how that could be humiliating and how difficult it would be to get over that?

 

[RavenSky]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says. (Note, however, that a third party that tricked him into thinking he had consent might be guilty of rape despite not being there.)

No rape does not require "intent". It requires "lack of consent". From the FBI: : “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Anything other than a strict liability offense requires intent.

So you are suggesting it is possible to accidentally fuck someone without their consent?

It's possible to reasonably believe you have their consent..

Not when she already said "no" and you had to hit her on the back of the head, then tie her down, and duct tape her eyes and mouth to prevent her from escaping and/or telling you "no" some more.

 

[RavenSky]

And in this situation we are talking about a case where they were stupid and set up a situation where there was no means of communicating "STOP!"

That is your fantasy, totally unsupported by any facts whatsoever. Furthermore, being stupid does not absolve him from the fact that he raped her.

So long as his actions were consistent with their prior play I see no way he could know that he didn't have consent.

wrong wrong wrong wrong and fucking wrong!!! It does not matter what she or any other woman may or may not have consented to at any prior time. THIS time is all that matters, and she said "no"

 

[Toni]

People who misappropriate funds or other people's property often tell themselves that it isn't really stealing. They genuinely convince themselves that they deserve whatever they are taking. They steal cable or content or whatever and justify it as 'victimless' or the company must not care or they'd have better security. They don't intend to steal--just to take what they feel they deserve. Without permission.

Not much different than saying she must have wanted it if she dressed that way/drank that much/went to that party...

That's a totally different case--just because they think they deserve it doesn't mean they don't know it's not their money.

So, they know it's wrong. Thank you for proving my point.

Just because they think they deserve it, doesn't mean they don't know that what they are doing is wrong. Applies to money and to sex.

 

[Toni]

I am the one surprised here that you would expect that when it comes to sexual crimes involving juvenile and legal adult, intent is required. Also surprised that you would think that intent is required for pedophiles who engage in sexual intimacy with pre pubescent children when their claim is often cited that they view it as an "act of love". Equally surprised that you would think that intent is required to convict an individual engaging in sexual intimacy with a mentally disabled person. Equally surprised that speaking of intent, you keep dismissing the reality that as the dominant party he DISMISSED the non dominant party's right to discontinue the rape fantasy activities at ANY time as he did not apply the condition actual BDSM adepts will abide to, which is to insure that the non dominant party will remain able to convey/communicate at any time their WILL to stop the said activities.

We aren't talking about juvenile/adult situations (which are strict liability in many states), but adult/adult situations.

And in this situation we are talking about a case where they were stupid and set up a situation where there was no means of communicating "STOP!" So long as his actions were consistent with their prior play I see no way he could know that he didn't have consent.

He knew, and that was the point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We aren't talking about juvenile/adult situations (which are strict liability in many states), but adult/adult situations.

And in this situation we are talking about a case where they were stupid and set up a situation where there was no means of communicating "STOP!" So long as his actions were consistent with their prior play I see no way he could know that he didn't have consent.

You keep posting as if that is relevant: it isn't. His belief is not relevant. He did not have consent, so it is rape. Still waiting for you to come up with a citation that shows rape requires intent.

Laws normally require criminal intent. Why so you think rape is different?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We aren't talking about juvenile/adult situations (which are strict liability in many states), but adult/adult situations.

And in this situation we are talking about a case where they were stupid and set up a situation where there was no means of communicating "STOP!" So long as his actions were consistent with their prior play I see no way he could know that he didn't have consent.

He knew, and that was the point.

He knew she said "no". He also knew that in such games no doesn't mean no.

 

[laughing dog]

You keep posting as if that is relevant: it isn't. His belief is not relevant. He did not have consent, so it is rape. Still waiting for you to come up with a citation that shows rape requires intent.

Laws normally require criminal intent.

No, they do not. I already pointed out that you should familiarize yourself with General Intent crimes and Specific Intent crimes (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/general-vs-specific-intent.html. Since you appear to lazy to do so, the difference is that general intent crimes do not require the prosecution to show intent - it is sufficient to show that the alleged committed the act. For example, drunken driving does not require intent nor does battery nor does rape.

Why so you think rape is different?

I know rape is different. All it requires is that the victim not consent (look up any definition). I have asked you twice for you to provide a link that indicates that rape requires intent. Still waiting.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did that, and that he did it knowing or reasonably ought to have been knowing, that you didnt invite it, then yes, he should have been criminally sanctioned.

I am surprised you disagree.

Given how nearly impossible it is to get a rape conviction, do you think that the DA would actually prosecute a man for groping?

If enough evidence is there that it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes, absolutely the DA should prosecute a man for groping without consent. Do you disagree? I'm pretty shocked if you do.

The point remains, however, that lack of criminal prosecution does not, in any way, mean that the sexual assault should not be addressed by other means.

The purported sexual assault you mean. And we should be careful how we react to these claims. Yes, a business should be able to decide for itself what it wants to do, and kick the guy out. Kicking him out will probably make for a better atmosphere than having a bitter accused and accuser in the same venue. If they do kick him out, they should refund any entrance fee he may have paid to enter.

In the case of the bikini girl, the 3 males were expelled - though it should have been an immediate expulsion.

It should have been an immediate expulsion because they taped it and distributed the tape without her permission. Or, if they can prove the act itself was not asked for, they could do it based on that. But they shouldn't just assume based on the complainants word that it is what happened, and expel these students, costing them their education and tuition and possibly their career path. If the school did this to them without good evidence, they have been wronged and should sue.

 

[Toni]

Given how nearly impossible it is to get a rape conviction, do you think that the DA would actually prosecute a man for groping?

If enough evidence is there that it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes, absolutely the DA should prosecute a man for groping without consent. Do you disagree? I'm pretty shocked if you do.

The point remains, however, that lack of criminal prosecution does not, in any way, mean that the sexual assault should not be addressed by other means.

The purported sexual assault you mean. And we should be careful how we react to these claims. Yes, a business should be able to decide for itself what it wants to do, and kick the guy out. Kicking him out will probably make for a better atmosphere than having a bitter accused and accuser in the same venue. If they do kick him out, they should refund any entrance fee he may have paid to enter.

In the case of the bikini girl, the 3 males were expelled - though it should have been an immediate expulsion.

It should have been an immediate expulsion because they taped it and distributed the tape without her permission. Or, if they can prove the act itself was not asked for, they could do it based on that. But they shouldn't just assume based on the complainants word that it is what happened, and expel these students, costing them their education and tuition and possibly their career path. If the school did this to them without good evidence, they have been wronged and should sue.

Groping without consent/removing clothing without consent is generally a low level offense, probably 4th degree sexual assault which is usually a misdemeanor. As much as I agree that it would be better of such cases were prosecuted, the truth is that they are not. Even more true when you are talking about the police in one state dealing with multitudes of drunken out of state students over spring break who come, drink/drug and commit all sorts of petty crimes and some not so petty.

I am not dismissing what happened to the girl as being minor. But police and prosecutors would likely consider it quite minor and would not spend the resources to track down the guys who taped the incident and participated, given the time lapse and state borders.

The video is described as showing the girl in question quite obviously very drunk and protesting, trying to get away from the 3 guys she thought were her friends. In this case, there is video evidence which was shared all over campus before the girl herself found out about it. I would say that would be evidence, even if it isnt available for our personal viewing.

 

[RavenSky]

He knew, and that was the point.

He knew she said "no". He also knew that in such games no doesn't mean no.

You are wrong, and it has been demonstrated repeatedly by multiple people that you are wrong. He "knew" no such thing. He may have assumed he had consent, but assuming consent when he didn't is still rape. It does not matter what she may or may not have agreed to last week, or with a previous boyfriend - every instance of sexual encounters stands alone in terms of whether there was consent or not.

And I will point out yet again, the ONLY way you can be so insistent that this man did not rape his wife is to assume that the woman is purposely lying - subjecting herself to the trauma and humiliation of the investigation and trial in order to purposely lie under oath. What evidence do you have that this woman is a lying liar who lied?

 

[RavenSky]

You keep posting as if that is relevant: it isn't. His belief is not relevant. He did not have consent, so it is rape. Still waiting for you to come up with a citation that shows rape requires intent.

Laws normally require criminal intent. Why so you think rape is different?

Because you are factually wrong (again) and you need to take Laughing Dog's advice to do a little research about criminal intent before continuing to make a fool of yourself on this specific topic.

 

[RavenSky]

The strange man in the nightclub who shoved his hand under my skirt and grabbed my crotch trying to finger my vagina while I was standing against a wall minding my own business did, in fact, sexually assault me. He was thrown out of the club and his membership was revoked (which meant he was banned from the most popular club in the city forever, similar to a university expulsion). Is it your position that this man should have also been criminally prosecuted and put in prison for a few years? I think not.

If it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did that, and that he did it knowing or reasonably ought to have been knowing, that you didnt invite it, then yes, he should have been criminally sanctioned. I am surprised you disagree.

Given how nearly impossible it is to get a rape conviction, do you think that the DA would actually prosecute a man for groping? The point remains, however, that lack of criminal prosecution does not, in any way, mean that the sexual assault should not be addressed by other means. In my case, my boss threw the assailant out of the club and revoked his membership. In the case of the bikini girl, the 3 males were expelled - though it should have been an immediate expulsion.

^^^ For clarity

The point remains, however, that lack of criminal prosecution does not, in any way, mean that the sexual assault should not be addressed by other means.

The purported sexual assault you mean. And we should be careful how we react to these claims. .

Excuse me? Are you now suggesting that I am a liar out to frame good men too? What happened to me is not a "purported sexual assault" - the man purposely stuck his hand up under my skirt and attempted to shove a finger into my vagina through my underwear. What part of that is not a sexual assault? What alternative reality explanation would you like to offer?

Groping without consent/removing clothing without consent is generally a low level offense, probably 4th degree sexual assault which is usually a misdemeanor. As much as I agree that it would be better of such cases were prosecuted, the truth is that they are not. Even more true when you are talking about the police in one state dealing with multitudes of drunken out of state students over spring break who come, drink/drug and commit all sorts of petty crimes and some not so petty.

I am not dismissing what happened to the girl as being minor. But police and prosecutors would likely consider it quite minor and would not spend the resources to track down the guys who taped the incident and participated, given the time lapse and state borders.

Which illustrates yet again - state/federal criminal prosecution is not required for a business or school or even public buildings to enforce their own codes of conduct.

People will be expelled from a university for plagiarism whether the student is prosecuted for it or not. People will be fired from their job for sexual harassment whether they are criminally prosecuted for it or not.

 

[aeebee50]

Jessica Williams needs to be the President of JMU. You go girl.

 

[Togo]

Why so you think rape is different?

I know rape is different. All it requires is that the victim not consent (look up any definition). I have asked you twice for you to provide a link that indicates that rape requires intent. Still waiting.

Rape is sex without consent. There's a lot of case law on this. Even having sex with someone when they think you're someone else is rape, because you didn't obtain consent for sex with the right person. If you have not properly obtained consent, it's rape.

 

[ksen]

I am saying that if the video shows a clear-cut case of sexual assault why aren't there any criminal charges filed?
It is unclear where the author got this synopsis anyway - has he seen the video (doubtful) or did the accuser tell him what is allegedly in it.

http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/Former-JMU-Student-Speaks-Out-on-Sexual-Assault-263548111.html

http://education-law.lawyers.com/school-law/college-discipline-extends-off-campus.html


Also try reading the original link in the OP if you are interested in the synopsis.

Lemme save you some time, he's not interested.

- - - Updated - - -

Also try reading the original link in the OP if you are interested in the synopsis.

I'm not interested in the unsourced synopsis, I am interested in the video.

lol, called it!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Laws normally require criminal intent.

No, they do not. I already pointed out that you should familiarize yourself with General Intent crimes and Specific Intent crimes (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/general-vs-specific-intent.html. Since you appear to lazy to do so, the difference is that general intent crimes do not require the prosecution to show intent - it is sufficient to show that the alleged committed the act. For example, drunken driving does not require intent nor does battery nor does rape.

Why so you think rape is different?

I know rape is different. All it requires is that the victim not consent (look up any definition). I have asked you twice for you to provide a link that indicates that rape requires intent. Still waiting.

I think you should go back to the drawing board.

I'm not talking about general intent vs specific intent, but rather strict liability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)

As the federal constitution entrenches a right of due process, the United States usually applies strict liability to only the most minor crimes or infractions. One example would be parking violations, where the state only needs to show that the defendant's vehicle was parked inappropriately at a certain curb. But serious crimes like rape and murder require some showing of culpability or mens rea. Otherwise, every accidental death, even during medical treatment in good faith, could become grounds for a murder prosecution and a prison sentence.

Note that this specifically lists rape as a crime that is not strict liability.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He knew she said "no". He also knew that in such games no doesn't mean no.

You are wrong, and it has been demonstrated repeatedly by multiple people that you are wrong. He "knew" no such thing. He may have assumed he had consent, but assuming consent when he didn't is still rape. It does not matter what she may or may not have agreed to last week, or with a previous boyfriend - every instance of sexual encounters stands alone in terms of whether there was consent or not.

And I will point out yet again, the ONLY way you can be so insistent that this man did not rape his wife is to assume that the woman is purposely lying - subjecting herself to the trauma and humiliation of the investigation and trial in order to purposely lie under oath. What evidence do you have that this woman is a lying liar who lied?

I'm not denying she considered herself raped. I've taken it as a given that she did.

What you don't seem to understand is that it's legally possible to have a rape victim without a rapist. Given their stupidity in not having a safe word he had no way of knowing he was crossing the line. No criminal intent, the jury was right to say not guilty.

- - - Updated - - -

Laws normally require criminal intent. Why so you think rape is different?

Because you are factually wrong (again) and you need to take Laughing Dog's advice to do a little research about criminal intent before continuing to make a fool of yourself on this specific topic.

I'm not the one making a fool of myself.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not interested in the unsourced synopsis, I am interested in the video.

lol, called it!

Of course he's interested in the video. We have multiple claims about what's in the video that are not consistent with the police actions. When the police don't arrest despite having the crime on tape it's likely there wasn't a crime in the first place.

 

[laughing dog]

No, they do not. I already pointed out that you should familiarize yourself with General Intent crimes and Specific Intent crimes (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/general-vs-specific-intent.html. Since you appear to lazy to do so, the difference is that general intent crimes do not require the prosecution to show intent - it is sufficient to show that the alleged committed the act. For example, drunken driving does not require intent nor does battery nor does rape.

Why so you think rape is different?

I know rape is different. All it requires is that the victim not consent (look up any definition). I have asked you twice for you to provide a link that indicates that rape requires intent. Still waiting.

I think you should go back to the drawing board.

I'm not talking about general intent vs specific intent, but rather strict liability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)

As the federal constitution entrenches a right of due process, the United States usually applies strict liability to only the most minor crimes or infractions. One example would be parking violations, where the state only needs to show that the defendant's vehicle was parked inappropriately at a certain curb. But serious crimes like rape and murder require some showing of culpability or mens rea. Otherwise, every accidental death, even during medical treatment in good faith, could become grounds for a murder prosecution and a prison sentence.

Note that this specifically lists rape as a crime that is not strict liability.

I note that it contradicts itself in the next paragraphs when it specifically lists drunken driving and statutory rapes as "strict liability". And I also notice that in its section on rape, it does not mention "intent" as necessary. And, I also know from observation, that saying "I thought no means yes" does not stop prosecutions nor convictions. So, I'd say that Wikipedia entry is incorrect on rape.

eta: And, in fact, this site (http://apublicdefender.com/2012/09/17/general-intent-specifically/ )agrees:

Rape is generally a general intent crime. In other words, the State doesn’t have to prove that the defendant intended to rape the victim, but just that he raped the victim. In other words, the State has to prove that the defendant didn’t accidentally have sex with the victim without her consent.

 

[RavenSky]

You are wrong, and it has been demonstrated repeatedly by multiple people that you are wrong. He "knew" no such thing. He may have assumed he had consent, but assuming consent when he didn't is still rape. It does not matter what she may or may not have agreed to last week, or with a previous boyfriend - every instance of sexual encounters stands alone in terms of whether there was consent or not.

And I will point out yet again, the ONLY way you can be so insistent that this man did not rape his wife is to assume that the woman is purposely lying - subjecting herself to the trauma and humiliation of the investigation and trial in order to purposely lie under oath. What evidence do you have that this woman is a lying liar who lied?

I'm not denying she considered herself raped. I've taken it as a given that she did.

What you don't seem to understand is that it's legally possible to have a rape victim without a rapist. Given their stupidity in not having a safe word he had no way of knowing he was crossing the line. No criminal intent, the jury was right to say not guilty.

the bolded is you making shit up again. You have no idea whatsoever if they "had a safe word" or not because he hit her over the head, bound and gagged her!

She was raped, now you acknowledge, yet you are still excusing her rapist. Moreover, "criminal" intent has nothing to do with it. His act was rape because he did not have consent.

And finally, contrary to your claim up there, the jury found him not guilty because in that time period they didn't believe a man could rape his wife. It had nothing to do with your fantasy scenario of misunderstanding about safe words.