More presumption of guilt

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, that sounds like a clear case of rape. He'd been drinking for at least a couple of hours before she had sex with him.

 

[Arctish]

Well, that sounds like a clear case of rape. He'd been drinking for at least a couple of hours before she had sex with him.

Yep.

Word to the wise: don't fuck with drunks.

 

[Derec]

That article's author is laboring under some serious misconceptions about a university disciplinary process and due process under the law.

I think the university and the Obama administration are under some serious misconceptions about what degree of due process and burden of proof is appropriate in these circumstances. This is not a tort so 'preponderance of evidence' is not an appropriate standard as the damage due to a false positive is much greater than the damage due to a false negative. PoE however, makes (under ideal circumstances) false positives just as likely as false negatives. Add to that bias from the university tribunal and student not being able to question the accuser or the witnesses (in fact he wasn't even allowed to know who they were!) and you tip the balance firmly in favor of false positives.

This article is much more informative: http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/a-duke-senior-sues-the-university-after-being-expelled-over-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct/Content?oid=4171302]

It is more detailed. It does not change the fact that this is yet another case where police found insufficient evidence to arrest or prosecute the accused yet the male student was found guilty by the university tribunal.

During interviews with police, medical administrators, a Duke investigator and Duke's disciplinary hearing panel, as well as to friends via text messages, the freshman outlined several allegations, including the following: Her memory of the night was cloudy; she did not agree to intercourse; he disrobed her; she begged him to stop and pushed him away; she told him to stop several times; that "I told him to stop and that I would call the police"; and that "he raped me and told me not to cry."

Sounds contradictory to me. She says her memory is cloudy but then claims to recall several salient points very clearly.

Sounds like a drunken hookup gone horribly wrong.

Which doesn't equal rape.
The university can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) have it both ways - if he is being expelled because they had a drunken hookup then they both should be equally punished. If he is being expelled for rape there isn't sufficient evidence for that conclusion and he should not have been punished.
What the university wants is go after male students for rape and expel them for this serious allegation but only have to prove the drunken sex part, all the while seriously curtailing the male student's ability to defend himself. "We have a witness who says X but you can't question them; in fact you can't even know who they are".

- - - Updated - - -

Word to the wise: don't fuck with drunks.

Shouldn't that apply to both genders equally? According to Duke, it apparently doesn't.

 

[Ford]

Shouldn't that apply to both genders equally? According to Duke, it apparently doesn't.

Now THAT is some funny stuff right there. The person who treats every woman accusing someone of rape as a lying whore and every man accused of rape as an innocent victim is arguing for equal treatment of both genders?

 

[Arctish]

I think the university and the Obama administration are under some serious misconceptions about what degree of due process and burden of proof is appropriate in these circumstances. This is not a tort so 'preponderance of evidence' is not an appropriate standard as the damage due to a false positive is much greater than the damage due to a false negative. PoE however, makes (under ideal circumstances) false positives just as likely as false negatives. Add to that bias from the university tribunal and student not being able to question the accuser or the witnesses (in fact he wasn't even allowed to know who they were!) and you tip the balance firmly in favor of false positives.

I agree these university tribunals should strive for fairness, but I disagree about the preponderance of evidence not being an appropriate standard. I think it's perfectly reasonable to use it in deciding if a violation of school policy has occurred. I also think it's not necessary for a school disciplinary board to allow cross examination of witnesses in such cases, although it wouldn't be a bad idea to allow for rebuttals.

This article is much more informative: http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/a-duke-senior-sues-the-university-after-being-expelled-over-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct/Content?oid=4171302]

It is more detailed. It does not change the fact that this is yet another case where police found insufficient evidence to arrest or prosecute the accused yet the male student was found guilty by the university tribunal.

During interviews with police, medical administrators, a Duke investigator and Duke's disciplinary hearing panel, as well as to friends via text messages, the freshman outlined several allegations, including the following: Her memory of the night was cloudy; she did not agree to intercourse; he disrobed her; she begged him to stop and pushed him away; she told him to stop several times; that "I told him to stop and that I would call the police"; and that "he raped me and told me not to cry."

Sounds contradictory to me. She says her memory is cloudy but then claims to recall several salient points very clearly.

Sounds like a drunken hookup gone horribly wrong.

Which doesn't equal rape.

But might equal non-consensual sex and/or sexual misconduct.

This case hinges on consent. If she didn't consent (and her crying is a pretty strong indicator she wasn't happy about what he was doing) then he put himself on the wrong side of school policy, and he can be expelled for it.

The university can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) have it both ways - if he is being expelled because they had a drunken hookup then they both should be equally punished. If he is being expelled for rape there isn't sufficient evidence for that conclusion and he should not have been punished.
What the university wants is go after male students for rape and expel them for this serious allegation but only have to prove the drunken sex part, all the while seriously curtailing the male student's ability to defend himself. "We have a witness who says X but you can't question them; in fact you can't even know who they are".

- - - Updated - - -

Word to the wise: don't fuck with drunks.

Shouldn't that apply to both genders equally? According to Duke, it apparently doesn't.

I agree it should be applied to both genders equally. I think we can both agree if there was credible evidence the guy was crying and asked the girl to stop and she just kept on banging him, she should have been expelled.

There is evidence the girl was intoxicated, although it is unclear if she was too drunk to give consent. I don't see anything about the guy's level of intoxication. Were they both equally drunk? Or were they both sober enough to be accountable for their actions, and he stepped over the limit of what was acceptable?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sounds like a drunken hookup gone horribly wrong.

Yeah. She changed her mind and then decided she didn't consent in the first place. A very common version of a false rape allegation.

Note how the university expelled him but let him take the finals anyway--they know they're on shaky legal ground and are acting to minimize the loss.

Sorry, but you don't rush to judgment on what you know are shaky grounds. I hope he wins a pile from them.

 

[Underseer]

Yah, rape is just something chicks make up when they change their minds! It's all part of how men are persecuted! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Toni]

I agree these university tribunals should strive for fairness, but I disagree about the preponderance of evidence not being an appropriate standard. I think it's perfectly reasonable to use it in deciding if a violation of school policy has occurred. I also think it's not necessary for a school disciplinary board to allow cross examination of witnesses in such cases, although it wouldn't be a bad idea to allow for rebuttals.

This article is much more informative: http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/a-duke-senior-sues-the-university-after-being-expelled-over-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct/Content?oid=4171302]

It is more detailed. It does not change the fact that this is yet another case where police found insufficient evidence to arrest or prosecute the accused yet the male student was found guilty by the university tribunal.

During interviews with police, medical administrators, a Duke investigator and Duke's disciplinary hearing panel, as well as to friends via text messages, the freshman outlined several allegations, including the following: Her memory of the night was cloudy; she did not agree to intercourse; he disrobed her; she begged him to stop and pushed him away; she told him to stop several times; that "I told him to stop and that I would call the police"; and that "he raped me and told me not to cry."

Sounds contradictory to me. She says her memory is cloudy but then claims to recall several salient points very clearly.

Sounds like a drunken hookup gone horribly wrong.

Which doesn't equal rape.

But might equal non-consensual sex and/or sexual misconduct

Non-consensual sex is rape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yah, rape is just something chicks make up when they change their minds! It's all part of how men are persecuted! [/conservolibertarian]

Are you denying it happens? There have been cases where she admitted crying rape because she changed her mind after the fact.

 

[Arctish]

Sounds like a drunken hookup gone horribly wrong.

Yeah. She changed her mind and then decided she didn't consent in the first place.

Where are you getting that information? The information posted here indicates she tried to fend off the guy by claiming she had to go home and study for exams, was pressured into having sex, cried during the act because she was so miserably unhappy, and was so unwilling to go back into his room afterward she practically begged one of his housemates (who later used the word "terrified" to describe her demeanor) to get her wallet so she could call a cab and leave.

A very common version of a false rape allegation.

Yes, what you wrote is a very common version of the False Rape Allegation, often used to obscure and/or undermine the Genuine Rape Report.

[Note how the university expelled him but let him take the finals anyway--they know they're on shaky legal ground and are acting to minimize the loss.

The article I posted noted it, and explained it. The University is on shaky legal ground due to a failure to publish it's updated policy, not because expelling students for misbehavior is controversial.

Sorry, but you don't rush to judgment on what you know are shaky grounds. I hope he wins a pile from them.

Where are you getting the information the University rushed to judgment? The incident took place in November, the investigation began almost immediately. The disciplinary panel convened in February and held a 6 hour hearing. Text messages from both McLeod and the freshman were submitted prior to the hearing, other evidence was submitted at the hearing, and testimony was taken:

McLeod arrived to the hearing with about two-dozen manila folders stuffed with documents, personal notes and glowing character references, including one from a professor and another outlining his charity work. He and the freshman sat on opposite sides of a screen and never spoke to each other directly.

During the hearing, the freshman called McLeod a rapist. "I remember it happening and I remember it really hurting and I remember saying, 'Stop, it hurts,' " she testified. She said that she attempted to hide her crying from McLeod, blaming it on a stuffy nose.

"My memory of that night is so cloudy, but episodic," she said. "I remember these, like, instances but nothing really continuous." She said she didn't remember much about the cab ride, and that she didn't remember how her clothes came off.

She said she offered to perform any sexual act on McLeod other than full intercourse. "I remember in the house saying, 'Can we not have sex?' Can we do anything except for that?" Because I didn't' want to have sex with him, and I knew that."

The panel reached it's conclusions in March, McLeod appealed, and an appellate panel considered the matter. The appellate panel upheld the disciplinary board's conclusions and informed McLeod at the end of April. Despite the expulsion, McLeod was allowed to take his final exams in the event the disciplinary panel's ruling is overturned.

There was no "rush to judgement". IMO the process was a bit on the slow side.

 

[Toni]

Yah, rape is just something chicks make up when they change their minds! It's all part of how men are persecuted! [/conservolibertarian]

Are you denying it happens? There have been cases where she admitted crying rape because she changed her mind after the fact.

Which is a long way from your statement:

Yeah. She changed her mind and then decided she didn't consent in the first place. A very common version of a false rape allegation.

Backed up, of course, by your usual lack of any evidence.

At least one of his buddies has said that the young woman looked terrified. Various opinions have been offered about her state, ranging from slurring words and stumbling to not very drunk. All accounts, except the one where he claims she wanted it and he stopped as soon as she said stop support non-consensual sex.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sounds like a drunken hookup gone horribly wrong.

Yeah. She changed her mind and then decided she didn't consent in the first place.

Where are you getting that information? The information posted here indicates she tried to fend off the guy by claiming she had to go home and study for exams, was pressured into having sex, cried during the act because she was so miserably unhappy, and was so unwilling to go back into his room afterward she practically begged one of his housemates (who later used the word "terrified" to describe her demeanor) to get her wallet so she could call a cab and leave.

Except that's not what the witnesses said. Everything that indicates rape came afterwards from her. Everything at the time says it wasn't rape. He even says she changed her mind during the act.

 

[laughing dog]

[He even says she changed her mind during the act.

Yeah, what is the world coming to when one cannot take the word of the accused that he/she is innocent?

 

[bigfield]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...sault-allegation/story-e6frg6nf-1226936757706

Durham police investigated the alleged November 14 rape and decided not to charge Mr McLeod.

The university's disciplinary panel conducted its own investigation, found Mr McLeod guilty and expelled him.

This is the part that baffles me in these cases.

Why do universities expel students for crimes that the police have investigated but chose not to press charges?

Judge Osmond Smith III, in North Carolina's Durham County Superior Court, issued a preliminary injunction, ruling the university should not have expelled the 23-year-old.

A judge has already stated that the university should not have expelled McLeod, so what led the university to do it in the first place?

 

[Arctish]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...sault-allegation/story-e6frg6nf-1226936757706


This is the part that baffles me in these cases.

Why do universities expel students for crimes that the police have investigated but chose not to press charges?

Because universities have the right to expel students for things which may or may not be crimes, like cheating on exams, harassing wildlife, refusing to bathe, and walking into class stark naked.

The police who investigated the complaint found insufficient grounds to charge McLeod with a crime - that does not mean there was no evidence a crime was committed, or that the police didn't believe the freshman. It does not mean there was insufficient evidence of rule breaking to convene a school disciplinary hearing. It does not mean there was insufficient grounds to expel McLeod.

The constant attempts to conflate university disciplinary hearings with criminal trials is getting pretty threadbare. If you don't think a university can expel a student for something that isn't a crime, or that they have to wait for a criminal trial to reach it's conclusion before they can remove a possible rapist from campus, you're thinking wrong.

Judge Osmond Smith III, in North Carolina's Durham County Superior Court, issued a preliminary injunction, ruling the university should not have expelled the 23-year-old.

A judge has already stated that the university should not have expelled McLeod, so what led the university to do it in the first place?

If you read the linked Indyweek article, you'll see why he was expelled, and why there is a dispute over whether the expulsion was carried out in an appropriate manner. There is no dispute over whether a university has the authority to expel a student for violating school policy.

 

[bigfield]

Because universities have the right to expel students for things which may or may not be crimes, like cheating on exams, harassing wildlife, refusing to bathe, and walking into class stark naked.

The police who investigated the complaint found insufficient grounds to charge McLeod with a crime - that does not mean there was no evidence a crime was committed, or that the police didn't believe the freshman. It does not mean there was insufficient evidence of rule breaking to convene a school disciplinary hearing. It does not mean there was insufficient grounds to expel McLeod.

The constant attempts to conflate university disciplinary hearings with criminal trials is getting pretty threadbare. If you don't think a university can expel a student for something that isn't a crime, or that they have to wait for a criminal trial to reach it's conclusion before they can remove a possible rapist from campus, you're thinking wrong.

The Indyweek article states that the university concluded that there was sufficient evidence that McLeod raped the freshman; therefore they concluded that he was guilty of a crime. They should not be allowed to do that when the police aren't willing to press charges.

You bring up the canard that unis can expel students for non-criminal acts. There is no such thing as non-criminal rape.

 

[RavenSky]

Because universities have the right to expel students for things which may or may not be crimes, like cheating on exams, harassing wildlife, refusing to bathe, and walking into class stark naked.

The police who investigated the complaint found insufficient grounds to charge McLeod with a crime - that does not mean there was no evidence a crime was committed, or that the police didn't believe the freshman. It does not mean there was insufficient evidence of rule breaking to convene a school disciplinary hearing. It does not mean there was insufficient grounds to expel McLeod.

The constant attempts to conflate university disciplinary hearings with criminal trials is getting pretty threadbare. If you don't think a university can expel a student for something that isn't a crime, or that they have to wait for a criminal trial to reach it's conclusion before they can remove a possible rapist from campus, you're thinking wrong.

The Indyweek article states that the university concluded that there was sufficient evidence that McLeod raped the freshman; therefore they concluded that he was guilty of a crime. They should not be allowed to do that when the police aren't willing to press charges.

You bring up the canard that unis can expel students for non-criminal acts. There is no such thing as non-criminal rape.

They expelled him for "sexual misconduct" not "rape"

 

[Toni]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...sault-allegation/story-e6frg6nf-1226936757706


This is the part that baffles me in these cases.

Why do universities expel students for crimes that the police have investigated but chose not to press charges?

Judge Osmond Smith III, in North Carolina's Durham County Superior Court, issued a preliminary injunction, ruling the university should not have expelled the 23-year-old.

A judge has already stated that the university should not have expelled McLeod, so what led the university to do it in the first place?

Prosecutors will not bring charges if they do not feel they can win a case. It is extremely difficult to get a rape conviction if the accused and the victim know one another and even worse if alcohol was involved.

 

[bigfield]

Because universities have the right to expel students for things which may or may not be crimes, like cheating on exams, harassing wildlife, refusing to bathe, and walking into class stark naked.

The police who investigated the complaint found insufficient grounds to charge McLeod with a crime - that does not mean there was no evidence a crime was committed, or that the police didn't believe the freshman. It does not mean there was insufficient evidence of rule breaking to convene a school disciplinary hearing. It does not mean there was insufficient grounds to expel McLeod.

The constant attempts to conflate university disciplinary hearings with criminal trials is getting pretty threadbare. If you don't think a university can expel a student for something that isn't a crime, or that they have to wait for a criminal trial to reach it's conclusion before they can remove a possible rapist from campus, you're thinking wrong.

The Indyweek article states that the university concluded that there was sufficient evidence that McLeod raped the freshman; therefore they concluded that he was guilty of a crime. They should not be allowed to do that when the police aren't willing to press charges.

You bring up the canard that unis can expel students for non-criminal acts. There is no such thing as non-criminal rape.

They expelled him for "sexual misconduct" not "rape"

From the article.

Duke's student affairs rulebook, the Community Standard in Practice, defines sexual misconduct as "any physical act of a sexual nature perpetrated against an individual without consent or when an individual is unable to freely give consent."

Lack of consent = rape.

 

[bigfield]

Prosecutors will not bring charges if they do not feel they can win a case. It is extremely difficult to get a rape conviction if the accused and the victim know one another and even worse if alcohol was involved.

Why is it so hard to get a conviction under those circumstances?