College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014) • Hacker News Board

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#51

Post by zo1 » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 6:49 AM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #30

forrestthewoods wrote: post #20

Title IX requires schools to perform some level of investigation. This is backwards. Title IX should FORBID schools for investigating and mandate forwarding of information to the police.

The purpose of internal disciplinary systems is to have a weaker burden of proof. Meeting "beyond a reasonable doubt" is very difficult when the victim and perpetrator are in something resembling a romantic relationship and behind closed doors, to the point that almost no rapists would be found guilty. Schools instead use the standard of "more likely than not" to return a finding of "responsible," which means the sch…

>"Lower certainty required for a less drastic action."

If you consider what happens to male college students if they are accused of rape and found "guilty" to any degree by the university, then you wouldn't say it's a "less drastic action".

They get expelled, likely have their reputations and lives ruined. This is the reason we have courts, and it is the reason we don't give judge/execution rights to police.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#52

Post by mirimir » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 6:52 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #37

chris_wot wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though it's much rarer, it is possible for a woman to rape a man.

It is not that rare when using the current standard of consent. If you include any man who has sex while drunk (and is hence incapable of giving consent) then rape of men by women is very common.

What if both parties are incapable of giving consent?

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#53

Post by mikekchar » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 6:54 AM UTC

jmspring wrote: post #49

I'll risk down votes...but...this is one of those posts that doesn't fair well here in the sense of balanced conversation...and the comments I have already read...I hope it disappears soon...

I'll vote you up mainly because I also wonder a bit about why this article is here. I haven't been around HN for that long, but even a year ago I seem to remember that the articles voted up were mainly technical in nature or related to startups. I have noticed that as discussion boards get more popular they seem to move to being platforms for expressing opinion on political subjects. It may be my imagination, but these kinds of topics seem to be becoming prevalent to the point where I'm seriously thinking of not checking in any more.

One may wonder why I am looking at the comments for such a topic, if I am not interested. To be honest, I'm wondering if I am the only such person. Possibly not.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#54

Post by ZeroGravitas » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 6:56 AM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #22

We live under laws on sexual assault that, in large part, were not written with women’s interests in mind. [...] The legal verdict on whether sex is nonconsensual still often rests on the perspective of the alleged perpetrator rather than the experience of the victim. It would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice to imprison someone who has done nothing wrong. If the alleged perpetrator of an offence…

Isn't taking all reasonable steps to ascertain consent what the affirmative consent thing is all about?

It's one of those sensible things, like recycling, renewable energy, belief in evolution, or decent medical coverage, that somehow becomes a very bitter political issue for no logical reason.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#55

Post by cmdkeen » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 6:56 AM UTC

vehementi wrote: post #33

CthulhuOvermind wrote: post #14

"The legal verdict on whether sex is non consensual still often rests on the perspective of the alleged perpetrator rather than the experience of the victim." I'm not sure I entirely understand this quote to its fullest. It is being argued that it is the experience of the victim that matters if sex is consensual. Isn't this quote logically wrong? Consensual by definitions means both parties agreed. But is the author…

I don't think they literally mean experience as in "they secretly felt non-consensual after a while and kept it to themselves", but rather the emphasis that the system is unfair and weighs the perpetrator's opinion more heavily than the victim's

The justice system is unfair in that it requires "proof beyond reasonable doubt" or similar. Two wrongs don't make a right - if rape has occurred then it cannot be undone, but the potential miscarriage of justice has yet to occur so it is right that the system protects against that.

In the UK I've been on a jury for two sexual offence trials. The awesome (in the biblical sense) sense of responsibility we had was keenly felt and plenty of deliberation was had to double and triple check that we were, in the judge's words "sure" in finding a guilty verdict.

For its faults, and it has many, the Scottish system of three verdicts with "not proven" as another option makes some sense in these cases. In many instances there just isn't enough evidence and a plausible witness on each side of the case.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#56

Post by sambe » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 6:58 AM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #32

CthulhuOvermind wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To make the point less gender political, view this as something which happens to a same-sex couple, so that the dynamics are less obvious about sexual politics and more about either force, misinterpretation, or confusion or a mixture of all the above. I like your suggestion about viewing this as same-sex couple situation. I wrote my post specifically gender-neutral so as to prepare for the inevitable accusation of…

Though it's much rarer, it is possible for a woman to rape a man.

Technically, under English law, I believe it isn't. The definition involves penetrative sex. It's normally something like sexual assault instead (arguably adding somewhat to gender politics).

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#57

Post by forrestthewoods » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:00 AM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #30

forrestthewoods wrote: post #20

Title IX requires schools to perform some level of investigation. This is backwards. Title IX should FORBID schools for investigating and mandate forwarding of information to the police.

The purpose of internal disciplinary systems is to have a weaker burden of proof. Meeting "beyond a reasonable doubt" is very difficult when the victim and perpetrator are in something resembling a romantic relationship and behind closed doors, to the point that almost no rapists would be found guilty. Schools instead use the standard of "more likely than not" to return a finding of "responsible," which means the sch…

Presumption of Innocence is considered a human right by the United Nations. Manipulating the system to implicitly lessen the burden of proof is horrific.

But at least the intentions are noble. As the current police system's handling of rape cases is also horrific. However two wrongs don't make a right.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#58

Post by thaumasiotes » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:03 AM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #44

danieltillett wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not that rare when using the current standard of consent. If you include any man who has sex while drunk (and is hence incapable of giving consent) then rape of men by women is very common.

Can you define drunk as you intend it in this sentence? People seem to be very loose with this phrase recently and it's impossible to tell if they're doing so intentionally for political reasons, or if they're just not very good at communicating what they mean. Drunk can mean someone has had 1 beer (e.g. drunk driving in many locations). It can also mean aggressively or flamboyantly out-of-character after several dri…

As made explicit in the sexual assault policies of various US universities, a female is unable to consent if she's had any alcohol (the "1 beer" model of being drunk). It is not a defense, or grounds for a counterclaim, that the male might have been equally or more drunk. (I say made explicit; the "any alcohol" threshold is what's made explicit. The wording of formal policies is generally scrupulously gender-neutral, but their application isn't.)

In an actual US criminal court, I believe drunken consent is no different from any other consent.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#59

Post by cmdkeen » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:03 AM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #22

We live under laws on sexual assault that, in large part, were not written with women’s interests in mind. [...] The legal verdict on whether sex is nonconsensual still often rests on the perspective of the alleged perpetrator rather than the experience of the victim. It would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice to imprison someone who has done nothing wrong. If the alleged perpetrator of an offence…

An example of a law written with the (gender neutral) victim's interest in mind is that of statutory rape - you can contain all the consent you like but if the person is not viewed as being able to give it then an offence is committed.

Attempts to move looking for consent towards it being "engaged and enthusiastic" rather than posing a Yes/No question have potential - though it really needs to become a societal thing before a legal expectation. We don't live in the 50s where a woman was expected to lie back and think of England - it shouldn't be for a single partner to take "reasonable steps to ascertain consent", it should be something you are certain of or you stop and make sure. Not just because it's the right thing to do, but also because you're likely to have much better sex...

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#60

Post by mc32 » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:03 AM UTC

sambe wrote: post #56

chris_wot wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though it's much rarer, it is possible for a woman to rape a man.

Technically, under English law, I believe it isn't. The definition involves penetrative sex. It's normally something like sexual assault instead (arguably adding somewhat to gender politics).

It's still not entirely impossible for a person without a male reproductive organ to engage in active penetrative sex with the aid of well, sexual devices which mimic the shape or even cruder devices. That's to say, I don't believe, but could be wrong, they stipulate being naturally born or some such uneasy language.