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

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

#71

Post by reso » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:37 AM UTC

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…

No other comments have directly addressed the quote you referenced. My interpretation is it is saying that rape cases are prosecuted about the intent of the perpetrator. Aka, they are convicted if it can be shown that they intended to commit rape, or knowingly committed rape, and acquited otherwise.

This puts the standard of conviction much higher than other crimes, because lots of crimes can be committed unknowingly (theft, embezzlement, even homicide), the intent of the criminal having no bearing on their guilt or not. In these cases the experience of the victim bears strongly on the case: the person who's car was stolen, the company who's funds were embezzled or the (deceased) victim of negligent homicide. The speaker is saying that courts do not weight victims' experiences appropriately, if at all, in rape cases.

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

#72

Post by fsaneq2 » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:37 AM UTC

oconnore wrote: post #61

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 think the discrepancy comes from advocacy thought vs. legal thought [1]. When advocating for rape victims, who are severely disadvantaged in these situations, you might make a statement like "we need to listen to the woman's perspective". As has been pointed out, that statement is a heuristic on several levels: the woman is often, but not always, the victim; and from a legal standpoint, there are of course other th…

> "When advocating for rape victims, who are severely disadvantaged in these situations"

Curious if you have a way to back up the claim the accusers are severely disadvantaged? Based on how it is at Stanford and many universities in the US, the system is certainly stacked in the accuser's favor. See, for example: https://www.thefire.org/stanford-trains-student-jurors-that-.... This leads to terrible mistakes, Joe Lonsdale comes to mind (it was since reversed, but the damage is likely done by then).

Edit: to downvoters, care to explain why..?

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

#73

Post by DanBC » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:41 AM UTC

reso wrote: post #71

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…

No other comments have directly addressed the quote you referenced. My interpretation is it is saying that rape cases are prosecuted about the intent of the perpetrator. Aka, they are convicted if it can be shown that they intended to commit rape, or knowingly committed rape, and acquited otherwise. This puts the standard of conviction much higher than other crimes, because lots of crimes can be committed unknowingly…

You can't "unknowingly" commit theft (intent to dishonestly permanently deprive), emezzlement (intent to deceive) or murder (intent to unlawfully kill someone).

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

#74

Post by nailer » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:42 AM UTC

oconnore wrote: post #61

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 think the discrepancy comes from advocacy thought vs. legal thought [1]. When advocating for rape victims, who are severely disadvantaged in these situations, you might make a statement like "we need to listen to the woman's perspective". As has been pointed out, that statement is a heuristic on several levels: the woman is often, but not always, the victim; and from a legal standpoint, there are of course other th…

Could you elaborate how 'we need to understand context' means reducing issues to 'you need to listen to one side' is acceptable? Saying we need to 'try and understand' seems like you're saying that unless we consider things from one side we don't have any empathy at all.

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

#75

Post by deciplex » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:44 AM UTC

Dr_tldr wrote: post #66

deciplex wrote: post #11

It wasn't long ago that I would have agreed with this article in full. I may have even posted here on HN to that effect before. I am still sympathetic to the point it makes. However: Universities boot people out for other reasons which are not actionable in a criminal (or even civil) court all the time . Getting shitty grades, being a disruptive asshole in a class on a regular basis, and so on, can end your universit…

What if gay and transgendered people "creep you the fuck out", or orthodox jews, or people in wheelchairs? Once you start making the case for expulsion and the application of a sliding scale of guilt due entirely to other people's beliefs about an unpopular individual or group as fine in principle, you've basically undone the entire enlightenment in law, governance, and ethics.

Those are all protected classes under the law, so it doesn't hold up. It's the "and is probably a rapist" (or more likely to be than the average student) (according to the university's tribunal) which is the important part.

"Is probably gay", "is probably transgendered", "is probably a jew" and "is probably disabled" are not analogous and I hope I don't have to explain why.

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

#76

Post by tomp » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:46 AM UTC

fsaneq2 wrote: post #72

oconnore wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the discrepancy comes from advocacy thought vs. legal thought [1]. When advocating for rape victims, who are severely disadvantaged in these situations, you might make a statement like "we need to listen to the woman's perspective". As has been pointed out, that statement is a heuristic on several levels: the woman is often, but not always, the victim; and from a legal standpoint, there are of course other th…

> "When advocating for rape victims, who are severely disadvantaged in these situations" Curious if you have a way to back up the claim the accusers are severely disadvantaged? Based on how it is at Stanford and many universities in the US, the system is certainly stacked in the accuser's favor. See, for example: https://www.thefire.org/stanford-trains-student-jurors-that-... . This leads to terrible mistakes, Joe Lo…

The accusers (victims) are disadvantaged in court (i.e. where facts matter and where there is a very high standard of proof), whereas the accused are disadvantaged outside of courts (and in college "kangaroo" courts), where the standards of proof are much lower and and perceptions matter more than facts.

"Rape culture" advocates claim that courts should become more like kangaroo courts.

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

#77

Post by chris_wot » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:49 AM UTC

taneq wrote: post #68

chris_wot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, consent was mutually given and if the other party then changes their mind and asks the other to stop, then consent ceases, right? If the other party is not signalled that consent was withdrawn, then it is, in my mind, a bit tricky. It means that consent was no longer there, but the other party didn't have any way of knowing. I think it's fair to say that no assault occurred, but it's still damaging to t…

How is this in any way tricky? Consent is something the giving of which involves clear communication, not just something that exists in the mind of one of the parties. Likewise, consent can't just 'cease', it has to be withdrawn, which involves communicating the withdrawal to all parties concerned. It's like signing up for a phone contract, then deciding you don't want it any more and stopping using the phone. If you…

Fair point.

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

#78

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:50 AM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #54

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.

[deleted]

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

#79

Post by nailer » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:51 AM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #54

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.

Is requiring consent at every sexual escalation practical? Do affirmative consent campaigners encourage women having sex with men to obtain affirmative consent when the woman escalates?

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

#80

Post by fleitz » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 7:52 AM UTC

reso wrote: post #71

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…

No other comments have directly addressed the quote you referenced. My interpretation is it is saying that rape cases are prosecuted about the intent of the perpetrator. Aka, they are convicted if it can be shown that they intended to commit rape, or knowingly committed rape, and acquited otherwise. This puts the standard of conviction much higher than other crimes, because lots of crimes can be committed unknowingly…

The guilty mind (mens rea) does have bearing on sentencing and the types of charge. For instance if you intend to kill someone it's a different charge than if you accidentally killed someone, and if it couldn't have been foreseen that the actions would kill someone then there is generally no crime at all.