Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 229 posts

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

#101

Post by mirimir »

chris_wot wrote: post #82
SeanDav wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, there have been several examples of a woman getting drunk, having apparently consensual sex and then deciding the next day that she was raped. The male now has to prove that sex was consensual. The woman gets lifetime anonymity and the male has to undergo a public trial, almost always with commensurate loss of reputation and employment, even if later proven to be innocent. There is a very recent example wh…

Don't have sex with someone who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Edit: I think you are referring to this: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6958799/City-lawye... If no rape is found to have occurred, which seems likely given there were police witnesses, then that lady is going to be in a world of bother. Firstly, it will have meant that she has appealed against a sentence, which means if it didn't…

Pretty much.

But damn, if I were a young male today, I would probably require proof of consent from prospective partners. Maybe a signed affidavit, blood sample and affidavits of competent witnesses. Or maybe just forget the whole premarital sex thing. Too dangerous anymore, in so many ways.

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

#102

Post by golemotron »

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.

The real problem isn't consent it is that there are no witnesses. It becomes "he said, she said" in the heterosexual case. In a crime with no witnesses and no physical evidence there is nothing the law can do justly.

Right now the societal balance is moving toward always believing the woman. As verified cases of false accusation accumulate that balance may swing backward.

There are no easy answers and it makes it obvious why societal norms in the pre-modern era had tighter restrictions on sexuality outside marriage.

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

#103

Post by ZeroGravitas »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #58
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

As much as I'd love to take your word on this, for me this still falls into the "they banned Christmas because of the Muslims" category of made up propaganda intended to enrage the more credulous (see the other reply for a demonstration of this).

I asked for evidence on this once before on HN, and they came up with two links. Both referred to the exact same case. And that case involved two people so drunk that neither could actually recall what happened.

That person at least provided links (admittedly they actually undermined his claims, but still). You've provided nothing but a bold assertion.

My suggestion to you and the original poster: if what you claim is true, is actually true, then a) stop using the word "drunk" as it is ambiguous, use the phrase "after one alcoholic drink", as this massively bolsters your case that the policy is ill-thought out b) have a link from a reputable source that actually backs up the reality of what you claim since on the face of it you'd expect a bigger fuss to have been made about this if it was true (much like I'd have heard about it via standard channels, not forwarded emails from racist uncles, if someone had actually banned Christmas because of the Muslims).

Edit: here's the first policy my Googling returned, it all seems very reasonable to me:

https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-a...

Key phrases: "drinking heavily", "highly intoxicated" and so on.

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

#104

Post by cm3 »

There should only be one legal system to make rulings, nothing secret, nothing private. The only exception is that private councils or mediators should be opt-out, no strings attached, no questions asked, in order to easily gain access to a real court. This may be unpopular, and I've never been part of the military, so I don't know the drill there, but just as secret courts for the likes of Snowden, there is no place for a military tribunal. And just like a normal court has to rule on parking tickets and serial murders, it shall also rule on war crimes. Think Den Hague as somewhat of an example. I'm perhaps repeating myself, but a secret court nobody can discuss, attend or scrutinize, does not exist in the real world and is something else misusing the existing name (court). I think of it as good marketing for a system that wants to get rid of dissidents and is basically no different than any other show trial under dictatorships. If you cannot defend yourself properly, it's not a trial. If you're sure you're in the right, you have no justification to hide behind closed doors whose existence is denied as well.

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

#105

Post by tomp »

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.

I don't think affirmative consent is sensible at all.

If it were made law, then I would have been raped, and been raping at the same time, during pretty much all sex I've had in my life!

Obviously it's possible to have amazing consensual sex without affirmative consent.

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

#106

Post by maaku »

chris_wot wrote: post #98
sambe wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it actually requires a penis too. Quick Google suggests this is still true.

Not true. The FBI's definition is: "The 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." [1] 1. https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape

FBI's definition does not apply in England.

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

#107

Post by maaku »

mirimir wrote: post #101
chris_wot wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't have sex with someone who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Edit: I think you are referring to this: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6958799/City-lawye... If no rape is found to have occurred, which seems likely given there were police witnesses, then that lady is going to be in a world of bother. Firstly, it will have meant that she has appealed against a sentence, which means if it didn't…

Pretty much. But damn, if I were a young male today, I would probably require proof of consent from prospective partners. Maybe a signed affidavit, blood sample and affidavits of competent witnesses. Or maybe just forget the whole premarital sex thing. Too dangerous anymore, in so many ways.

You think marriage makes any legal difference?

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

#108

Post by yarou »

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.

Why stop there?

Why not install a video camera on every street corner, in every home, and deep packet inspection on every network hub?

Panopticon seems really nice in theory, and it's easy to support if you think you're the watchman. But in reality you are one of the watched.

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

#109

Post by anu_gupta »

CthulhuOvermind wrote: post #29
mc32 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those situations are more edge cases and they are quite difficult because knowing what we know about the mind, it can play tricks. For example, we may feel very happy at one moment, but something could transpire to change the feeling and that may cause us to retroactively view the initial consent (maybe they thought the person was initially someone else) in a different light --but at the same time, most people give t…

> 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…

> n. I wrote my post specifically gender-neutral so as to prepare for the inevitable accusation of sexism, and then reveal that in my example the female was the perpetrator.

Not really interested in engaging with someone who merely wants to set traps for people.

Post reply on HN