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

141–150 of 229 posts

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

#141

Post by emp_zealoth »

chris_wot wrote: post #97
emp_zealoth wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the actual fuck. Are those people out of their goddamn minds? So any girl can basically claim she had one shot if she feels like ruining someone's life and make an innocent man into a "rapist"? What if it's two lesbians that shared a beer? Do the universe collapse or something? The arbitraryness and possibilities of malicious abuse just blow my goddamn brain.

Well, this is why it goes before a court. There needs to be proof or lack of reasonable doubt that the victim was intoxicated.

Except the article itself says "Seizing this logic, advocates for gender equality have persuaded the federal government, under civil-rights authority, to force higher-education institutions to investigate and punish crimes of sexual violence. Dozens of colleges are under investigation for failing to comply.

Although not explicit in the rationale for this approach, the lower standard of proof required to bring campus disciplinary action—including expulsion—is surely attractive to antirape activists, as it is for other civil-rights advocates who pursue civil remedies."

lower standard of proof disciplinary action including expulsion

This is outright despicable. There already witch hunts going on in some unis (with NO actual filed complaints or charges)

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

#142

Post by tehwebguy »

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…

Because no one should have to explain to you that universities and incredibly famous cases like this are the exception. I shouldn't have to back up climate change every time I down vote someone "just asking" about clean coal or some shit every time that conversation happens either.

These are horror stories - they hit home IMO because so many men would never dream of assaulting anyone so it's scary to feel lumped into that group, because of the shame that comes with the crime and because the idea of being stuck in a criminal system you don't belong in is infuriating. But much like terrorism, home invasion murders, car jackings and shark attacks the likelihood of being accused of a sexual crime you didn't commit is basically zero.

It's okay guys, we can admit there is a problem without having to get grouped in as a rapist. It's not like any of this changes the fact that 90.5% of the murders in the US are apparently committed by men[0] (which also does not make us all murderers)

[0] Google it yourself.

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

#143

Post by techdragon »

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

So the FBI does not consider female and male perpetrators who engage in non-consensual sex with a male victim only using the victims natural external genitalia?

This seems pretty stupid.

Can anyone corroborate this claim? As in do they not or actively refuse to prosecute these incidents? Or are they "sexual assault" but not "rape"?

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

#144

Post by anu_gupta »

reso wrote: post #132
anu_gupta wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Negligent homicide is not murder.

The language my top comment used was "homocide" and "negligent homocide" while the responder changed it to "murder". The point is that in the view of the justice system, sometimes it doesn't matter if you meant to kill someone or not--you still killed someone.

It does matter. The charges are different, the sentencing is different.

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

#145

Post by techdragon »

chris_wot wrote: post #123
anu_gupta wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have to agree. Don't do that.

Have you never used something surprising as a method to make someone think? Laying traps is implying malice that may be entirely absent.

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

#146

Post by jules »

chris_wot wrote: post #97
emp_zealoth wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the actual fuck. Are those people out of their goddamn minds? So any girl can basically claim she had one shot if she feels like ruining someone's life and make an innocent man into a "rapist"? What if it's two lesbians that shared a beer? Do the universe collapse or something? The arbitraryness and possibilities of malicious abuse just blow my goddamn brain.

Well, this is why it goes before a court. There needs to be proof or lack of reasonable doubt that the victim was intoxicated.

Isn't the point of the article that it doesn't go to a proper court, but should?

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

#147

Post by cperciva »

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.

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

Yes. But if you take those steps and still end up being mistaken -- to take a deliberately bizarre hypothetical, suppose you're in bed with someone who has a brain tumour causing them to say "yes" when they mean "no" -- then you might believe that you have that consent when the "experience of the victim" is that they did not consent.

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

#148

Post by trhway »

golemotron wrote: post #102
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 obv…

>The real problem isn't consent it is that there are no witnesses. It becomes "he said, she said"

one can see how, like condoms had, cell phone recording may become a part of the safety ritual...

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

#149

Post by mamon »

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,…

If you are drunk that's your fault, not any defense. I mean: drunk sex is like drunk driving, being drunk should be held against drunk person, not used in his/her favor.

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

#150

Post by cperciva »

cmdkeen wrote: post #59
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…

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.

Almost. If they were not able to consent (due to age, inebriation, mental illness, etc.) then there was no consent. But if you had a well-founded belief in their ability to consent, then you are not culpable.

In Canada it has been held to be unconstitutional for a criminal offence "where it is not open to the accused to exculpate himself by showing that he was free of fault" to have incarceration as a possible punishment; such absolute liability is valid for such things as parking tickets, however. Offences such as statutory rape are instead "strict liability" offences: The prosecution is not required to show intent, but an accused can raise the defence of due diligence.

The situation is a bit murkier in the USA, but courts have accepted (see e.g., Kantor) a "good faith" defence even where the legislature has explicitly rejected the mens rea requirement.

Post reply on HN