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

151–160 of 229 posts

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

#151

Post by tehwebguy »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #125
superuser2 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. That's totally fine if you ask me. I think we should be having people signing this paper when they turn adolescent: That they understand that they are responsible for selecting their sexual partne…

> I think we should be having people signing this paper when they turn adolescent:

> That they understand that they are responsible for selecting their sexual partners, and once they engage in consentual sex with them, they can no longer accuse this person of rape unless they later acquire a restraining order against them. They can still accuse their sexual partners of violence (that's verifiable) but not of rape.

> Do not want to sign it? You have to tell this before any kind of sex to your potential partners.

Were you born like 200 years ago? Please do not visit my country.

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

#152

Post by chris_wot »

techdragon wrote: post #145
chris_wot wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't need to. I just state my position and hopefully then they consider it, which normally requires some level of thought.

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

#153

Post by chris_wot »

jules wrote: post #146
chris_wot wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Which is sort of the point I was trying to make, but evidently quite badly. Yes, I agree with the author - these cases should be dealt with through the court system.

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

#154

Post by dang »

FreeInternet wrote: post #50
Sevrene wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read all of your article, I didn't have to read it to see that your comment looks like propaganda; new user, highly politicised comments, abrasive attitude to questions, comments with very similar content, etc. I don't really know if your comment is propaganda — I don't really care, actually. It's probably not. But we must be suspicious of suspicious acting narrators trying to lead conversations on sites lik…

no, we must do our research and not form quick judgements. No excuse to not read all the article. If you don't have time to learn, please save time by not speaking.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

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

#155

Post by chris_wot »

techdragon wrote: post #143
chris_wot wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Wouldn't the fact that this is a direct quote from someone high up in the FBI, and is being hosted on the website for the U.S. Department of Justice be enough corroboration?

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

#156

Post by nailer »

Steuard wrote: post #115
nailer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Without question, yes! That's the whole point.

So from talking to flirting? Flirting to lightly touching arm? Lightly touching arm to sitting closely? Sitting closely to staring into eyes? Staring to kissing? Kissing to hands on body? Each escalation of foreplay?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see the granularity as being clear at all. Nor have I ever seen anyone else pressure women into obtaining explicit consent at each escalation.

You mention in another thread consent could be given non verbally. Non verbal cues are easily misunderstood - and we're taking about using this as a basis for determining guilt for a serious crime here.

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

#157

Post by ZeroGravitas »

nailer wrote: post #156
Steuard wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without question, yes! That's the whole point.

So from talking to flirting? Flirting to lightly touching arm? Lightly touching arm to sitting closely? Sitting closely to staring into eyes? Staring to kissing? Kissing to hands on body? Each escalation of foreplay? I understand what you're saying, but I don't see the granularity as being clear at all. Nor have I ever seen anyone else pressure women into obtaining explicit consent at each escalation. You mention in…

If the person remains totally passive at each of these stages, or repeatedly says or does something not affirmative, like "I really need to go" or turning away from you, what do you think you should do next? Is this really that hard?

The only way what you're saying isn't really creepy and odd, is if you have a version of affirmitive consent in mind, that doesn't correpsond to reality.

edited to add: It's worth bearing in mind the history of this, were a person doing the above would be told that it didn't count, that they were expected to "fight off" their rapist, because that's what good victims would have done, and clearly they weren't a good enough victim because they just remained frozen in fear, or were nearly unconcious through drink or drugs. Both the potential victims and the potentially accussed are better of with this extra clarity, that silent, passive, borderline unconcious acceptance of what you are doing is not enough to avoid later accusations.

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

#158

Post by nailer »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #157
nailer wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So from talking to flirting? Flirting to lightly touching arm? Lightly touching arm to sitting closely? Sitting closely to staring into eyes? Staring to kissing? Kissing to hands on body? Each escalation of foreplay? I understand what you're saying, but I don't see the granularity as being clear at all. Nor have I ever seen anyone else pressure women into obtaining explicit consent at each escalation. You mention in…

If the person remains totally passive at each of these stages, or repeatedly says or does something not affirmative, like "I really need to go" or turning away from you, what do you think you should do next? Is this really that hard? The only way what you're saying isn't really creepy and odd, is if you have a version of affirmitive consent in mind, that doesn't correpsond to reality. edited to add: It's worth bearin…

That's an excellent example. If a man is initially unsure about sex - he says he needs to go, but still stays - and a woman changes his mind and they have sex, do you consider her a rapist?

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

#160

Post by thaumasiotes »

mamon wrote: post #149
thaumasiotes wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you are accused of raping a girl on the sole grounds that she was drunk when you had sex, then the fact that you were also drunk should be grounds for a counterclaim of rape against her.

Obviously, that would be ridiculous. But so far as I have read, only Brown's policy explicitly takes the position you advocate, that while the female being drunk casts blame on the male, the male being drunk casts even more blame on the male. ("A charged student’s use of any drug, including alcohol, judged to be related to an offense will be considered an exacerbating rather than a mitigating circumstance.")

Post reply on HN