Live data from Hacker News

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

chronicle.com

171–180 of 229 posts

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

#171

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…

the accused rapist

Agreed with most of what you wrote, but there's no such thing as an accused rapist (unless you're including previous convictions).

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

#172
post #60
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Under English law rape requires a penis.

A person could be found guilty of sexual assualt by penetration, which is equally severe. It's just not called rape.

This is in the Sexual Offences Act.

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

#173
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You've built the answer to your question into its premise: "a woman changes his mind", you said. So sure: she changed his mind, and thus the sex was consensual. No rape involved, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who would say otherwise.

But some people seeing what you wrote might be imagining a more general situation. Rather than "a woman changes his mind and they have sex", they're instead picturing "a woman gets him to have sex anyway". And that has a lot more room for ambiguity. Maybe she did something to really turn him on and they wound up eagerly jumping each other (not rape). Maybe they had a heart to heart talk and he decided that even though he wasn't eager, this would be really special to her and he went with it (not rape). Maybe he kept trying to leave but she blocked the door and was physically threatening and he concluded the only way he could get away without injury was to let her take what she wanted (that's rape). Maybe she kept giving him alcohol until he wasn't able to process what was going on and got sexual once he was to that point (that's rape; given his initial refusal I'm definitely inclined to call it deliberate even if she was drinking too: this is a well-established serial rapist technique). Maybe she kept gradually pushing his boundaries and wearing him down, ignoring his clear lack of any positive reaction to what she was doing, and eventually escalated things to sex (borderline: I'd need more info to judge if it's rape, but she's definitely an asshole).

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

#174
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As far as I understand, an accusation should examine a perpetrator's perspective more, since that person is being charged with a crime. It depends on the way the law is written. You can certainly be guilty of criminal offenses absent any understanding or intent.

In the case of sex, it is an action that is legal(or not) depending on consent. In the example I gave earlier, the female has obtained consent from her partner. The male changes his mind half-way through but does not stop or act in any different way. In cases such as these, my understanding(and gut feeling really) is that since knowledge of consent is what makes an action legal, the person had no knowledge consent wa…

But it's also worth mentioning that consent does have to be renewed between each act. Just because he consented last night doesn't mean she can assume consent tonight without a fresh affirmative indication of consent. (Which doesn't have to be verbal, necessarily, but should be enthusiastic participation rather than simply submission to a partner's overtures.)

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

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure you should be worried unless you beieve the document has been doctored. I think the basic problem we are facing is that the definitions are rather open to interpretation. I think we can agree that someone who is unconscious is incapable of giving consent and that someone who is 100% sober is able to (assuming they are of a legal age and not mentally impaired) - the issue becomes where to draw the line.…

I'm not particularly worried about it being doctored, just cherry-picked and misrepresented. Most people would agree that in common language "intoxicated" is a stronger term than "drunk", yet the best evidence people can find when challenged on repeating the "drunk sex = rape" meme (some going so far as to claim that many institutions have official policies that explicitly say that even 1 drink = drunk = rape) doesn'…

I actually said drunk, not slightly intoxicated. Drunk does have a legal meaning (it is illegal to be drunk in public in many jurisdictions), but even if we limit the discussion to "substantially" intoxicated then many, many men have had sex while substantially intoxicated. Consent here is very gray.

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

#176
post #86
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social/political issues are not orthogonal to technical issues -- in fact, the belief that they are orthogonal is fundamentally conservative (protective of the status quo).

You do have a point. It's conservative in the sense that it has been this way for a long time and that it's been working out well enough. Why do we need to change it? And no, rehashing the old ">2011" meme for the millionth time is not a valid argument.

Working out well enough for whom?

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

#177

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,…

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 neithe…

I can only offer myself up as an anecdote, but:

I was at grad school at Boston University in the very, very recent past and was lectured on the fact(?) that even a single alcoholic beverage precludes consent during their mandatory Title 9 intro. I can't find any thing regarding their sexual assault policies (other than "we do not allow or condone sexual assault") on their website, though.

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

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, there are basically no repercussions for falsely reporting rape. The "victim" isn't charged with anything and retains their anonymity while the (innocent) "perpetrator" has their life ruined.

What do you think should be occurring though? Many women won't report being raped due to being shamed, mocked and threatened and their livelihoods ruined. Perhaps those being convicted should also be given the same anonymity until after they are found guilty?

[deleted]

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

#179
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…

A moment ago the discussion was about requiring /affirmative/ consent at every escalation. But your example is "is the person giving moderately subtle-to-overt signs of non-consent."

The example of "affirmative consent" I've been presented with generally include explicitly verbalizing requests for consent, so as to preclude things like reading body language, because... well, that's where things go awry.

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

#180
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You've built the answer to your question into its premise: "a woman changes his mind", you said. So sure: she changed his mind, and thus the sex was consensual. No rape involved, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who would say otherwise. But some people seeing what you wrote might be imagining a more general situation. Rather than "a woman changes his mind and they have sex", they're instead picturing "a woman g…

> No rape involved, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who would say otherwise.

I know many people who could consider responding to negative or neutral signalling to be 'coercion' and either 'rape' or 'rape-like', including both of:

> Maybe she did something to really turn him on and they wound up eagerly jumping each other. Maybe they had a heart to heart talk and he decided that even though he wasn't eager, this would be really special to her and he went with it.

Agreed on your views regarding all of those situations though.

Post reply on HN