The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced • Hacker News Board

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#61

Post by belorn » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 9:24 AM UTC

rectang wrote: post #7

readams wrote: post #3

As a society we need to have a much more sober response to this sort of allegation. Immediate career-ending consequences based on a mere accusation are ultimately bad for both accuser and accused, because it raises the cost of making an accusation.

We've reached this place in part because formal avenues of responding to harassment are so terrible. A lot of harassment cases involve sexual assault or other crimes, but the police and the courts are often so indifferent or hostile that they cannot even come close to fulfilling the role they should. Improving how the criminal justice system handles such crimes would be a big help, but it's a monumental task.

Here in Sweden we have a dedicated police department and prosecutors that only deal with sexual violence, including making it a criminal law where it is the state that prosecute the crime regardless if the victim takes back the accusation. In total the rate in which cases get solved is almost twice that of the US, to a total of 9% for all cases between sexual misconduct to rape.

Similarly in cases of violence, from battery to murder, has by coincident also a total of 9% clearing rate.

In both, the main argument why its so low is neither hostility or indifference. What is cited is the lack of evidence where most of the time investigations only have words against words. It is really hard to determine who punched and who defended themselves outside a bar if there is no witnesses. Both the accused and defendant admit to be in the fight, and there is medical records to that, but details like who made the first punch is unclear. Similarly, its hard to prove the punishable part when two people have sex and both agree that it happened but one say they did not consent. Medical examination can prove the intercourse but rarely much more.

Technically the court can choose who they want to believe purely based on oral statements, but as a matter of practice they tend to not make such decisions. When courts still do it they tend to get overruled later on. It is not clear how you can improve criminal justice system to get anything above 10%, and 1 out of 10 cases is so little that victims will never feel like the legal system is working.

The only way I can think of that would actually fix society so that we can reasonable expect cases of violence and sexual violence to be solved is if surveillance became 100% in every bed room and every corner of society. Its a hefty price to pay for holding all criminals accountable for their action.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#62

Post by belorn » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 9:48 AM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #14

prepend wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of evidence than other institutions. In the usual case where a rape has absolutely occurred, the evidence often amounts to he-said/she-said. That's rarely enough for a conviction. That's understandably deeply dispiriting to anti-rape activists, so they move activism toward places that can afford lower evidentiary standards.” This is a rea…

I was being descriptive of why courts don't effectively adjudicate sexual assault now. I wasn't proposing any particular solution, because it is a hard problem. As a thought experiment, you can imagine a world where courts are required to give instructions to the jury, telling them that they must always treat an alleged victim's testimony as a 100% accurate representation of the incident. That would make most sexual…

Running tests is nice as long you hold the experimenters accountable to actually measure the effect.

For example, educational programs sound as a rational idea until you look at older studies that looked at the effect of increasing the punishment for crime. As I recall there were no effect for most form of violence, including sexual violence, with the researchers conclusion that much crime don't follow rational planning. If the criminal don't do a risk vs reward analysis before the crime, then increasing the punishment won't have an effect on the thought processes. Similar education and work sponsored events is unlikely to help if the action is irrational and involve a lot of self-delusions.

I can see how mores lights and banning hard alcohol can work. People have a emotional reaction to light, and drugs/alcohol operate on the part of the brain that handles social interaction and inhibitions.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#63

Post by AstralStorm » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 11:53 AM UTC

forgotpassagan wrote: post #26

scarmig wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centering employers and schools in programs to reduce sexual harassment has developed as the consensus approach because it is where relatively privileged women (often rich, often white) are most keenly affected by it. That's despite the fact that, even once age-adjusted, students are victimized by rape at a lower rate than non-students. Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of…

Letting schools handle it because the standard of evidence is lower is insane. Rape is a serious crime, and suggesting we should lower the standard of evidence because it's hard to prove is appalling. The one thing more important than protecting potential victims is not punishing innocent people. I know someone that was accused of rape years ago in school. Expelled, lost scholarships, reputation ruined. All from some…

Cameras won't catch anything. Typical rape accusations involve places that are not covered or situations that would be complex to evaluate even given full footage.

And do we really want a society where everything is recorded? Just think of the abuse potential from camera operators.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#64

Post by AstralStorm » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 12:04 PM UTC

jancsika wrote: post #38

> Among the imperatives of #MeToo is that employers, and, indeed, all institutions, must take care to implement orderly processes in which reports of harassment are fairly and impartially investigated, and yield results that inspire confidence—to the benefit of victims as well as the accused. That's the author's imperative. #metoo has three imperatives: 1. A smoke signal to communicate across long distances and alleg…

The problem with those initiatives it's lack of validation. It sometimes happens that other people follow the crowd on accusations. These effects should be tested and measured before implementing what is essentially public shaming.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#65

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 1:55 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #50

Spooky23 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems a little sketchy to me that apparently labor is exempt from the basic laws of supply and demand. Fundamentally, enlarging the supply of workers, through the entry of women, ending systemic discrimination against minorities, elimination of early retirement while reducing demand should have an effect on the price of labor. I’ve worked for large institutions that have been performing the same work for decades a…

The basic laws of supply and demand have two sides, but you are just looking at supply. The post you are replying to contains a suggestion as to why the demand side may, at least in some circumstances, mask or compensate for supply-side effects. Large institutions that have been performing the same work for decades do not fully represent the economy as a whole.

Where’s the evidence for a big increase in demand for labor? All signals suggest the opposite.

The article and post that I replied to talked about aggregate income, which isn’t the same as demand. Aggregate income is a particularly weasel-ly and misleading stat, as wages across the board have been falling in real terms, and usually excludes the people out of the labor force. When you eliminate midrange and low end jobs, and don’t include the people making $0 in the average, the average goes up.

Even in tech, specific verticals are in high demand. Once things get stable, the relentless pressure of offshoring and *aaS deflates labor value.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#66

Post by cafard » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #9

jeffdavis wrote: post #4

Putting employers and schools at the center seems like the wrong approach. If there is a victim and a perpetrator, why can't it be handled in court between them? Asking the employer/school to handle it is a recipe for injustice. Their interest is to limit their liability and favor their most useful employees, in that order. Justice is a distant concern.

Centering employers and schools in programs to reduce sexual harassment has developed as the consensus approach because it is where relatively privileged women (often rich, often white) are most keenly affected by it. That's despite the fact that, even once age-adjusted, students are victimized by rape at a lower rate than non-students. Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of…

Relatively privileged? Schools, perhaps, but what about waitresses and retail staff?

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#67

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 2:43 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #4

Putting employers and schools at the center seems like the wrong approach. If there is a victim and a perpetrator, why can't it be handled in court between them? Asking the employer/school to handle it is a recipe for injustice. Their interest is to limit their liability and favor their most useful employees, in that order. Justice is a distant concern.

> Putting employers and schools at the center seems like the wrong approach. If there is a victim and a perpetrator, why can't it be handled in court between them?

Employers and schools are at the center because sexual harassment is sex discrimination in employment or education, and thus rightfully creates liability for the employer and school under anti-discrimination laws.

The individual acts by which that discrimination is carried out may also be crimes or torts, aside from being a component of institutionalized discrimination, and when they are, that is absolutely addressable in legal action between the parties (for torts) or between the State and the criminal aggressor (for crimes).

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#68

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 2:46 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #11

scarmig wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centering employers and schools in programs to reduce sexual harassment has developed as the consensus approach because it is where relatively privileged women (often rich, often white) are most keenly affected by it. That's despite the fact that, even once age-adjusted, students are victimized by rape at a lower rate than non-students. Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of…

“Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of evidence than other institutions. In the usual case where a rape has absolutely occurred, the evidence often amounts to he-said/she-said. That's rarely enough for a conviction. That's understandably deeply dispiriting to anti-rape activists, so they move activism toward places that can afford lower evidentiary standards.” This is a rea…

> What other crimes do you think this should apply?

There are lots of individual torts and crimes which employer or school failure to prevent or respond to creates tort liability for the institution in the same manner as sexual harassment and which therefore employers and schools practically must deal with through both prevention and responsive policies that do not wait on the legal system. For one large class, pretty much all acts of violence fall into this category.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#69

Post by scarmig » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 4:23 PM UTC

cafard wrote: post #66

scarmig wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centering employers and schools in programs to reduce sexual harassment has developed as the consensus approach because it is where relatively privileged women (often rich, often white) are most keenly affected by it. That's despite the fact that, even once age-adjusted, students are victimized by rape at a lower rate than non-students. Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of…

Relatively privileged? Schools, perhaps, but what about waitresses and retail staff?

Waitresses and retail staff are likely among the most susceptible to sexual harassment and violence.

They have much less access to media firestorms, large cash settlements, and other protective measures than high prestige jobs.

Re: The Transformation of Sexual-Harassment Law Will Be Double-Faced

#70

Post by scarmig » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #52

scarmig wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centering employers and schools in programs to reduce sexual harassment has developed as the consensus approach because it is where relatively privileged women (often rich, often white) are most keenly affected by it. That's despite the fact that, even once age-adjusted, students are victimized by rape at a lower rate than non-students. Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of…

I just want to draw attention to a certain chain of logic in one of your sentences... > usual case > rape has absolutely occurred > evidence often amounts to he-said/she-said All of these things can't be true.

Sure they can. It can be possible for a rape to have occurred, but for there to be no evidence beyond the victim saying so. That's the most usual case, and why dealing with rape is so hard.