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

121–130 of 229 posts

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

#121

Post by chris_wot »

chris_wot wrote: post #32
CthulhuOvermind wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Though it's much rarer, it is possible for a woman to rape a man.

I hope those who are disagreeing with me are doing so because I wasn't precise enough about where this can occur.

As has been pointed out, in England a woman cannot take a man, but can commit an act of penetration.

In the U.S. there is no such distinction.

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

#122

Post by qaq »

vlehto wrote: post #18
lmm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is the justice system's whole job, and they've gotten pretty ok at it.

In rape cases about 1,5% proven guilty, about 1% proven false. But I guess ~97% failure rate can be considered OK in such situation?

Could you show source for the stats. I've seen 5 to 7% but 1,5% seems extremely low.

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

#123

Post by chris_wot »

anu_gupta wrote: post #109
CthulhuOvermind wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have to agree. Don't do that.

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

#124

Post by morgante »

deciplex wrote: post #11

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…

So, to be clear, you think it's okay to ruin people's lives because one woman doesn't like them?

Expulsion for rape is a lot more severe than merely firing someone. Your name gets tarnished in the press and your future employability is destroyed. At that point, you might as well be in jail—your life is already ruined.

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

#125

Post by guard-of-terra »

superuser2 wrote: post #30
forrestthewoods wrote: post #20

Title IX requires schools to perform some level of investigation. This is backwards. Title IX should FORBID schools for investigating and mandate forwarding of information to the police.

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 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.

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

#126

Post by Khaine »

superuser2 wrote: post #30
forrestthewoods wrote: post #20

Title IX requires schools to perform some level of investigation. This is backwards. Title IX should FORBID schools for investigating and mandate forwarding of information to the police.

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…

Sorry but if its he said/she said how it faire on the accused? To get kicked out of school, have massive debts, have their name trashed all because you had drunken sex with someone and they regret it in the morning?

We have courts for a reason. And these kangaroo courts are a travesty of justice.

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

#127

Post by mirimir »

maaku wrote: post #107
mirimir wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

OK, forget that too.

Maybe stick to VR, I guess.

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

#128

Post by [deleted] »

tedks wrote: post #119
tomp wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly possible for someone to be raped without their partner being the rapist. For example, imagine two people enjoy rape roleplay, but don't decide on a safe-word. In the middle of the act, the receiving partner changes their mind and starts screaming "no" and "stop". The giving partner interprets this as part of the roleplay, which makes perfect sense, and continues. Who's guilty/victim here? (Hint: it's a…

Nope, it's still the "giving partner's" (i.e. rapists) fault. If you're applying coercive force to someone, it's your responsibility to make sure that your actions are consensual. In this case, it's the dominant's responsibility to check in regularly.

[deleted]

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

#129

Post by deciplex »

Dr_tldr wrote: post #87
deciplex wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all protected classes under the law, so it doesn't hold up. It's the "and is probably a rapist" (or more likely to be than the average student) (according to the university's tribunal) which is the important part. "Is probably gay", "is probably transgendered", "is probably a jew" and "is probably disabled" are not analogous and I hope I don't have to explain why.

Ask anyone sufficiently conservative/radical feminist which groups of people they think are "probably rapists", and you get the same results as baseless discrimination but through a different explanation. People tend to think "probably" a lot more often with a lot less evidence about individuals or groups they dislike for any reason. For instance, I think you're probably a crypto-nazi and should lose your job, but th…

Good thing we're not talking about what some random person on the internet thinks, but rather a conclusion the university arrives at after a rigorous and hopefully well-defined process which still comes short of the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction.

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

#130

Post by chris_wot »

morgante wrote: post #112
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…

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?

Post reply on HN