Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby
I don't believe the standard for "guilt" should be anywhere near that of the formal judicial system. If the accused is assumed innocent, the accuser is therefore assumed to be lying. Why doesn't the accuser get the benefit of the doubt? You cannot simultaneously believe in the innocence of both parties. If it's his word against hers, SOMEONE is lying.
Now, do I think we should just go around kicking people out of school every time there is an accusation? No. But I think, in a university setting, the burden of proof should be much more akin to that of a civil trial, i.e. 51%, and that they should be able to look at things like patterns of behavior, e.g. if someone is accused three times but none of them can be "proven," you need to look at why this individual keeps getting accused.
|
The issue is the "specialness" of a college campus. If a college chooses to take action against a student based on their investigation, that is fine, *but* that should be completely separate from whether a criminal investigation occurs. I have no problem with the concept of a Campus Security, but they should *not* have police powers. We would *never* allow Security at a shopping mall to give different justice based on whether one or both of the people involved is a shopper.
If a woman reports a rape, it shouldn't matter whether the event happened on campus, off campus, whether the attacker is a student or whether the woman is.
