Universities Under Investigation Re: Handling Sexual Assault

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

That makes no sense whatsoever. You are taking one side effect of a system, saying that particular side effect doesn't contribute to the system's intended purpose, and then concluding that the entire system should be throw out. That's like saying I shouldn't go running because one result of running is that my clothing gets sweaty and sweaty clothing doesn't help me lose weight.

Side effect? Isn't the whole point of the system we're talking about to punish rapists and protect women from them? If innocent men are punished, that's not a side effect—that's a failure of the system to do what it's supposed to be doing. An occasional failure may be unavoidable, but surely the goal should be to try and avoid failures.

In any justice system, there is always the chance that innocent people will be punished, but a competent justice system does what it can to minimize that risk. What you have suggested, as I understand, would increase that risk.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand this metaphor.

The point is, you can't punish a person for something they didn't do (which is essentially what you're proposing). This would open a door that no one wants to open, both in terms of rape and many other issues plaguing college campuses.

Exactly.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Side effect? Isn't the whole point of the system we're talking about to punish rapists and protect women from them? If innocent men are punished, that's not a side effect—that's a failure of the system to do what it's supposed to be doing. An occasional failure may be unavoidable, but surely the goal should be to try and avoid failures.

In any justice system, there is always the chance that innocent people will be punished, but a competent justice system does what it can to minimize that risk. What you have suggested, as I understand, would increase that risk.

No, a competent justice system balances the risk of innocent people being punished against the risk of letting the guilty go without consequences. Minimizing the chance that innocent people will be punished is simple...don't have a justice system at all.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

No, a competent justice system balances the risk of innocent people being punished against the risk of letting the guilty go without consequences. Minimizing the chance that innocent people will be punished is simple...don't have a justice system at all.

I feel like you're presenting a little bit of a false dichotomy here, i.e., either we punish more innocent people and consider things better/safer OR we have no justice system at all.

What is wrong with requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

[honorgal]

Blackstone's ratio:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

It is individuals who break laws, while government administers justice (by determining guilt).

John Adams explains the importance of this principle:

"It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever".