Universities Under Investigation Re: Handling Sexual Assault

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't see how the two situations are really comparable. The only thing which is actually preventable by a proper system is the not kicking innocent men off out of school. You can't prevent a rape that has already happened.



How about state and federal legislation to make sex crimes complaints in university settings mandated reporting like child abuse? I am not comfortable with university administrators handling these issues. We have a criminal justice system for a reason, and if there's not enough evidence to convict criminally, then we shouldn't allow men to be penalized simply for being accused.

I'd like clarification on what you mean by mandated reporting? Do you mean mandated reporting to the police/criminal justice system and then let them handle it?

[Kevin]

Yes.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

My issue is with a system that increases the likelihood that innocent men will be kicked off campus because that result does nothing to address the problem of an innocent woman having been raped, to punish wrong conduct or to reduce rape.

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.

If you want to argue that the side effects outweigh the benefits of the system, fine, but call it what it is.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes.

Well, that would be the sane thing to do, but we are well passed that. It's a crisis.

[honorgal]

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.

If you want to argue that the side effects outweigh the benefits of the system, fine, but call it what it is.

Do you think we should lower the standard to "preponderance of the evidence" for rapes outside of the campus setting, for women not in college?

[ASTalumna06]

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.

If you want to argue that the side effects outweigh the benefits of the system, fine, but call it what it is.

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.

Originally Posted by honorgal

Well, that would be the sane thing to do, but we are well passed that. It's a crisis.

Ya know when you've heard/read a word over and over again and it eventually just sounds weird? Yea, that.

[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.

[Kevin]

It also occurs to me that an inevitability of victimizing men who are simply accused of rape would further stigmatize rape victims as often being liars and often wielding a rape accusation as a form of power over men to be used arbitrarily and indiscriminately. Imagine fostering a culture where accused rapists begin to be viewed as victims. How does anyone win in that scenario?

[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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Imagine fostering a culture where accused rapists begin to be viewed as victims.

You don't think this is exactly the scenario we live with today?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

You don't think this is exactly the scenario we live with today?

That literally made me laugh out loud.

[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".

[DrPhil]

If one more person types the phrase "false dichotomy" I am closing this thread. SydneyK started that phrase trend.

/not a moderator

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

/not a moderator