Universities Under Investigation Re: Handling Sexual Assault

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Campus Police are real police officers.

Yes, some campuses have campus police who are sworn police officers. Some campuses have "campus/public safety/security" who are civilian security patrols. Some campuses have a "campus police/public safety/security" combination of sworn police officers and civilian security patrols.

I agree with AGDee.

Issues often arise because people (including students) often do not know the protocol. Campus police often do not have the same abilities as the city police and sheriff's departments and the level of deference to the city law enforcement can vary by the school and city. The campus civilian security patrols definitely do not have the same abilities and therefore have to defer to the city police and sheriff's offices. This process can be complicated for campus crimes including sexual assault and rape. It can be a difficult process of protecting the campus and students while protecting the institution (legally, etc), not ruffling feathers in the local police and sheriff's departments, and not losing jobs among campus police/campus security/public safety.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Yes, some campuses have campus police who are sworn police officers. Some campuses have "campus/public safety/security" who are civilian security patrols. Some campuses have a "campus police/public safety/security" combination of sworn police officers and civilian security patrols.

I agree with AGDee.

Issues often arise because people (including students) often do not know the protocol. Campus police often do not have the same abilities as the city police and sheriff's departments and the level of deference to the city law enforcement can vary by the school and city. The campus civilian security patrols definitely do not have the same abilities and therefore have to defer to the city police and sheriff's offices. This process can be complicated for campus crimes including sexual assault and rape. It can be a difficult process of protecting the campus and students while protecting the institution (legally, etc), not ruffling feathers in the local police and sheriff's departments, and not losing jobs among campus police/campus security/public safety.

I totally agree. Whoever decided on this system really screwed up. The Campus police, even when real police should be a division under the local city police. Actual crimes should NEVER be adjudicated by a college review board except as an adjunct to criminal proceedings.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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 problem with using a civil litigation burden of proof is mixing that with criminal-style penalties. Civil penalties are typically monetary awards paid to the other party, with maybe some injunctive relief or the like. And, of course, if this were to be treated as a civil action, then it's alleged victim vs. alleged assailant. But if the result of the proceeding could be the university taking disciplinary action, that is more akin to criminal penalties, and I think the higher burden of proof should apply, and it should university vs. alleged assailant.

[LillyPhi]

Johns Hopkins University needs to be added to the list of schools being investigated.

[DrPhil]

Some of these schools supposedly failed to give the alleged victim the complete ability to speak out, failed to inform the alleged victim of her or his rights, and failed to protect the victim.

Victims deserve all of these things (they don't negate the legal aspect of offender innocence until proven guilt) so I am interested in the details of the schools' failures.

[Low D Flat]

If it's his word against hers, SOMEONE is lying.

I don't agree. People can have different memories of the same event, especially when alcohol is involved. If you're describing your memory honestly, that's not lying, even if a neutral third-party witness would have recounted things differently.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

I don't agree. People can have different memories of the same event, especially when alcohol is involved. If you're describing your memory honestly, that's not lying, even if a neutral third-party witness would have recounted things differently.

This needs to be QFT.

[honorgal]

On of my peeves with the Winston case and the New York Times piece is the accusation that Florida State and the TPD protected him because he was their star football player. This narrative doesn't fit with the facts, but it's an easy sell to folks because using 20/20 hindsight is just human nature. When the alleged assault and initial investigation took place, Jameis Winston wasn't the star quarterback/Heisman contender that he was when the accusations were made public. He was a just another football player on the team, although the fans who follow recruiting closely would recognize his name.

In July of last year (after the Winston alleged assault but before it became public) the TPD charged Greg Dent, who was expected to be a starting receiver with the Seminoles, with sexual assault and the team suspended and then dismissed him.

Does it make sense that the police and the University would protect an unproven player while contemporaneously hanging a star out to dry immediately? No, it doesn't, but the media does love to sell their narrative to an unsuspecting public.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by honorgal

On of my peeves with the Winston case and the New York Times piece is the accusation that Florida State and the TPD protected him because he was their star football player. This narrative doesn't fit with the facts, but it's an easy sell to folks because using 20/20 hindsight is just human nature. When the alleged assault and initial investigation took place, Jameis Winston wasn't the star quarterback/Heisman contender that he was when the accusations were made public. He was a just another football player on the team, although the fans who follow recruiting closely would recognize his name.

In July of last year (after the Winston alleged assault but before it became public) the TPD charged Greg Dent, who was expected to be a starting receiver with the Seminoles, with sexual assault and the team suspended and then dismissed him.

Does it make sense that the police and the University would protect an unproven player while contemporaneously hanging a star out to dry immediately? No, it doesn't, but the media does love to sell their narrative to an unsuspecting public.

Does it really matter whether it was malice or incompetence? The bottom line here is that they did a shitty job of investigating.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Does it really matter whether it was malice or incompetence? The bottom line here is that they did a shitty job of investigating.

I don't know that they did or didn't, because we don't have all the facts. The school is constrained by very strict confidentiality rules (designed to protect victims) and the TPD is constrained by our legal system - ie, they need probable cause to arrest Winston. The accuser's attorney is under no such constraints and can lob accusations to the media.

The police report very clearly states that the investigation reached a point where the accuser was unsure of whether she wanted to go forward with a complaint. They left the case open, pending a time when the accuser might change her mind. The accuser's attorney has disputed this claim by TPD but has offered nothing to back it up.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Here's a nice link for everyone asking why a university would investigate at all:

http://powderroom.jezebel.com/three-...1572268737/all

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Here's a nice link for everyone asking why a university would investigate at all:

http://powderroom.jezebel.com/three-...1572268737/all

Did you read the police report, or just the news article (complete with glaring factual errors) that you linked to? The police would never be able to get a conviction against those guys.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Did you read the police report, or just the news article (complete with glaring factual errors) that you linked to? The police would never be able to get a conviction against those guys.

Which is precisely why the university should take action.

[AGDee]

Yes, a societal problem. But if the law said they can't prosecute, then how can the school take action? If the rapists fought the school, wouldn't the argument "You can't suspend me because even the district attorney said there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute" be sufficient to prevent the school from taking action?

[DrPhil]

Is it similar (like a school's version) to the burden of proof for a civil suit versus a criminal suit? The school can investigate and punish on the bases of upholding school policies and campus safety. Schools have their own committees and councils that handle campus concerns. The evidence needed to be punished will vary by school and is more along the lines of "just in case" rather than the same hard evidence required for criminal prosecution.