Rape that never happened

[Revoltingest]

Reminds me of the case of Timothy Cole. The rape happened, but he didn't do it. He was sentenced to 25 years. In the 25th year, he was pardoned. However, he had already been dead for 10 years.

He died of an asthma attack in prison. The rapist was said to have been smoking during the rape. And Cole never smoked because he had asthma. How this didn't come up before he was found guilty is a mystery to me.

Prosecutors are all about winning.
Little inconveniences like exculpating evidence don't stand in the way.
And as we see, clamor to punish someone....anyone, will result in a rush to judgement.
Sound cynical?
I've seen too many cases IRL up close.

 

[SomeRandom]

But he hasn't been found guilty.
Therefore, he's just as entitled to a hostility free environment as womenfolk.
Some women dishonestly or mistakenly accuse men of crimes.
Everyone is entitled to due process.
Denied that, he's entitled to damages from the perps.

That's why I said IF.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's why I said IF.

I noticed.
But from a public policy standpoint.
Everyone is innocent until convicted.
This seemed worth stressing.

 

[SomeRandom]

I noticed.
But from a public policy standpoint.
Everyone is innocent until convicted.
This seemed worth stressing.

Fair enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough.

You're being way to polite.
At least give me a raspberry.....you know....."Pbbbbbbt!".

 

[SomeRandom]

You're being way to polite.
At least give me a raspberry.....you know....."Pbbbbbbt!".

My apologies, I just come off shift and so I am stuck in Retail mode.
Is this better?

**** you're just a woman hating jerk who sides with rapists!!!

 

[Revoltingest]

My apologies, I just come off shift and so I am stuck in Retail mode.
Is this better?

**** you're just a woman hating jerk who sides with rapists!!!

Ahhhh....I feel more at home now!

 

[Revoltingest]

Due process requirement enforced by court....
UC San Diego didn't give male student fair trial in sex case, judge rules - LA Times

 

[freethinker44]

I don't think universities or corporations should have this kind of authority. Their actions against suspected criminals should only be limited to the judgements of the justice system, however flawed that may be.

 

[Politesse]

It's not only the right but the responsibility of the school to provide a safe environment for students. Decisions made by a school don't have any legal weight, beyond deciding what the school will do about a particular student. Taking them away would hamper the school's ability to respond to threats that are less serious legally but still a problem for the university.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not only the right but the responsibility of the school to provide a safe environment for students. Decisions made by a school don't have any legal weight, beyond deciding what the school will do about a particular student. Taking them away would hamper the school's ability to respond to threats that are less serious legally but still a problem for the university.

This is complicated by the fact that this university is an arm of the state government,
which imposes a higher burden of judicial due process than if they were a private organization.

 

[freethinker44]

It's not only the right but the responsibility of the school to provide a safe environment for students. Decisions made by a school don't have any legal weight, beyond deciding what the school will do about a particular student. Taking them away would hamper the school's ability to respond to threats that are less serious legally but still a problem for the university.

I wouldn't say that schools shouldn't be able to discipline students for legal transgressions, but I think they shouldn't be able to discipline students if the government has cleared them of wrong doing.

This is complicated by the fact that this university is an arm of the state government,
which imposes a higher burden of judicial due process than if they were a private organization.

This is another problem I have with this. It essentially means the state is trying someone twice for the same crime. I saw this all the time when I was in the Army. Someone would get in trouble off-post, most commonly a DUI, then they go through the court system and pay their fines and then get charged under UCMJ for the same thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't say that schools shouldn't be able to discipline students for legal transgressions, but I think they shouldn't be able to discipline students if the government has cleared them of wrong doing.

This is another problem I have with this. It essentially means the state is trying someone twice for the same crime. I saw this all the time when I was in the Army. Someone would get in trouble off-post, most commonly a DUI, then they go through the court system and pay their fines and then get charged under UCMJ for the same thing.

Government tries in many ways to get around the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

 

[Politesse]

This is complicated by the fact that this university is an arm of the state government,
which imposes a higher burden of judicial due process than if they were a private organization.

Yes. This isn't really a judicial process, though. The problem comes from trying to treat it like one. You don't actually have a natural right to be a student, even at a state school; a person can be suspended or otherwise disciplined without it becoming a legal matter. I agree that the school acted poorly in this case, and I am not saying a school's actions should go above review. But neither do I think it would help anything to hamstring the school's ability to deal with its own students without involving the court system. In effect, turning every classroom disturbance into a crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. This isn't really a judicial process, though. The problem comes from trying to treat it like one. You don't actually have a natural right to be a student, even at a state school; a person can be suspended or otherwise disciplined without it becoming a legal matter. I agree that the school acted poorly in this case, and I am not saying a school's actions should go above review. But neither do I think it would help anything to hamstring the school's ability to deal with its own students without involving the court system. In effect, turning every classroom disturbance into a crime.

Whether the right to be a student is "natural" or some other kind of right, the state has a legal obligation to treat students fairly.
This court case is one of a great many which uphold students' deserving fair treatment, eg, in admissions.
Of course, this not to say the university must hold full blown court trials....just that they may not be so cavalier about something so important.

 

[Musty]

More news of false rape accusations...
Backlash: College men challenge 'guilty until proven innocent' standard for sex assault cases | WashingtonExaminer.com

Rape-victim advocacy groups argue that protecting the identify of the accused allows them to continue committing crimes if they walk free but on the other hand innocent men's reputations and lives are ruined by false accusations even if they are found to be innocent in court.

It's a difficult issue to resolve since whichever way you go is going to result in suffering. Although I favour protecting the identity of the accused from reputational damage unless they are found guilty I wouldn't be happy knowing that an actual rapist walked free and was able to harm someone else because nobody was aware that concerns had been raised in the past.

I don't know what the right answer is or if there even is one.

 

[gsa]

Rape-victim advocacy groups argue that protecting the identify of the accused allows them to continue committing crimes if they walk free but on the other hand innocent men's reputations and lives are ruined by false accusations even if they are found to be innocent in court.

It's a difficult issue to resolve since whichever way you go is going to result in suffering. Although I favour protecting the identity of the accused from reputational damage unless they are found guilty I wouldn't be happy knowing that an actual rapist walked free and was able to harm someone else because nobody was aware that concerns had been raised in the past.

I don't know what the right answer is or if there even is one.

I would have more sympathy for this position if you enjoyed that right in criminal proceedings. But you do not: Even if you are found not guilty or the charges are dismissed for insufficient evidence (lack of probable cause) or for some other reason, it is still a matter of public record. So why should people involved in quasi-judicial proceedings be given more rights, given the relaxed evidentiary standards and far less important consequences?

The same is true for the rape shield laws. If criminal accusers cannot probe into the sexual history of complainants in criminal proceedings, there's no reason that they should be able to do this in an administrative quasi-judicial proceeding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rape-victim advocacy groups argue that protecting the identify of the accused allows them to continue committing crimes if they walk free but on the other hand innocent men's reputations and lives are ruined by false accusations even if they are found to be innocent in court.

It's a difficult issue to resolve since whichever way you go is going to result in suffering. Although I favour protecting the identity of the accused from reputational damage unless they are found guilty I wouldn't be happy knowing that an actual rapist walked free and was able to harm someone else because nobody was aware that concerns had been raised in the past.

I don't know what the right answer is or if there even is one.

I don't have a solution.
I have only a preferred approach....
Have a high standard of justice which is applied uniformly.

 

[gsa]

Due process requirement enforced by court....
UC San Diego didn't give male student fair trial in sex case, judge rules - LA Times

Skimming that decision, I think that the judge did the right thing. Basically, the hearing officer refused to let the accused cross-examine the accuser. Cross-examination is fundamental in any contested evidentiary hearing; you can't plausibly have due process without it. After eliminating a number of proposed questions, the hearing officer also allowed the accuser to avoid providing a response to at least 2 of the cross-examination questions that the officer did allow. Among the excluded questions were text messages between the accuser and accused going to the heart of the consent defense.

Even worse, the hearing panel relied on an investigative report from the UCSD Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination to substantiate the sexual assault findings. Neither the investigator nor the witnesses she interviewed were present to testify, and the accused student did not have the ability to cross-examine them or contest the investigator's findings. The panel also held his invocation of his right not to self-incriminate against him. And when he appealed the decision, the panel penalized him by increasing the severity of the punishment!

No, that's Kafkaesque, even for an administrative hearing. People involved in unemployment disputes enjoy way more due process than that.

 

[gsa]

Yes. This isn't really a judicial process, though. The problem comes from trying to treat it like one. You don't actually have a natural right to be a student, even at a state school; a person can be suspended or otherwise disciplined without it becoming a legal matter. I agree that the school acted poorly in this case, and I am not saying a school's actions should go above review. But neither do I think it would help anything to hamstring the school's ability to deal with its own students without involving the court system. In effect, turning every classroom disturbance into a crime.

Except Title IX almost forces it to be a judicial process, because it requires an investigation into complaints of sexual harassment and violence, and remedial action where the investigation reveals, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was sexual harassment or sexual violence. This includes sanctions against students who are found to have engaged in prohibited sexual harassment or violence. And that is what triggers the due process rights.

To be honest, I find the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights guidance on these points to be ridiculous and inadequate. School officials who follow these guidelines, including the screening of questions for cross-examination, are likely to run afoul of federal and state constitutional requirements, a point that the OCR alludes to but doesn't address. Like this advice:

OCR strongly discourages a school from allowing the parties to personally question or cross-examine each other during a hearing on alleged sexual violence. Allowing an alleged perpetrator to question a complainant directly may be traumatic or intimidating, and may perpetuate a hostile environment. A school may choose, instead, to allow the parties to submit questions to a trained third party (e.g., the hearing panel) to ask the questions on their behalf. OCR recommends that the third party screen the questions submitted by the parties and only ask those it deems appropriate and relevant to the case.

That's exactly what the judge in this case found to be a violation of the accused student's due process rights.

I do not want to minimize the failure of Title IX compliance at some schools, much of that being what prompted these guidelines and the crackdown by the DoE and individual universities. Tufts is an extreme case, but they clearly botched compliance. And I doubt that they were an isolated example. But unfortunately, these guidelines give very short shrift to the rights of the accused in hearings on sexual harassment and violence.