That’s my prediction as well, Bay. Neither side wants to go to trial.
Not saying this is the way it should be, just saying that this is the reason I think this happens: Because we’ve developed (not recently!—this dates back to at least the 1890s) a cultural assumption that those who head off to college are expected to exist in a state free of many social norms of behavior. This is why we have an expectation (whether warranted or not) that college students will automatically drink to excess, use illicit drugs, engage in wanton sexual experimentation, espouse non-mainstream sociopolitical ideologies, and so on. This is simply taken as a cultural given (and, like I said, it dates back a long, long time). This means, of course, that we expect college students to expose themselves to higher risks—and that’s resulted, over time, in treating college students differently.
Or, if the more lurid rumors are true,* you might even know that a person was so moral and non-rapey that you’d be cool with them being, say, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
- Not saying they are or not, just mentioning a current-news example to note that the issue goes beyond college campuses.
@dstark; @“Cardinal Fang” :the police will be permitted to testify that the accused said it. And yes, this will end in a plea.
I really disagree with this line of reasoning, at least in cases like this. You cannot compare how someone would feel given all the emotion involved with a son or daughter or other loved one with a person that is supposed to look at the case dispassionately. Surely that is obvious. There is a reason we would never allow a parent or other relative or even an acquaintance of a victim on the jury. If the line of reasoning you advocate is correct, then why not let them on the jury? It is absurd.
Sorry, but that is one of my pet peeves, along with things like “If you are innocent, why do you need a lawyer for the police to ask questions” or “If you have nothing to hide, why not let the police search your home without a warrant”? There is a reason innocent people sometimes end up in prison, and it isn’t usually because the authorities are corrupt. The kind of reasoning that looking at cases like this as if it were a son or daughter involved as the victim falls into the same kind of bad justice.
But it is also obvious that in such cases, the person is being a hypocrite. And we are right to call them on it.
Thanks for the link alh…I’ve been pondering this if late…the PC-ness and the protect at all costs movement that began a couple decades ago…those kids who were protected from swings and slides and each other on the playground are now on the adult playground of college campuses and while many of us used to (and probably stilll do) call campuses “life in the bubble”…to these kids who really did get raised in a germ-free, sanitized, bubble of sorts it has to be a shock to the system.
Well, of course, I’m advocating everyone come live in my bubble. It’s nice here. Room for all.
That is not what I said, but as usual you completely misrepresent something. I specifically excluded drunk driving when I said “committed acts against each other”. An injured pedestrian does not “commit an act against the driver of the car”, but I guess you either didn’t understand that, or ignored its meaning. Drunk driving is different than almost every other example, but I will give you a drunk driver example, even though this is not what I was referring to. I am not sure about criminal cases, but in civil cases there are many states where juries have to take into account whether someone was at fault in any wayregarding what happened. Maybe some of the lawyers can comment here. In case 1 a slightly drunk driver is driving along on a street and a couple of wasted pedestrians jump out from behind parked cars and get run over. In case two a sober elderly couple is walking and accidently steps into the street getting run over.
I know that the two cases are completely different in terms of the culpability of the drivers with regards to civil cases because I have been involved in several of those. I don’t know about criminal cases because I have no experience there, but I would not doubt that there is a difference. That is what I was talking about. That is a world of difference away from saying it is “ok”. I am extremely disappointed in your accusation and would have expected better from you.
TV4, we were talking about the Stanford case. The two people were not “committing acts” against each other. The woman was not committing any acts. She was unconscious.
Both of them were drunk, but only one of them was “committing acts.”
@fallenchemist, I don’t think what I wrote is a contradiction to what you are saying. I used the word think. I didn’t use the word emotion. I try not to think using my emotions. It is difficult at times.
My daughter has not been sexually asaulted so I don’t think I am thinking using emotion. If a student stuck his fingers into my daughter without her consent, I would want the student expelled before a trial. I expect the student to be expelled. I want the schools to be able to expel the student. So…I am not going to argue a perpetrator should not be expelled. If I really believe somebody who sticks his fingers into my daughter shouldn’t be expelled, ok…I can argue against schools expelling people.
If somebody killed my daughter, I would want emotionally to kill the killer. A little torture first. I don’t think I should really be allowed to do this. I don’t expect to be allowed to do this,
Intellectually, I want the school to be able to expel a student before a trial. Intellectually, I don’t want to be able to torture and then kill somebody.
@Demosthenes49, thanks.
Taylor withdrew and saved them the trouble of deciding what to do.
You mean Turner withdrew, @saintfan, right? But we don’t know what happened behind the scenes there. The university may have quietly suggested that he withdraw rather than being thrown out.
@“Cardinal Fang”: Not to put too fine a point on it, but unless I just missed something we actually do not know she was unconscious. We know she does not remember and we know she appeared unconscious when the bystanders came, but we don’t know whether she was conscious before then. I would not be surprised if that is precisely what the defense is arguing.
Obviously she was conscious at some point before. She was unconscious when he was doing whatever he was doing and apparently for several hours afterwards according to the reports. The law is if a reasonable person would know that the victim was unconscious or asleep and this seems like it would apply here.
NO WE WEREN’T. I specifically said I was excluding the Stanford case. I put in big bold cap letters that “I am not talking about the Stanford case”. I said I was talking about drunk consentual sex. You are lucky I am not a litigating type since you now have people liking your posts which claim I am making statements that I am not.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-20/stanford-decides-to-ban-students-found-guilty-of-sexual-assault
@saintfan, I am pretty sure Taylor is banned from Stanford.
We know that she was unresponsive when the two cyclists arrived. Presumably she was conscious at some point before then, because she walked out there.
The two cyclists, each separately, told the police that when they approached, she was not moving and appeared unconscious, and that’s why they circled back to investigate further. If they had thought it was two conscious students having sex, they would have done nothing. That’s a bad fact pattern for the defense.
A Stanford rep said Turner (Taylor) is not allowed to return to the university or register for classes, so it sounds like Stanford did decide what to do, even if Turner officially withdrew voluntarily.
@saintfan: unless there are facts I’m missing, we have no evidence that she was unconscious during. We are simply assuming that because she was unconscious when the bystanders arrived. Now, the fact that he was on top of her when they showed up is definitely a bad fact for the defense, since it requires them to prove continuing consent (technically the prosecution has to prove its lack but really, it’s up to the defense) but it is not dispositive.
If the digital penetration occurred while she was conscious, and she does not remember, then it will be hard to prove lack of consent. Other charges may still stick, though I haven’t reviewed CA criminal law in a while so I would have to look into it.