However, it is likely that many people have a NIMBY like view on this. I.e. they may think “yes, they should be able to get honest jobs, attend school, live wherever, and vote after completing their sentences, but not in my workplace, school, or neighborhood” even when the crime is unrelated to the situation.
This is very important and something that is worth discussion. Unfortunately, in today’s world, there is an ever increasing number of subjects that people shy away from discussing. This is probably the one that leads the list.
There are over 100 views and 0 comments.
My son’s school had the students watch this. I thought it was well done…
Well done Hanna.
A couple of points. Many of these school cases don’t rise to criminal behavior.
Second, by basically sticking our heads in the sand with regard to alcohol we have created all sorts of unintended consequences. The move to hard liquor is one. Beer used to by the entry level drink as in many places it was legal. Vodka is clear and now flavored. Kids fill up water bottles with it. They have no idea that you can drink it faster than it affects you and boom you have a problem.
I think it’s a fine line. We must take accusations seriously. At the same time, there are devastating consequences for people who are wrongly, or inappropriately, accused of these actions. I think the question I came away with is this: Aren’t both men and women responsible for acknowledging that they can make mistakes? Is a mistake necessarily a crime, and is it right for an alleged victim to report someone involved in the crime, when it may well be more along the lines of a poor choice? Does the mistake made by the alleged perpetrator constitute a crime, or poor judgement?
I think I need to listen to Part 1.
Part 3 was also released today if anyone is interested.
Thanks for the nudge. I listened to part one and found it so disturbing I have avoided listening to the remaining parts. I will do it now.
We can believe the girl (or boy in some cases) and let her present the facts of what happened, but we need to be careful of letting her categorize the facts. She should not get to say ‘I was assaulted.’ She should get to say ‘I was touched here and here, I was kissed when I didn’t want to be’ but the hearing board, jury, judge should decide if that was an assault by definition.
Just because a girl says she was touched doesn’t mean it’s true. Before a committee can decide if the report (not “facts”) meets a certain definition they should attempt to determine whether or not it’s actually true.
Federal funding is tied to the outcome of these cases. If a school finds in favor of the boys more often than the feds think they should, the school will come under review and their federal funding will be in jeopardy. The panel in these cases is made up of school employees. If a school is under review, how much chance is there that the next boy who’s accused will be found not guilty? The people who get to decide their fate shouldn’t have a vested interest in the outcome. These cases belong in the courts where the accused have rights.
I thought Kaitlin Prest was a poor exponent for her cause, and Hanna a good exponent for hers. In a legalistic, fact-finding situation, we can’t possibly let how she felt determine whether he assaulted her.
But then when I got to the brief interviews with the young men, wow, I don’t have a lot of sympathy. Well, I don’t think I assaulted you but I was really drunk and don’t remember what happened, please explain it to me is not as exculpatory as that young man thinks it is.