Without trying to blame the victims, because I don’t believe that, I would love to see college women start to boycott parties where they do not feel safe or are treated as objects. One article or blog or something talked about frat parties where the girls were taken into a dark room and started dancing (likely having pre-gamed in their room) and then the boys would dance by rubbing up against them. If getting into a frat party like that is considered the coolest weekend activity, then perhaps that is adding to a negative campus culture. If the women boycotted those events, the culture might change more quickly as the boys really want the girls to show up.
From what my HS son tells me, they are being taught about affirmative consent, not drinking to excess etc. He is not interested in the frat scene, but many of his friends are. Not sure the current educational approach is getting through.
So in a courtroom the other alleged victim can testify about the alleged rapist’s MO? So the in the Jian Ghomeshi trial, if one accuser testifies that Ghomeshi turned his teddy bear to the wall (seriously, one of the alleged victims said that) then another accuser can testify that he did the same?
So then if the accuser at a college says the guy raped her in her dorm room in some certain way, we shouldn’t be able to listen to an accuser who said he groped her at a party, but we should be able to listen to another accuser who says he raped her in a similar way? I’d be fine with that.
I think that’s fine too. It establishes a solid link between Crime #2 and Crime #1 (like my single bullet theory, * pace* Earl Warren, or the one lone rapist per zip code example). I think there are some safeguards in a real court so this isn’t some kind of crazy loophole - the judge determines whether the evidential value exceeds the prejudicial value. But as long as the specifics of the two crimes are linked by somewhat distinctive features, then I’m fine with it.
@pittsburghscribe Could I ask you what are the rules in civil trials regarding introducing past lawsuits filed/won/lost? These college hearings are some chimera of civil + criminal + their own thing, but to me it seems like civil is a much bigger portion than criminal. Certainly the liberty issues are more analogous.
Mom2and, a majority of the victims of assault are not getting to the court room. The conviction rates are low. The information is out there. I have provided enough links already.
I agree that money plays a very big role in our legal system. Definitely affects cases. I know this first hand.
Pittsburghscribe, just take it as a given that I love your posts.
dstark:* You don’t ask for power. Power is something you take.*
Maybe it’s true on Dallas. But in my opinion it should be about doing what’s right. Preventing sexual assault isn’t an issue that should be an us vs. them issue. Universities above all should be about persuasion, not power.
[/quote]
“us vs. them” - Does this mean “women vs. men”? I don’t see it as women against men, but all of us against rapists. We are all in this together.
521, al2simon:
[quote]
I'm going to buy a bomb shelter in Tahiti. Let me know when you've exterminated all the guys so I can come out. I'll volunteer to help repopulate the Earth, accompanied by a notary public to witness signatures of course ;) Probably more fun than discussing math.
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone has advocated exterminating “all the guys” (and now I find myself channeling Hunt :))
Men can believe rape culture exists (and patriarchy and male gaze) without being sexist, rapists, or any kind of bad guys. Recognizing white privilege doesn’t make someone racist. Recognizing homophobia doesn’t make someone a homophobe.
…
I am trying to stay somewhat on topic, and not go off into the wilderness on my own thread that exists only in my head, even though I have lots and lots of thoughts about al2simon’s recent posts.
@"Cardinal Fang" - yes, typically you can introduce evidence of MO - if a serial killer always leaves a ribbon tied around the victim’s toe or the teddy bear example that you cited (I read that as well and that is so weird and creepy - okay to rape, but God forbid the teddy bear sees!).
@al2simon - If I’m understanding your question correctly, you are asking about whether a defendant’s past convictions or judgments rendered against him can be admitted in a civil action. I would highly doubt (but don’t recall ever looking at this issue) that prior civil judgments would be admitted. With respect to past conviction, I believe typically (state laws can vary - actually can vary as well with respect to criminal) would not allow past conviction even in same incident as proof of underlying facts. May be different where defendant has pled guilty and/or where he takes the stand (past conviction, depending on crime, may sometimes be allowed to impeach the defendant as with any other witness with respect to credibility for truthfulness).
I am no longer practicing as an attorney and when I did I typically handled large commercial cases so a lot of this is based on my recollection of criminal law from law school. Hopefully, I’m not giving everyone false info, but I think I’m remembering correctly!
Yes, but people only boycott things they do not like or do not want to go to but are forced to. If the women were being forced into the rooms to dance, I get the concept of a boycott. If they are going willingly, then a boycott call would fall on deaf ears.
If there is a pattern of behavior it can come in but whether forcing a kiss on someone in a bar is similar enough to rape is an open question. I doubt it would make the cut, but it could depending on the judge.
To me, the system favors neither but requires evidence that the accused committed the crime. Unfortunately, even when we whole-heartedly believe the victim, it may not be enough to prove the case either in a court of law or in a campus tribunal.
Rather than boycotting, I’d rather see people who would prefer a somewhat different kind of party start having those parties. I don’t understand why sorority women are ceding their social life to fraternity men. If they would prefer a party where there was less risk that they’d be raped, why aren’t they having parties where there is less risk they’ll be raped? If women would prefer having parties where they aren’t judged like cuts of meat at the door, they should start having parties where they aren’t judged like meat. And the college should support those social events.
And sorority women may be in a unique situation to take the lead here. They are supposed to be sisterhood groups, supporting their own. Dstark and al2simon discussed power a bit. I agree with dstark about power. Sorority women can make new rules and control the mating dance. They can take that power away from the fraternities.
alh - Good point about the “power” quote. I was in a feisty mood when I read the quote, so I took it in the ruthless, zero-sum spirit that the J.R. character probably meant it. But if that’s what you folks mean by taking power, then go for it!
You seem to have been following the UVa sorority thing of a couple weeks ago. Curious about your take on it. I thought I read a lot of quotes from UVa women who were opposed to the national’s diktat. Lots of possible explanations, but here’s one of the worst - is it possible that the sororities value their social life too much to make the type of changes you are suggesting? Do you have guess?
And the exterminate thing was a bad attempt at a bad joke. But substantively - even though I’m pretty supportive of the need to address this problem, I care more about due process and fairness. It’s also a moral imperative. I’d rather make the colleges single-sex than give too much ground on this - and that’s not going to happen. And I thought some of the discussion and suggestions being made were a bridge too far. I’ve got a protect the underdog instinct. Maybe that’s why you see me flip-flopping a bit.
I can see that, al2simon, because I’m flipflopping on the harassment issue at Columbia. On the one hand, Nungesser should be free of harassment. On the other hand, Sulkowicz has free speech rights. I guess I come down with-- there have been cases where accusers’ free speech rights have been denied (eg they were forbidden to talk about the tribunal at all or even say they’d been raped), and there have been cases where accused students were harassed (maybe the UNC case is one of them) but for me, the Columbia case falls in the middle. She should be allowed to say she was raped, she should be allowed to carry bedding around, and she certainly should be allowed to go to the police and make an accusation.
Would she have more freedom to harass if he had been found not guilty in a court of law? Certainly the Goldman family continued to harass OJ long after his acquittal and many still publicly label Casey Anthony a murderer. People protest verdicts or findings all the time; sometimes to the detriment of the person exonerated and sometimes to the detriment of whole cities.
The Goldman family won a civil suit against OJ and the verdict in that case was a little unusual due the the decision to move the trial downtown, which was an effort to be fair but in retrospect was a big fail.Of course,people disagree with verdicts all the time and that is fine and dandy and expected. Harassment is a different thing, though. I don’t know if what she is doing is harassment outside of the campus environment where I think it probably is, but in the real world nobody much cares about mattress girl. She’s living in an activist bubble where she’s a hero. But, it’s not a big bubble.
People don’t just disagree with verdicts Marie, they protest verdicts, destroy cities or continue to publicly proclaim people are murderers or whatever else, even after they have been exonerated in a court of law. I am just wondering if people think Emma would or should have more freedom to do the same if Paul had been convicted in a court of law. She is just carrying a mattress after all.
Yes but the college likely has a policy against bullying and harassment which makes it different than the outside world. To me, the harassment comes because the stated purpose of her project is to get him to leave Columbia or to have him expelled. If that happens, she said she will put down her mattress (you can see the words she wrote in the NY times article about her project).
As to the alternative parties, there are probably many alternatives to those kinds of parties that many kids participate in. But some of them want to go to frat parties. Going only to frat parties (or equivalent high social status parties) where women demand and are treated with respect, but still have a good time, and avoiding those that don’t, may make a difference. Lots of women already avoid these types of events, but still seem to be very popular on some campuses.
