Then change the policies so that the accused get due process, instill different levels of punishment depending on the circumstances of the event, and create a better definition for affirmative consent.
At my school, if the accused is found guilty by majority vote, then the panel decides a sanction by majority vote that could be a warning, probation, revocation of awards, restricted access to university activities, moving residence, mandatory training, etc. Sanctions like expulsion or revocation of a degree must be decided unanimously. Things like the circumstances surrounding lack of consent; the accused’s state of mind (bias-motivated, reckless, negligent, etc.), his/her behavior during the investigation, and the safety of the university community are all considered.
What if men learn that they technically have this power too and start falsely accusing women?
A system that doesn’t assume guilt, and the fact that evidence isn’t always nonexistent, has to limit this growth.
The false accusations slip through the system because they seem isolated and sporadic. But if large numbers of people start getting falsely accused and make it public, then it has to gain someone’s attention. And knowing that a large number of false accusations hurts the credibility of actual rape victims, there might be a policy change to counteract this.
Defensive steps like what? Dressing differently? Not leaving the house at night? Avoiding parties and relationships? If someone is being continuously threatened with a false accusation, he/she needs to tell someone about it. File a report for harassment or domestic violence. Record or videotape the threats. Save phone calls, texts, etc. Keep a running documentation of what is said. I think a falsely accused person would have a harder time if the person accused him/her out of the blue versus trying to use it as leverage.
It’s not just about fearing penalties or being publicly outed as a victim. It’s about shame, or not trusting the justice system (knowing how few people get convicted), or not realizing that something was rape, or thinking that they won’t be believed (nudge, nudge). That doesn’t mean the person isn’t guilty at all. I do agree that actual victims should be encouraged to file reports as soon as possible and get a rape kit done; even if they decide not to report, that evidence can be preserved. People seeking closure should be encouraged to talk to a therapist or a support group, because even late reporting of a crime can be arduous, traumatic, and ultimately unfruitful for victims.
Or as in stop sex and get out the phone every time you want to say, “Are you still all right with this?” or “Would you be okay with this next?” That’s impractical. Also for the video to not be completely embarrassing if you needed it in court, you’d probably have to get partially dressed every single time.
I would like to see cameras on college campuses with a circular 7 day memory, or 48 hours. If people don’t know which ones are real or what direction they are pointed, you could ask people what the camera should have saw, and then check it afterward.
As for bedrooms, technically you should not film without someone’s consent. However, if the only reason the school knows about the tape is because you happen to have that time taped, I think it should be admissible in trial with no penalty. That way would be lairs know there might be a tape. Then, you ask them under penalty of perjury what the tape should show. After they answer, you then let the court know if you even have such a tape. Bluffing is OK.
The problem is this only works on milder cases. If someone is up for a serious crime, they will lie, knowing the penalty for their crime is already so high. Unless we say, truth gets 10 years and lie gets life. Maybe that would work.
People under pressure are notorious for getting their story wrong, even if they are trying to tell the truth. That is why OCR wants to ban cross examining the accused. I think they should have just said that both need to be cross examined and that just because they get some of their story wrong does not mean they are guilty of perjury; it should just make their story less believable.
The reason we have campus tribunals is our current court system is so messed up that justice can only be had on campus. Unfortunately, many campus tribunal rules are messed up too, and the laws non-democratic.
The definition of due process in most courts is the ability of lawyers to prevent the other side from presenting its case, using technicalities to have it thrown out. With nothing to present, that side loses by default.
My definition of due process is that both sides get to present their case. The judge may educate the jury as to why something should not be admissible, but the jurors should have final say. The sides should not be able to force their opponent to answer any question; however, the jury should hear everything and be able to draw conclusions from such refusal. The judge should be a time keeper and order keeper, guaranteeing each side an equal amount of time to present their case. If a question is not fair, or a witness is biased, tell the jury that. Then let them decide. That is what I say.
Courts also let lawyers question prospective jurors to predict how they might vote and get rid of any “biased” ones. I say that is stacking the jury, and we should only eliminate those who know the people involved and might feel pressured to side with one of them. Other than that, the jury should be randomly selected in a way that makes them a cross section of society. 6 men an 6 women every time, and variety of ages and incomes.
I also say we get rid of 12 to convict. That just about guarantees hung juries and temps prosecutors to cut corners, which is not democratic. I say let each juror pick a penalty, then order them from harshest to least harsh, and the 8th harshest one prevails. That means 4 can vote to nullify if they want, and a conviction still happens, but 2/3 think it should be at least that high. State law could set a maximum but not minimum, or we could require jurors to think about it 24 hours if the penalty is more than 6 months.
The problem with my system is it is too fair. The powerful want control over the jury, and want them to be forced to choose between extremes so that defense lawyers can acquit those who pay. The extremes also are great for scaring people into plea bargaining. I saw there should be no plea bargains. Just let the jury decide how confident they are of guilt and pick a penalty they feel comfortable with. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt should not be needed except to give the higher penalties. The only exception is it should take 11/12 to give someone a publicly searchable record.
The vast majority of reported rapes are not false accusations
Regretting an encounter the morning after is an overused trope. Yes, it DOES happen, but not often enough to treat all rape victims like liars
Continuous, enthusiastic consent is not a boner killer. "God I want to kiss you." "Do you like that?" "Do you want me to x?" Ever had that stuff seductively whispered in your ear?
PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR PARTNER. What are they saying, how are they moving, what noises are they making. If they don't seem "into it", STOP and ask them. Checking in with your partner is way more important than "ruining the mood"
if someone is passed out/unconscious/asleep, do not have sex with them or molest them. If someone is awake but unable to hold a coherent conversation, do not have sex with them or molest them. If a person cannot walk under their own power, is stumbling, or is slurring their words, do not have sex with them.
if the above is not true but you observe someone drinking a lot or you just met them and have no idea how much they've drunk, you probably shouldn't have sex with them.
Drinking to excess, wearing skimpy clothes, or walking alone at night NEVER EVER excuses rape (applies to any gender). You could get into someone's white van for free candy and if the driver of the van had nonconsenual sex with you THEY ARE STILL GUILTY OF RAPE
IDEALLY, no one should drink to excess because it can literally kill you. Not because you could get raped or regret sex the next morning, but because getting blackout drunk. CAN. KILL. YOU.
Not yet. When people know they can be cross examined, and that there are penalties, it scares 90% of true victims and likely 99% of would be false accusers from doing so. Take that away, let them file the charge without having to look the other person in the eyes, and the ratio will likely change.
Just as women can be afraid to say no, men can be afraid of accusation and do things for women they would not otherwise do. They might be afraid to break up or say no when proposed to. The ability to get a conviction on her word against his, 51%, is that scary. It gives women tremendous power. I don’t think that is the best way to end rape.
“Do you like that?” is AFTER the fact. The law says we must ask before the fact. There is no end to the number of places you mandate a guy to keep asking or else be guilty of rape by your definition. All guys want is for women to have some tiny bit of responsibility to tell us. Yes, we do pay attention. But you are saying that if we see her acting enthusiastic, that is not enough. We have to keep asking like we have a gun pointed at our heads the whole time.
So if we see them moving or making noises, is that enough? It seems from your early statement it is not, and we must ask even then. Do you not see how a guy has so many things to do to not be guilty of rape under your definition? Meanwhile, the woman is under no such threat.
You need to accept the fact that there is a huge difference between ignoring a no, vs failing to ask 1 out of 100 places you think guys should ask. Asking 100 times is ridiculous. The penalty here should be fair smaller, certainly not a suspension or any kind of record marking, if it seems the guy was trying to be attentive.
I completely agree with you here. If a woman is standing in the middle of the room laughing, not paying attention to those around her, or sitting in a chair looking at the texture of the wall, she is not able to consent to even kissing, by my standards.
I agree about inserting a pen, if you saw someone drinking a lot. I also think people should not insert a pen in someone they just met who is drinking, unless they know it was not much. However, people kiss and grope each other at parties all the time. Labeling that as sexual assault is just wrong, if the person welcomes it.
No one in this thread every implied otherwise. Your all caps implies someone said that. Please retract that implication.
I am all for discouraging drinking. I don’t drink. But it is hard to find people to socialize with if I require that my friends be sober, since it seems everyone drinks. I think we should charge students with “underage delinquency”, or “contributing to underage delinquency”, instead of using rape convictions to discourage drinking.
Also, students drink because they have nothing else to do at 2:00. We should eliminate curfews and let people go look at the stars, instead of outshining them and only have bars open that late at night.
@PrivateConundrum
I believe that 75% of accusations are true, currently. I but I also believe that when the rules are changed, so will the ratios change. And if men know they are an accusation away from expulsion, they will not be able to study. I dropped out of graduate school voluntarily because I was that scared by my schools rules. I’ve not dating anyone at my school, nor do I plan to as long as the rules are how they are.
At my school, a simple majority is enough to expel, and the jury does not get to hear any evidence presented by either side directly. Each side presents their evidence or questions to the chair, who silently reads them and decides what to present or ask, which is all the jury gets to hear. That means the chair has all the power.
They won’t. They will never believe that they will be taken seriously. The woman could file a counter claim, and the man would likely be at a disadvantage in the eyes of any jury. Men also have a culturally ingrained believe to not complain about women touching them sexually unless it is their supervisor at work.
Thousands have been accused on campus. They do not want to go public. The stigma of rape accusation is so harmful to a reputation that they are afraid to even accept offers of free help from lawyers, for fear of their name being put out there. They go to psychiatric institutions instead.
Making an accusation carries some stigma too, but not nearly as much as it did. Many are coming out and on the attack. It is the men who are silenced right now, on the half of campuses with the new policies.
There are still women getting a bit silenced, but they still get the conviction they want. The school just orders them not to tell others, since the school wants its name out of the papers too.
Carrying a taser. Telling friends that a certain guy is a creep and to keep him away. Telling authorities that a guy threatened her.
Telling someone about it will result in authorities asking the woman, and she then saying he did rape her. That gets him into the he said she said where 51% means he is expelled, and as plaintiff, she is safe. He is not going to feel safe going to the authorities. Title 9 has been interpreted to recognize sexual assault, but not false accusation, as harassment.
No one will send a text message saying, “I’m going to falsely accuse you.” The next message would actually accuse him, letting him read between the lines. He can show the authorities a tape of her accusing him of raping her if he wants, but it likely won’t help him any.
There are no surveys asking about how many students on campus are being blackmailed for something. None about how many are afraid of false accusation.
I agree that is a problem with the current criminal justice system. But if schools guarantee no penalty for the accuser, and complete privacy, then think it is not too much to ask for them to report it sooner. It would make false accusations a lot harder if they had to do it while the memories of witnesses were still fresh.
If a woman is not sure if something was rape, what does that say about it?
Also, most false accusations happen after breakups. Having a statute of limitations would greatly increase the ratio of true accusations to false accusations reaching the panel, justify a higher conviction rate.
I think and hope guys have been watching their partner’s mood and reactions since before affirmative consent. Affirmative consent states that even if it is obvious she is into it, he still must ask anyway, every time.
I’m guessing you had a bad experience with a guy who did not care if you said no, and even said he did not hear it. You think if only the law had required him to ask, he would have.
The fact is, the guys who pay attention but don’t always verbally ask will be punished by affirmative consent, whereas the ones who did not care when you said no will not care to ask and will lie that they did.
The only good change I see with the school policy is that women can keep their names out of the paper more easily, question their attacker in court, and no longer need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the accused not being able to question his accuser just makes the whole thing wrong the other direction. How can he show his story is more believable than hers if he can’t even ask her in court precisely what hers is? There is no way to find contradictions in it if she is allowed to stay vague.
This is something happening at your school that is clearly unfair. But is this isn't happening in the country's court system. Or state systems. Or even on all college campuses. Even those that have affirmative consent laws present those laws differently, and some schools do specify that nonverbal consent is also acceptable. When it's so obvious to people like me who know nothing about law or relationship dynamics, laws that blanket-convict men definitely give college administrations, most of whom are primarily composed of men, pause. It's not that no one is critiquing these policies and everyone supports a rise in false accusations.
You're taking a lot of what people are saying to the highest extreme. PrivateConundrum wasn't saying that you have to ask for consent every three seconds, and he/she also gave examples of questions that you ask BEFORE the fact. He/she was saying that consent can be verbal and nonverbal; if you aren't 100% sure about the nonverbal, get verbal consent (and you can't always be 100% sure, so do communicate out loud).
No, not all people watch their partner’s moods and reactions, hence, rape exists. The definition of affirmative consent varies depending on the school, and I’d like to see the law that says “even if it is obvious she is into it, he still must ask anyway, every time.” One doesn’t need to have had a bad experience to believe that affirmative consent laws, done correctly, will help change the way people view sexual relationships and reduce confusion about what consent is.
Labeling consensual sexual acts as assault is definitely wrong. But if a person was drunk enough to have "welcomed" a sexual encounter that he/she wouldn't have consented to sober, that's still assault.
[quote]
* Drinking to excess, wearing skimpy clothes, or walking alone at night NEVER EVER excuses rape (applies to any gender). You could get into someone's white van for free candy and if the driver of the van had nonconsenual sex with you THEY ARE STILL GUILTY OF RAPE
No one in this thread every implied otherwise. Your all caps implies someone said that. Please retract that implication.
[/quote]
I thought you had implied that when you said:
Not carrying a taser (those things can be expensive), not avoiding “creepy-looking” people, not going to the police after being threatened, or even raped–these things also don’t excuse rape.
[quote]
I am all for discouraging drinking. I don't drink. But it is hard to find people to socialize with if I require that my friends be sober, since it seems everyone drinks. I think we should charge students with "underage delinquency", or "contributing to underage delinquency", instead of using rape convictions to discourage drinking.
Also, students drink because they have nothing else to do at 2:00. We should eliminate curfews and let people go look at the stars, instead of outshining them and only have bars open that late at night.
[/quote]
I don’t drink either, and I haven’t found it hard to socialize. You don’t need to require that your friends be sober; just be sober by yourself. The aim of rape convictions isn’t to discourage drinking, and there are usually separate charges for underage drinking, especially in dorms. And students drink at all hours of the day; it’s not just a night thing. And I’m having trouble imagining what possible “entertainment” would be more enticing at 2 AM than drinking if a group of students wants to do so. Certainly not watching the stars, lol, though it’s interesting that your campus has a curfew.
[quote]
I believe that 75% of accusations are true, currently. I but I also believe that when the rules are changed, so will the ratios change. And if men know they are an accusation away from expulsion, they will not be able to study. I dropped out of graduate school voluntarily because I was that scared by my schools rules. I've not dating anyone at my school, nor do I plan to as long as the rules are how they are.
[/quote]
That’s interesting. If you decided not to date, why did you also drop out?
You can’t be 100% sure of consent even if you do ask. What if she is scared? Nothing a guy can do can do during sex can ever protect him in court, if she has absolutely zero responsibility to tell him when she no longer consents.
What if he is 100% sure, and she later says she did not consent? Is he guilty then? Do you not see how guys are left hanging here at the whims of their partner later who have him expelled?
Expelling is not pragmatic. It is only punishment and an instrument of fear. If a rapist is expelled, that won’t stop him from raping again elsewhere. There are non-college students as well as off campus college students. This law will harm the innocent far more than the innocent.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said that a woman can defend herself against rape far easier than a guy can defend himself against a false rape accusation under most school rules. I never said that not carrying a weapon excuses rape.
You don’t have to have sex to be falsely accused. You don’t have to be anywhere near someone to be falsely accused. I’ve read reports of guys being accused by unidentified accusers. He never got to know who she was, but he suspected it was a woman who got angry at him on spring break for not leaving a section of beach he was at first.
I currently have a pristine transcript. After years of hard work, why take even a 1% chance of ruining that? All it takes is meeting the wrong person who becomes an enemy, and I can be gotten rid of just like that. No thanks. I’ll look for work with my degree now and return after civil rights people clean all this up.
As for expelling, if someone is not convicted in court, they should not be expelled. That’s it.
You cannot have it both ways, be “afraid to tell the police” but perfectly content to tell the Dean of Students and counselors at the university, and testify, to the extent that the accused gets expelled.
I do not think it is an inalienable right to deprive the accused of their inalienable rights, accused rapist or not.
If my son were accused of rape, I would get him a lawyer and insist that the charges be filed with the police.
If my daughter accused someone of rape, I would insist she go to the police.
In both cases, I would make sure they got counseling, and in both cases, I would do my best to make sure the university did not infringe upon their rights.
And I honestly don’t understand to what end someone would tell the university, and get someone expelled, and not tell the police. Clearly many of these cases end up very much publicized police or no, and if the person is indeed a rapist, they need to be punished by the law, not by a high-paid college administrator.
It should be based on how drunk someone was, not on whether they admit they would have done it otherwise. Slurred speech, throwing up, stumbling, and several other signs say too drunk. If you can’t tell just from talking to them, I say that means kissing is OK.
Not the campus. All the surrounding parks. I live right next to many beautify parks and trails, and it is all curfewed after sunset. A cop patrols the area and will ticket people who are there. No star gazing allowed. They even put big lights in it so there is nothing to look at even if you snuck in. Nothing to do but drink.
The law at every school is opposite of that. If your friend has been drinking, you can’t “have sexual contact”, since they can’t give consent. They should not leave something so critical so vague and thus broad. The fact that I am sober is no defense.
So, if I’m with my friends, and they are all drinking, and some start making out with each other, and one asks to make out with me, I have to say no, since she can’t consent. She will then make out with someone else. All will most likely go well, except I’ve just excluding myself from becoming closer with any of them. I’m a self made outcast. But if I do kiss her, then I have to live in fear of having broken the law and being charged with sexual assault, or “sex misconduct” as they say. Employers can figure out what that means.
If you want to have a low standard of evidence for a penalty, it should not have a record attached. Records should only be for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and only for serious offenses. Kissing someone who had a few drinks is not a serious offense.
Of course reality here is that those of us who went to college in the 1980s probably met long-term partners while drinking - the day I met my spouse, we had a photo taken at a mixer where we both had alcoholic drinks in our hands - is that allowed any more? We were both drunk, in case that wasn’t clear, and we spent the night together. And as many possible together as we could after that.
On another note - tell me - could you accuse your uncle of sexual assault if he kisses you and doesn’t ask? Does it matter if he doesn’t ask but you’re not drunk?
There have been cases where the police filed charges against the accuser for lying, and the school still expelled the accused. The police do not have jurisdiction over the school. Also, the accuser does not have to talk to the police.
Finally, just because the police don’t find evidence to convict your son does not mean they have proven him innocent or don’t think he did it. It just means they did not find the standard of proof they are looking for.
As for the woman who was charged by police, the police do that sometimes if someone’s story changes a lot. When people are under a lot of stress, they can misspeak. That is why the Department of Education says that accusers should not be cross examined.
Changing any of this is almost impossible, short of offering the Department of Education a better solution that they approve of. I’m just trying to promote public discussion and awareness.
Perfectly OK now if your partner does not use it against you later. That is just the problem. Many students will continue to drink and stay the night, at a spectrum of intoxication levels. 99% will not face accusations. But some will, and they can be expelled. Hopefully those accused deserve it for some other reason, but there is no guarantee. Unless we have more uniform enforcement, which would require spying, the enforcement will be sporadic.
Most state courts would not call that sexual, unless it was done in a sexual way. I would not worry about that. It could be construed as evidence of something else, but affirmation would not be the issue. … I mean it could. The fact is, if anyone accuses anyone of anything, it is possible to make a case out of it.
Also, your uncle is not a student, right?
For years, many rules were either left to the courts to decide, or they were explicit. If explicit, they came under attack. Now they explicitly say people must ask. Given such an extreme, they have to define just what is meant. Leaving it vague leaves too many doors open for worry.
That is why I’m sitting this one out and getting people talking about it. I’ll go back to school when everything is better pinned down.
@rhandco, you need to read and understand your son’s school policy. Universities are not required to involve law enforcement or the criminal justice system in sexual assault cases. The accuser does not have to report it to police, and you can not require them to. In fact, if your son is ever accused, most universities will not allow you or his attorney to even speak on his behalf. He will be allowed legal counsel, but they are generally not allowed to do anything but advise the accused privately and outside of the university hearings. in fact, I recently saw a report of a university investigating an off-campus allegation of a sexual offense between two students and they never involved local law enforcement. They published it in their weekly crime report, calling it rape and noting that it was off-campus.
A university policy at a school I attended actually says that for discipline involving sexual assault that IS investigated by local law enforcement, the accused will be automatically considered guilty by the university if law enforcement finds the accused guilty. BUT, if the accused is found not guilty by law enforcement that does not mean the university will consider the accused not guilty.
@rhandco, everything you said makes sense and is logical. But universities don’t follow reason and logic when dealing with these cases. There is no due process.
I think we’re past the discussion of whether or not expulsion should be the only punishment for assault / rape cases. And I get that there’s a difference between punishment and interventions such as rehabilitation / restorative justice / education / bystander intervention training in deterring rapists; some of them would definitely be more effective at actually preventing rape. But as far as punishments go, I think expulsion is a greater deterrent than a fine…
You’re right. Since I don’t know what you’re implying by saying that, what are you implying, lol? A woman can defend herself against rape more easily than a man can defend himself against a false rape accusation under most school rules (don’t really agree with this, but that’s beside the point), so… False accusations are worse than rape? It’s more important to protect the falsely accused than rape victims, because it’s easier to defend against rape?
Your school and the surrounding area really love their rules…
You’re right. I’m just saying that just because a person “welcomes” it, or that someone interprets your behavior as “welcoming it,” when there’s enough alcohol involved, it might still be assault.
I meant the kind of socializing that doesn’t involve sex, lol. You don’t have a group of friends that won’t exclude you if you aren’t into drinking and encounters of a sexual nature?
I agree that discretion should be used for putting something on someone’s record. And I still don’t think that universities that lack the training of the actual justice system or have conflicts of interests concerning judging the accused should be able to give a punishment that is so permanent and life-altering.
I guess it depends on how old you are and what kind of story you’re telling. Non-university laws would allow for relatives to kiss / touch in ways that are non-consensual as long as they aren’t sexual. Though I imagine that there would be the same kind of knee-jerk assumption of guilt, especially among the general population. And psychology / parenting guides are starting to say that it’s important to not touch children without their consent as well, or to make them touch each other without consent. 1. You never know the background of some of the children around you (e.g. history of abuse, sensory processing disorder, autism, etc.), 2. It teaches kids boundaries, and 3. Kids might have trouble knowing what is and isn’t okay touch, putting them at risk for putting up with assault. So there are some circles in which it would be considered assault.