NY Times op-ed: Mishandling Rape

<p>What I wish we could all agree on is this: 86 % of alleged rapes not going to the prosecutor is way too high. On the other hand, even if the police and DAs were all doing their jobs in exemplary fashion, the number of rapes that do go forward would be a lot less than the estimated 92-96 % rape allegations that are true. It can be true BOTH that police are too suspicious of victims and unwilling to investigate, and that there are a lot of cases in which there really isn’t enough basis for a case. Similarly, there is a difference between asking a woman what she was wearing - which is irrelevant - and asking a woman if she had been drinking, or about the nature of her prior relationship with the attacker, both of which might be material to the case.</p>

<p>As for colleges - there is no reason to hold them to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, and no reason they should throw up their hands and let the police decide. The standard for getting suspended or thrown out of college should be high, but it should be lower than the standard for spending years in jail. Again, however, there’s a lot of middle ground between expecting colleges to treat victims better and pursue suspected perpetrators more aggressively, and expecting every case to be adjudicated to the satisfaction of the victim. Even “preponderance of evidence” shouldn’t just mean “Well, she said he raped her, and women usually tell the truth about rape.” And if there really isn’t any evidence, there isn’t basis for removing a student from campus, even if that means the victim is going to have to continue to see him. </p>

<p>Why? Because the worst group attacks on campus seem to come from teams of men working together–fraternities and sports teams. Moving it from attempting to prove an incident occurred to penalizing the organizations as a whole would create a disincentive to indulge in such bonding rituals. </p>

<p>While searching the internet to attempt to explain my reasoning, I came across a book published 24 years ago, titled Fraternity Gang Rape. It’s still in print; you can read it on Kindle. It reads as if the author had read the Rolling Stone article.</p>

<p>According to The Truth about Rape, edited by Robert N. Golden, Fred L. Peterson:

</p>

<p>So, suspend or shut down the fraternities in the wake of such events. Penalize the sports teams. 95% of gang rapes is not slicing and dicing the campus. It’s putting a finger on most of these events.</p>

<p>Importantly, by the time a victim’s plea for justice has made it through the obstacle course of bureaucrats, police, prosecutors and defense lawyers, even if she wins her case, her attackers have often graduated. They’re no longer affiliated with the college. The structures which made the events more likely to happen–groups of men serving alcohol off campus–still exist. The comments to the Rolling Stone article make it clear this was not an isolated occurrence. That researchers almost a quarter century ago wrote about initiation rituals just like this mean this is not a case of a few bad apples. This is structural. Unless the universities take action to change the structures, it will never end.</p>

<p>So, either make it worth the well-paid adults at the university–administrators, deans, coaches–to supervise students on campus–or propose other changes which would make it less likely. We could institute single-sex dorms, chaperones, and dry campuses. </p>

<p>At present, the surest way to protect the university is to make the woman shut up. </p>

<p>I place a higher premium on student safety than winning athletic contests or having a “good social life on campus.” I wish our colleges did too.</p>

<p>Since almost all of these campus rapes involve alcohol, I do think campuses should do more to stop student drinking on and off campus. </p>

<p>I was thinking about the few colleges that have the “anyone who has been drinking is deemed not to be able to consent” definition of sexual assault. I agree with others that such a definition is too broad, and will say that someone who clearly and definitely obtained consent from another drunk person nevertheless committed sexual assault. </p>

<p>But maybe we can come up with a similar definition that produces a better equilibrium than we have now. Now, sexual predators have a license to get vulnerable freshman drunk and rape them. All the predator has to do, in the unlikely event that his victim has the guts to try to bring him to college discipline, is assert that she consented. He-said, she-said, he gets away with his crime, and she has to see him every day on campus while he is free to go out and rape more freshmen. In this system, no falsely accused rapists get discipline, but also virtually no guilty rapists get discipline. The deck is stacked heavily in favor of the rapist and against victims. It’s a free pass for unscrupulous rapists to rape. (No one has been expelled from U Va for sexual assault. No one.) This system gives all the power to the rapists.</p>

<p>Now let’s consider the over-broad “anyone who has been drinking can’t consent.” Despite the fact that it empowers vindictive ex-girlfriends and ex-boyfriends to falsely accuse their exes of rapes that never occured, it also has benefits. Notice that in the “anyone who has been drinking can’t consent” regime, it might even be that fewer people overall suffer an unjust result. In this regime, if a sexual predator gets a woman drunk and rapes her, all the woman has to do is prove that (1) he had sex with her and (2) she was drunk. Then by definition he is guilty of sexual assault. She doesn’t have to prove she didn’t consent, because by definition she didn’t consent. Therefore, we might hope, true sexual predators that previous could skate would be booted out of the college in this system. The disadvantage is that vindictive ex-girlfriends and ex-boyfriends would be able to get their exes booted out of school, as would deluded ex-girlfriends, because a lot of sex that was previously deemed fine would now be deemed assault if it was brought to the attention of authorities.</p>

<p>But what if the college made a modified definition? What if the college said, any sexual contact with a drunk, underage person is deemed sexual assault unless consent can be proved? Then the true victim of the real assault can still bring her attacker to college discipline and get him booted, because he won’t be able to prove consent that never was given. She just has to proved that (1) he had sex with her and (2) she was drunk; bingo, he’s guilty. But the vindictive ex-girlfriend will have trouble: when she tries to bring her ex-boyfriend for discipline, the boyfriend might well be able to demonstrate she consented, because she did consent.</p>

<p>I don’t have trouble making guys be really sure that drunk underage women consent to their advances. Drunk guys are bad at reading signals-- I have no problem insisting that the guys be really sure before they continue. And people who want to make certain they are not falsely accused can make sure they don’t have sex with drunk people who weren’t supposed to be drinking. If colleges adopted my modified definition of sexual assault, they’d be giving more power to vindictive exes, but taking away power from rapists and sexual predators. I’m willing to make that tradeoff.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Is there a “just right” standard? Given the nature of the crimes in question, as well as judgement calls about what is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, “clear and convincing”, or “preponderance of evidence”, is it possible that there is no standard, under otherwise current practices (on the part of victims, investigators, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, university administrators, etc.) which gets both “false negative” and “false positive” results down to an acceptable level?</p>

<p>The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is obviously intended to keep “false positive” (i.e. conviction when not actually guilty) rate low, but can suffer from a relatively high “false negative” (i.e. acquittal when actually guilty) rate (which is very likely the case for crimes of rape). Moving the standard can reduce the “false negative” rate but raise the “false positive” rate.</p>

<p>Reducing the “false negative” rate without raising the “false positive” rate would require changes in current practices (e.g. victims report more promptly, police investigate more thoroughly, etc.).</p>

<p>Perhaps not a complete solution, but what about increasing the penalties (both university student conduct rules and criminal law) for causing someone to become involuntarily drunk or intoxicated with some type of drug (e.g. “date rape” drugs)? Since that may be the method used by serial rapists (and it is generally assumed that when someone gets someone else involuntarily drunk or drugged that s/he is up to no good), that may be something else that can be pinned on them, even if the evidence of rape is insufficient in a particular case.</p>

<p>And yes, that means that the punch bowl at the party needs to have measured amounts and signs indicating how much “one drink” is, and policed against someone spiking the bowl.</p>

<p>I have no problem at all raising the false positive rate a bit if it lowers the false negative rate more. I don’t see why we should privilege falsely accused men over true accusing women. Either way, in some cases someone is the victim of injustice, but why does it have to always be the woman?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In general criminal cases, the gender is irrelevant – the idea behind “beyond a reasonable doubt” is that it is much more undesirable to convict and punish a truly innocent person than it is to acquit a truly guilty person. Of course, if you do not believe that should be the case (either in general or in specific crimes), then you would be in favor of changing the standard for conviction.</p>

<p>I’m talking about college disciplinary hearings, not criminal cases. I don’t believe the standard should be “beyond a reasonable doubt” in order to expel a student. And I’d like to point out that leaving her rapist on campus punishes a truly innocent person too.</p>

<p>I too believe that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is too high a standard to apply to college disciplinary cases. But it is really chilling to think of setting up a system that willingly railroads individuals based on, essentially, the statistical likelihood of their guilt. </p>

<p>It’s not “railroading” if you expel someone based on reasonable evidence that they’re guilty. That’s what happens in normal life.</p>

<p>yeah. I think the truth is that if you look at any crime, there is no other place where a person’s insistence on his own innocence, in the face of actual physical evidence to the contrary, is taken at face value. Look at the Cases on this thread. That is very chilling. I think we can find something between the two. For example, if I say I didn’t steal your wallet, the police still bother to look for it in your possession. </p>

<p>Plus, you can be expelled at many universities, including UNC, perhaps UVA, for being a public nuisance. What that means is that if you annoy your neighbors and refuse to stop, you can be expelled. Even if you say you didn;t.</p>

<p>At UNC, and many other schools, a DUI arrest, the key word here is arrest, not conviction, is cause for an automatic one semester suspension. </p>

<p>I mean, we’ve got some precedent here. I don’t think rapists deserve special protection at universities over nuisance makers and DUIs. </p>

<p>Also, and this has been touched up on by CF, but I want to talk about witnesses and “friends.”</p>

<p>If the police would investigate and actually bring these cases to trial, rather than try to get the survivor to just give up, there would be a lot more cooperation from the witnesses.</p>

<p>This is especially the case on a college campus. In Jackie’s case, the “friends” advised her not to go get a rape kit or report because they did not believe there would be any consequences to the rapists, and they would be punished even for exposing a brutal gang rape like this one. You do see that if colleges actually tried to get to the bottom of these things, and removed the rapists the way they so easily remove, say, those dangerous plagiarists, the witnesses again, would not fear retaliation, but would come forward.</p>

<p>Refusing to mount a true investigation until someone is dead simply assures that nobody is going to come forward, which is, I imagine, what they’ve been wanting for a long time. They might now be changing their minds.</p>

<p>Since freshmen girls are the most targeted group, particularly for male-bonding type rapes, they need more forthright information at orientation. These are kids just leaving their parents, used to being looked out for, and they are going to learn about the world in all its ugliness one way or another. It is crucial to discuss these types of crimes frankly, also mentioning the specific tendency for these incidents to occur in fraternities or around sports teams. Nobody should be in a situation of innocently going to a fraternity party, thinking they are safe because…I’m not sure why a young woman would think that. I guess because nobody told her otherwise? They should not only be warned but given some options in case they do find themselves in such situations. It really would be helpful to make the point that they need to notify police immediately, and the colleges need to encourage them to pull out their phones and spoon-feed them the appropriate emergency contact numbers to add to their phone contacts, so that it is more automatic to notify the police. They REALLY seem to need to talk to students about how to support a friend who has been assaulted, and that includes making sure they get help before all evidence is destroyed. Some basic effective self-defense techniques should be presented. It is most certainly the college’s responsibility to provide these transitional child-adults with some tools to take care of themselves in an environment which the college officials are well aware of, and students and their parents perhaps are not. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m sorry, what? You’re saying that the university should be telling freshman women, “We know that frat guys rape freshmen women, so, yeah, you shouldn’t go into frats if you don’t want to get raped. And if you do venture into a frat and get raped, well, we warned you, so no problem”? That’s the plan to deal with rapists on campus? </p>

<p>Is that their plan for Food Service too-- “Hey, if you don’t want food poisoning don’t eat the eggs in the dining hall”?</p>

<p>“I have no problem at all raising the false positive rate a bit if it lowers the false negative rate more. I don’t see why we should privilege falsely accused men over true accusing women. Either way, in some cases someone is the victim of injustice, but why does it have to always be the woman?”</p>

<p>I thank my lucky stars we have the Bill of Rights if this what people think. It is never okay to have an innocent person pay the penalty for a criminal act they did not do. That is completely unacceptable. </p>

<p>Of course cases can be investigated, and should be. The fact that they aren’t is a huge problem. The idea that an accusation can’t be proven to some satisfactory standard without DNA or scads of eye-witnesses is silly. Maybe not in court, but in a college, sure. </p>

<p>But some people seem to be advocating going further than that. If one student accuses another of stealing his wallet, presumably campus police will investigate. But if they don’t actually turn up the wallet, and no one else will come forward to say he took it, the likely thief isn’t going to get punished. </p>

<p>Let’s consider two scenarios. In the first, a woman reports having been raped at a frat house several weeks earlier. She had one drink, which she presumes was spiked, because she blacked out. When she came to, a man (that she can identify) was forcing himself on her. The man is questioned, and says they had consensual sex, and doesn’t know what she’s talking about - she wasn’t passed out, she was enthusiastic the whole time, etc. </p>

<p>That’s probably not a case that is going to get anywhere in court unless she goes to authorities early enough to get tested for evidence of date rape drugs in her system. But it is a case where I would say that even if there was nothing further to investigate, I would be OK with a college making the decision to expel the male student. A school needs to protect its students. Assuming that no motive for a lie could be discovered, there is a vanishingly small chance that this woman is a sociopath who just decided to make a random accusation of rape for the heck of it, almost to the point of straining credulity. In the high probability that this is a rapist, you are putting many women in danger by letting him stay. So, if the accuser seems more credible than the accused, in this case a finding of guilt would seem warranted.</p>

<p>But then let’s consider another case. A woman reports having been raped at a frat house several weeks earlier. She, a small woman, had several drinks; her date was a large male, and only had two beers. He offered to let her spend the night in his room in the frat, and when she got in the bed, he started initiating sex with her. She was kind of out of it, and didn’t tell him to stop, but didn’t say yes or offer any encouragement either. When the man is questioned, he says that as far as he knew she had only had a couple of beers, that she was a little buzzed, maybe, but didn’t seem impaired, came back to his room, and participated fully (including unzipping his pants and taking off her bra) during intercourse. </p>

<p>If I were playing the odds, I’d say this woman was more likely than not to have been raped. But I wouldn’t think there was enough evidence to impose harsh sanctions on the accused. In the first case I proposed, the two accounts are so radically different that, as I said, the girl would have to be a total sociopath - and a pretty motiveless one, to boot – to have invented a total fabrication in order to get an acquaintance expelled. But in this case, there’s a lot more room for doubt without calling the girl’s essential character and sanity into question. She admits to having been drinking, so it is possible that she doesn’t have total recall of the exact circumstances of the encounter. In addition, unless we want to say that all drunken sex is rape (which I don’t), since there is no way of determining her exact BAC, it is quite possible that even if she was more than “buzzed,” she was less than incapacitated, even if she recalls it differently now. In short, it is plausible that a woman might have had ill-advised but consensual drunk sex, felt ashamed of herself in the morning, and tweaked the narrative to make it more acceptable in her own mind, without intending to lie. Perhaps she even didn’t see it as rape immediately, but then talked it over with a well-meaning friend who interpreted her account of “bad sex” rather differently. The idea of the male being innocent in this case isn’t fanciful, it is a real and not insubstantial possibility. So, while I could see changing the man’s dorm assignment out of sensitivity to the woman, and making him attend some sort of class on consent as a condition of continued enrollment, I don’t see the basis for doling out serious punishment.</p>

<p>In terms of numbers, based on the articles I’ve read about situations in which colleges failed to act and/or found an accused student innocent, in MOST of the cases, I agreed, based on what was reported, that the college was in the wrong, and had failed to adequately pursue or evaluate the allegation. Yet there are also a handful of cases in these articles - and it isn’t like I’ve read dozens of them – where based on the victim’s story, the college’s contention that there wasn’t enough evidence seems potentially reasonable to me. This makes me wary about some of the more extreme proposals for solving the problem. </p>

<p>The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applies to criminal trials, not other actions of public or private institutions. Everybody has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but they don’t have the right to an education at the University of Virginia.</p>

<p>I could not support a policy where a student could expelled on a one word against another which is what happens with rape. The civil courts are also available for those who feel they can go after someone for sexual harrassment and rape when the criminal courts will not hear the case due to lack of evidence. That is another way to go.</p>

<p>However, again, there is proof needed. I feel that every rape allegation should be investigated and complaints noted with the info kept on file Serial rapists would quickly show up on such lists. If someone is getting repeat complaints levied of rape, that could be something I could support for disciplinary action. Someone who finds self in the predicament of a false accusation would have to watch his step because of that on record. </p>

<p>Sadly, I think the situation with Jackie’s "friends’ was that they simply did not want to get involved in the situation and may even have doubted the rapes occurred as jackie said. I cannot see how 3 separate people would refuse to support the rape support, how they could dismiss a gang rape situation. Yes, I could see someone saying that a one on one encounter when a person was moving towards involvement with another , is not going to be provable as a rape and not want to get involved, though that is a preference that should not be honored. Someone says s/he’s raped, it’s something where a police report should immediately be filed. One does so with thefts where the chances of recovery is just about zip, and this is far more important. However, yes, I can see that mindset, and it is one that needs to be changed among all, not jus</p>

<p>I’ve been wondering about actual physical changes to the frat house structure that might make a difference. The first idea is that all fraternities as of Jan. 6 are co-ed. That would certainly change the dynamic. How about installing cameras in all the bedrooms in all the frat houses with the understanding that during parties they will be monitored? Or even the understanding that they won’t unless later there is an allegation of some sort. How about turning each one into a ‘smart house’ where they’re hoooked into a computer – during a party, you could set the settings so that all the lights stayed on in each room, and the doors wouldn’t lock. Put a panic button in each room of the frat house that anyone could trigger at any time. PUt in some sort of device that records an audio tape of whatever goes on in every room. If we can’t change human nature, we can sure as hell change the architecture. With the amount of technology we have today, why should this be so difficult? </p>