Title IX Now Applied to College Rape

[IdiotsOpposite]

Article: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/apr/22/response-to-rape-shifting/

Responses seem to be mixed on this move by the Obama administration. Many celebrate this as a way of cracking down on the rampant(?) problem of college rape and sexual assault. They see this as a way to obtain some justice for the victims of sexual assault behind the closed doors of college dormitories and fraternities (and sororities?). However, there are also many who criticize this decision, claiming that it will overturn the scales and lead to a lack of justice for those accused of rape. The requirement of a mere preponderance of evidence in a college court is admittedly far less than the requirement of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal court. They claim that if a college campus is trying a criminal case, they should use criminal standards.

I personally haven't put down an opinion on this yet, primarily because I don't know what yet to think. Your thoughts on the matter, fellow CFCers?

 

[Cheetah]

I think it's wonderful, and we should expand it to more crimes - outside universities as well:

Guilty until proven innocent is sure to get at far more criminals than what we currently do with this 'innocent until proven guilty'-nonsense!

A question though: Does anything end up on the accused's criminal record or something, or is the only punishment expulsion from the specific school?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I never knew any college or school to use the "innocent until proven guilty" standard with any other crime.

 

[Quackers]

So the accused gets thrown off his course and suspended form campus. Wow this law isn't going to get abused!

 

[Patroklos]

This actually makes no sense, as under title nine that dude should sue the school for discrimination.

I am all for harsh rape punishments, but you still have to prove it first. There is simply no way around that while still calling any result justice.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

A question though: Does anything end up on the accused's criminal record or something, or is the only punishment expulsion from the specific school?

Well the article describes a case where a guy was banned from all state schools for three years.

 

[Masada]

Eh, I'm not keen on it. This is an issue that requires legislative, police and judicial reform and some serious thinking about how one might make a legitimate cases of rape stick in court. I have no idea how this could be achieved, I suspect there will have to be a hell of lot of fixes at all levels - from how post-rape interviews are conducted to how courts interview victims - to see a measurable change. I just don't think the issue is resolved through empowering College courts. This just seems to be a means of making an intolerable situation (being raped) semi-bearable for the victim when the judicial system can't or won't pick up the slack like it should.

Guilty until proven innocent is sure to get at far more criminals than what we currently do with this 'innocent until proven guilty'-nonsense!

Balance of probabilities? I think the internal affairs bods here use that.

A question though: Does anything end up on the accused's criminal record or something, or is the only punishment expulsion from the specific school?

No, it would be analogous to being kicked out of a private club.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If there is sufficient evidence that someone violated the rules of the university, or if they are such a disruption that they endanger other students which was the case with George Zimmerman, I don't see any problem at all with the institution taking action in this way. This is true even if they have not been found guilty of any related criminal act where much stricter criteria are used.

 

[warpus]

The campus judicial system, using a lower standard of proof than criminal courts, suspended her assailant, removing him from campus until she graduated in 2009.

Rape is a serious issue and it's good to see an educational institution tackling it like this, but I wonder how the lowered standard of proof is going to affect those falsely accused. It's a very serious accusation - it's dangerous to lower the standard of proof too much. I also wonder if there are any provisions in this law to punish those who falsely accuse. It's been known to happen and it can really ruin someone's life - even if he/she is absolved of any wrongdoing years down the road.

 

[Winner]

What is "college rape" and why do you have a special term for it? Or in other words, what is wrong with your colleges?

Anyway, if there is no proof, there is no case. Sorry, but that's just how it has to be. If we start kicking people out of school just because someone accused them of rape, without a fair and independent trial, then we're on a very slippery slope.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only that apparently isn't what occurred here.

But if the criminal justice system let Ponischil down, Western Washington University did not. When she finally told an administrator what happened, the school sprang to action, offering her the support she needed. Perhaps most important, the campus judicial system, using a lower standard of proof than criminal courts, suspended her assailant, removing him from campus until she graduated in 2009.

I see no problem with campus judicial systems operating under different rules than the criminal courts do.

 

[downtown]

Yeah, it isn't saying there is *no* proof, just a different standard of evidence than a criminal case. One could certainly be worthy of suspension or expulsion without technically being guilty of rape.

That being said, I'm not sure I am comfortable with all of the requirements for reporting here. It seems like it could require schools to pursue cases that the victims do not want pursed, or place requirements on campus police or administrators that they are unable to fulfill.

 

[Patroklos]

Only that apparently isn't what occurred here.

I see no problem with campus judicial systems operating under different rules than the criminal courts do.

These are state schools for the most part being talked about in the article. The state has an apparatus to deal with accused crimes and that is the police and associated criminal justice system.

If the state wants someone other than the courts to deal with rape such as a college board, they need to decriminalize rape so it is not a criminal justice issue. This obviously doesn't happen.

This is basically nothing more than an end run around the rights of the accused so that a witch hunt can be carried out without being encumbered by things like due process of law.

When courts deal with things as mundane as traffic ticket challenges, the idea that a rape will be thrown to a college board pressured to throw any accused rapist under the bus to appease a demand for blood is not an encouraging sign. And college boards are NOT impartial, they very much are biased towards appeasing public opinion for the sake of reputation.

We are forced to let murderers and child abusers off all the time because of lack of evidence. This is unfortunate in one regard, but at the same time also fortunate in another. As Winner pointed out this is how it "has" to be to pretend there is any degree of fairness in the process. Rape is no different than any other major crime in this regard.

 

[ParkCungHee]

These are state schools for the most part being talked about in the article. The state has an apparatus to deal with accused crimes and that is the police and associated criminal justice system.

If the state wants someone other than the courts to deal with rape such as a college board, they need to decriminalize rape so it is not a criminal justice issue. This obviously doesn't happen.

You don't seem to feel the need to decriminalize assault or vandalism.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

This actually makes no sense, as under title nine that dude should sue the school for discrimination.

I am all for harsh rape punishments, but you still have to prove it first. There is simply no way around that while still calling any result justice.

Discrimination depends on how other violations of the code of student conduct are treated. If the school uses preponderance of evidence for all violations, then there is no discrimination. If it uses a higher standard for rapes than for other violations, that would be discrimination against women. If it uses a lower standard for rapes than for everything else, that would be discrimination against men. That's what makes this proposal so dangerous--you can't single out one violation and treat it differently, so this would really force schools to reduce due process protections across the board.

I agree with the second part. If there's a legitimate case to be made, throw the book at them.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

You don't seem to feel the need to decriminalize assault or vandalism.

The government isn't trying to change the standard of proof for assault or vandalism.

Plus he's not arguing that rape should be decriminalized. He's just saying the government (which should be the entity that punishes rapists) is punting on its responsibilities here. By pawning off enforcement on schools, they will create two undesirable outcomes. One is that people who really did commit rape will be walking around free to prey on women off campus. The other is that people who can't be convicted in court--due to actual innocence--will have "expelled for rape" on their permanent transcript.

 

[CKS]

Schools kick students out for violations of the student code of conduct all the time. The level of proof required is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" for these violations, and we don't seem to have widespread abuses going on. These aren't criminal convictions, nor even civil lawsuits, just administrative actions taken by the college.

I have seen student codes of conduct that spell out steps for making sure every escalating step of a sexual encounter is consensual, requiring explicit consent for each action. Students who didn't do this could presumably be kicked out for not following the code of conduct, rather than for a hard-to-prove rape.

Schools do have a vested interest in covering up instances of sexual assault on their campuses, and historically they have done a lot of pressuring of victims not to report to outside authorities and not to press charges. I'm not sure this is the best way to fix the problem, but the current situation is bad.

 

[Cheetah]

This just seems to be a means of making an intolerable situation (being raped) semi-bearable for the victim when the judicial system can't or won't pick up the slack like it should.

But, conversely, also creating an intolerable situation for a wrongly accused student...

Balance of probabilities? I think the internal affairs bods here use that.

Internal affairs? You mean within the police? Can a policeman lose his job if some investigation finds it a bit more likelier that he committed a crime than that he didn't?

What is "college rape" and why do you have a special term for it? Or in other words, what is wrong with your colleges?

The Americans let people get to college the year they turn 18. This is also the time most of the kids are living away from their families, they get to live in coed dorms, and they've grown up on a culture portraying a college life of freedom, partying and sex.

So, naturally, a lot of them want to try it all when they get there (and who can blame them?). The biggest reason college freshmen in the US drink as much as they do (this goes for boys and girls), is that they need to add some liquid courage before trying to hook up.

Of course, put lots of young, drunk people together, preferably while living in the same building, and with no supervision, and lots of not-so-awesome sex will happen, and some may also have bad experiences. And some will, and do, get raped.

Not a very easy system to untangle afterwards unfortunately...

Also, some feminists in the 70's started spreading the idea that 25% of women will be victims of attempted or actual rape during their 4 years at college. A statistic which, if it was true, would be absolutely extraordinary and call for some pretty extreme reactions. In reality however, the feminists had tried to ask college women if they had experienced rape, and gotten some very disappointing results: Very few women had. So instead they asked new questions about the womens' sex lives, and then used their own judgment to decide if what each woman had experienced was rape or not. Then they got a much better 25%-figure, and could call attention to this problem of rampant college rapes.

Schools kick students out for violations of the student code of conduct all the time. The level of proof required is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" for these violations, and we don't seem to have widespread abuses going on. These aren't criminal convictions, nor even civil lawsuits, just administrative actions taken by the college.

If there is no criminal record, and no record of it on the student's transcripts, then it's not as terrible as it first sounds. But it's still very, very bad. Things will get out, and being branded as a rapist can really destroy someone's life.

And if I understood DT correctly, the victim runs a great risk of being exposed as well, even if she doesn't want to press any charges - or, by extension, if she disagrees that it was rape at all!

I have seen student codes of conduct that spell out steps for making sure every escalating step of a sexual encounter is consensual, requiring explicit consent for each action. Students who didn't do this could presumably be kicked out for not following the code of conduct, rather than for a hard-to-prove rape.

Which is, of course, absolutely, completely moronic. Nobody in the real world escalates into a sexual encounter by asking for explicit permission each and every step of the way!

And when two drunk college kids hook up, getting some kind of sober (I assume that giving consent while under the influence isn't acceptable?) consent from either of them is damn near impossible.

Schools do have a vested interest in covering up instances of sexual assault on their campuses, and historically they have done a lot of pressuring of victims not to report to outside authorities and not to press charges. I'm not sure this is the best way to fix the problem, but the current situation is bad.

Is the current situation especially bad? Compared to other/relevant areas or social stratas of society?

As for a proper solution - if the crimes of the few shall be dealt with by inconveniencing the many:
1. Stop having coed dorms. Go back to single-sex dorms.
2. Have adults live in the dorms, don't just use senior students as dorm-managers (or whatever's the title).
3. Scrap the explicit sex parts of sex-ed (except for condom-use, etc.). Instead teach kids about game, and how their attraction cues work.
4. Fix the culture to be less sex fixated, materialistic and individualistic.

 

[Masada]

But, conversely, also creating an intolerable situation for a wrongly accused student...

Sure, I guess. But at the end of the day criminal rape cases don't often stick. Not because there rapes aren't happening but because it's a hard thing to prove. ("He said, she said" and all that nonsense). Civil rape cases where the burden of proof is lower ("balance of probabilities") cases stick all the time even after the criminal case has fallen over. At a guess, Universities in the State would tend to use the same standard of proof. I would also imagine a hell of a lot of cases will be decided after a civil court makes it's decision. That would save on lots of investigative effort.

Internal affairs? You mean within the police? Can a policeman lose his job if some investigation finds it a bit more likelier that he committed a crime than that he didn't?

Ethnics and standards. There's lots of names for it. It's basically the internal disciplinary organ of a University. If you cheat (as a student) or sleep with a student (as a member of staff) that's where the case is heard. But the police example is quite good. Consider a case where an officer beats someone. He gets charged with aggravated assault. The court finds throws the case out because it doesn't consider it an aggravated assault, just a common assault. That doesn't alter the fact that the officer beat someone up, it just means he won't go to prison for it. That, of course, is scarcely a good thing so internal affairs might step in and fire and/or reassign him to counting toilet paper.

 

[wolfigor]

Sure, I guess. But at the end of the day criminal rape cases don't often stick. Not because there rapes aren't happening but because it's a hard thing to prove. ("He said, she said" and all that nonsense).

Rape is a serious crime for all involved and should be handled as such.
If there is serious suspect of a rape, then there should be a criminal case: nothing else will make justice.

Civil rape cases where the burden of proof is lower ("balance of probabilities") cases stick all the time even after the criminal case has fallen over. At a guess, Universities in the State would tend to use the same standard of proof. I would also imagine a hell of a lot of cases will be decided after a civil court makes it's decision. That would save on lots of investigative effort.

Yes, it will save efforts, but not necessary serve justice.

Consider a case where an officer beats someone. He gets charged with aggravated assault. The court finds throws the case out because it doesn't consider it an aggravated assault, just a common assault. That doesn't alter the fact that the officer beat someone up, it just means he won't go to prison for it. That, of course, is scarcely a good thing so internal affairs might step in and fire and/or reassign him to counting toilet paper.

In your example there is proof that the officer actually did beat somebody, that's why he (or she) gets punished even if there is no criminal case.
It's very different if it's proved that there was no beating.
You cannot assume by default that all accusation of beating are true.
Similarly you cannot assume that in all accusation of rape there was effectively a rape.

I want to reiterate a my first statement: rape is a serious crime and should punished accordingly.
However this also means you cannot lower the standards of proof, else you will not make justice for the accuser and the accused.