Title IX Now Applied to College Rape

[Winner]

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.

This makes a lot of sense, thanks.

 

[Masada]

]If there is serious suspect of a rape, then there should be a criminal case: nothing else will make justice.

You do get that these are not alternatives to criminal courts right? These are an additional avenue through which victims can seek redress in some limited form.

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

Of course it does albeit an imperfect form of non-criminal form of justice.

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.

Where did I say that an accusation would be sufficient? It isn't. You would need, I assume, the same or similar level of proof as a Civil Court. Which still demands far more than a mere accusation.

However this also means you cannot lower the standards of proof, else you will not make justice for the accuser and the accused.

You do realize that Civil Courts do already rule on rape cases using a non-criminal standard of proof, right?

 

[Mise]

EDIT: You know what, having read the thread properly, I really don't feel that I am adding anything to it. As others have already said:

1) This is no different from how other potentially criminal acts (such as vandalism or assault) are handled in Universities already
2) This is no different from pursuing a criminal case in civil courts if a criminal court has failed to convict
3) This is nothing to do with labelling people criminals with "no evidence". As the article said, the standard required is "balance of probabilities" - i.e. a >50% chance that rape happened, and this in no way labels them "criminals".
4) This is no different from film theatres kicking people out for being too loud or preventing you from taking outside food or drinks in; Universities don't have to teach everyone who walks through the door, and are allowed to institute their own rules and codes of conduct.


The majority of objections raised are ludicrous. Maybe 2 or 3 people have raised decent objections. I myself don't really know if it's the best way of dealing with rapists, but it's certainly better than nothing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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

The standard, in universities is already a balance of probabilities, usually determined by a dean.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

The standard, in universities is already a balance of probabilities, usually determined by a dean.

Not in all universities. And I already stated that the standard should be no higher and no lower than other charges that are also crimes.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not in all universities.

Care to provide an example of a university that relies entirely on the police and court system for disciplinary matters?

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Care to provide an example of a university that relies entirely on the police and court system for disciplinary matters?

I thought we were talking about the burden of proof in university disciplinary hearings.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yeah, find me a university that uses proof beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury of your peers, overseen by a judge, with a right to an attorney for all disciplinary matters.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Yeah, find me a university that uses proof beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury of your peers, overseen by a judge, with a right to an attorney for all disciplinary matters.

It said right there in the article:

Still, until recently, roughly 20 to 30 percent of colleges, including most elite institutions, maintained a higher burden of proof. Typically they required “clear and convincing” evidence to convict, a standard they felt better protected the rights of the accused.

The Office for Civil Rights letter prompted virtually all such colleges to scrap that standard and change to preponderance.

Some colleges had a higher standard of proof. The federal government is dictating that they reduce the due process rights of students.

 

[wolfigor]

You do get that these are not alternatives to criminal courts right? These are an additional avenue through which victims can seek redress in some limited form.

Ok, I get it.
My point was about the fact that rape is an extremely odious and serious crime that should be handled as a crime only.
It cannot be a matter of a civil case and a fine.
Rapist must rot in jail, those accused but innocent should be free and their image cleaned.

If one is accused of rape and declared not guilty after judgment in a criminal court, what case do you have in a civil court?
The rape happened or not happened, isn't it?

You do realize that Civil Courts do already rule on rape cases using a non-criminal standard of proof, right?

In USA, yes, in other countries maybe not.
However having such a crime in a civil case and handled on probability of guilt doesn't seems very right to me.

 

[Masada]

Ok, I get it.

You don't seem to.

My point was about the fact that rape is an extremely odious and serious crime that should be handled as a crime only.

You haven't given me a shred of evidence or even a rationale for why this should be the case.

If one is accused of rape and declared not guilty after judgment in a criminal court, what case do you have in a civil court?
The rape happened or not happened, isn't it?

You'd have this all the time as well. Director A gets cleared on a criminal charge - fraud for instance - but gets sued successfully in a Civil Court for negligence and for breaches of his duty of care. Under those circumstances, a crime hasn't' occurred but something did sufficient under the lower standard to result in compensation being paid.

In USA, yes, in other countries maybe not.

Yes, I suppose I should have considered the legal ramifications that an American law would have had for Kenyan rape victims.

However having such a crime in a civil case and handled on probability of guilt doesn't seems very right to me.

It's a means of compensating victims for the full costs associated with rape something Criminal Courts are often unable to do. And it isn't 'probability of guilt' so much as the probability of the victim's case being true outweighing the alternatives.

 

[wolfigor]

It's a means of compensating victims for the full costs associated with rape something Criminal Courts are often unable to do. And it isn't 'probability of guilt' so much as the probability of the victim's case being true outweighing the alternatives.

[this is really a "technical question, not arguing]
If one person is (fully) acquitted in a criminal court, thus innocent, why should he compensate the alleged victim in civil court?
Shouldn't be the opposite where the innocent sue for damage and false accusation the alleged victim?

 

[Mise]

[this is really a "technical question, not arguing]
If one person is (fully) acquitted in a criminal court, thus innocent, why should he compensate the alleged victim in civil court?
Shouldn't be the opposite where the innocent sue for damage and false accusation the alleged victim?

First of all, people aren't "found innocent", they're simply not found guilty (everyone is innocent until proven guilty). Indeed, juries aren't even asked whether the defendant is guilty or innocent; they are asked whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that they are guilty. The jurors might actually believe the defendant to be guilty of the crime, but there is not enough evidence to find them guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". However, there may be enough evidence to find them guilty "on balance of probabilities". The criminal courts require the former level of proof; the civil courts the latter type.

To understand why, you have to understand what a criminal court actually does. In a criminal court, it is not "victim vs defendant" -- it is "state vs defendant". The victim is merely regarded as a witness; the crime is committed against the state; the prosecutor acts on behalf of the state and not the victim. Since this is "state vs individual", since the individual is presumed innocent, since the consequences of criminal sanctions are so great, and since the state is a big ugly entity that has a long history of abusing its exclusive powers to imprison people unjustly, the prosecution has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty.

By contrast, the purpose of the Civil courts in Common law jurisdictions is explicitly NOT to determine the guilt or innocence of a party. Rather, it is to determine whether someone is liable for harm caused as a result of a party's action (or inaction). There's no "presumption of innocence" in civil cases, because there's no determination of guilt, merely liability. Civil cases are "individual vs individual" - two individuals with competing stories, but only one can be right. In this case, the courts are simply trying to establish which of those two stories is closer to the truth. Since both individuals have no recourse to the kind of coercive force that the state possesses, since the penalties in criminal courts are much less severe, since there's no "guilt" or "innocence" at stake, and since you're simply determining which of two stories is more true, "balance of probabilities" is required. One story just has to be more compelling than the other.


As I said before, criminal cases are crimes against the state; civil cases are wrongs against an individual. In general, for every "crime" there is an equivalent "tort" for the victim to seek restitution. So for example, beating someone up is known as "battery"; there is crime called "battery", for which the state prosecutes the individual, and then there is tort called "battery", for which an individual seeks damages from another individual for the injuries he inflicted. This is an essential and long established feature of Common Law justice. You may not agree with it, or you may think that Roman Law works better for you, but it's worked pretty well for us and it's not going to change any time soon

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Great stuff Mise . I'm actually off to bed now a little smarter than I was today .

 

[Mise]

You're welcome, although I'm not exactly an expert - there are plenty of lawyer types here who will probably point out bits that aren't quite accurate...

 

[Crezth]

I don't see the problem with false accusations (such as it is) as being exacerbated by this policy. The stats for what proportion of rape cases are false accusations are very low.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It said right there in the article:



Some colleges had a higher standard of proof. The federal government is dictating that they reduce the due process rights of students.

Yes, the article says what the usual standard was for rape. What I'm asking is any evidence, of any college using that standard for all matters of discipline. Surely, given how prevalent plagiarism is in universities, you can find hundreds if not thousands of cases of students being taken to court over their English papers.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...g-with-the-violence-against-women-act/254678/

Very interesting quotes, particularly that last one. That's just the sort of thing I, if I were a lawmaker, would want to avoid. So just as a discussion question...

Where do the rights of the accused end, and where do the rights of the accuser begin? According to you guys.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm still waiting for a bit of consistency here and to see people denouncing the long unconstitutional history of how Universities have handled plagiarism, assault and vandalism.

 

[Masada]

I don't much care about an opinion piece in the Atlantic.