The Uncomfortable Truth About Campus Rape Policy(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Uncomfortable Truth About Campus Rape Policy
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/?single_page=true
18 comments
I agree that it's irrelevant that the guy was so gifted, even if he had been a stupid and awful person he shouldn't be punished for something he didn't do.
What I don't really understand is why he was punished at all. Even according to her account he hasn't committed any crime.
I'm not sure you need stats here though, if the presumption of innocence has been abandoned that is a very serious regardless of how many times it has made a difference so far.
What I don't really understand is why he was punished at all. Even according to her account he hasn't committed any crime.
I'm not sure you need stats here though, if the presumption of innocence has been abandoned that is a very serious regardless of how many times it has made a difference so far.
Presumption of innocence doesn't mean what you think it means.
In most crimes involving consent, it is only necessary that the prosecution show that the defendant committed the act constituting the crime in order to establish guilt. Consent is an affirmative defense which must be proven by the defense. If I take your car it's theft unless consent can be established (i.e., you loaned me your keys). Similarly if I punch you in the stomach it's assault unless consent can be established (i dunno, you said "hit me in the gut! I want to see how strong my abs are.")
Rape and sexual assault are the only times when consent is assumed and its lack must be proven.
If Bob has sex with Alice, and Alice later alleges rape, that should be taken as prima facie evidence that a rape occurred. It should be on Bob to prove that the activity was consensual. Anything else vastly increases the risk of sexual assault and reduces the likelihood that offenders will be punished.
In most crimes involving consent, it is only necessary that the prosecution show that the defendant committed the act constituting the crime in order to establish guilt. Consent is an affirmative defense which must be proven by the defense. If I take your car it's theft unless consent can be established (i.e., you loaned me your keys). Similarly if I punch you in the stomach it's assault unless consent can be established (i dunno, you said "hit me in the gut! I want to see how strong my abs are.")
Rape and sexual assault are the only times when consent is assumed and its lack must be proven.
If Bob has sex with Alice, and Alice later alleges rape, that should be taken as prima facie evidence that a rape occurred. It should be on Bob to prove that the activity was consensual. Anything else vastly increases the risk of sexual assault and reduces the likelihood that offenders will be punished.
>If Bob has sex with Alice, and Alice later alleges rape, that should be taken as prima facie evidence that a rape occurred.
Absolutely not. Everyone has the right to a presumption of innocence.
The key issue is whether consent was there at the time of the sex. There have been a string of well publicized cases in which the woman decided she was raped only after the relationship didn't pan out the way she expected.
Absolutely not. Everyone has the right to a presumption of innocence.
The key issue is whether consent was there at the time of the sex. There have been a string of well publicized cases in which the woman decided she was raped only after the relationship didn't pan out the way she expected.
> Presumption of innocence doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really? What I think it means is that he shouldn't be punished until it's actually been eatablihed that he did something. It seems to me that the process here was different.
So what does it actually mean?
>Rape and sexual assault are the only times when consent is assumed and its lack must be proven.
Which is eminently sensible, since it's almost never rape when two people have sex, whereas it's almost always assault when someone punches you on the nose.
Really? What I think it means is that he shouldn't be punished until it's actually been eatablihed that he did something. It seems to me that the process here was different.
So what does it actually mean?
>Rape and sexual assault are the only times when consent is assumed and its lack must be proven.
Which is eminently sensible, since it's almost never rape when two people have sex, whereas it's almost always assault when someone punches you on the nose.
Have you actually read her account? Or are you basing your opinion on the excerpts in this story alone?
If you have a link to more information I'd be interested to read it.
If you have a link to more information I'd be interested to read it.
Only on these excerpts. It seems a bit too absurd to not quote the actual accusation if there was one but then maybe the other poster is right, maybe at UMass every sexual act is presumed to be rape, consent needs to be proven.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.
Indeed, this is "guilty even when proved innocent".
That's because this is a crime that is very difficult to prove either way, and people are erring on the side of caution.
The "side of caution" is innocence.
No, clearly the "side of caution" people are taking is on the side of accuser. Given that a significant percentage of rapes go unreported, people believe it's more likely that the accuser is telling the truth than not. The problem is that there is very little evidence of rape other than personal testimony.
Oh, I see what people are saying. It's just wrong. You can't convict people of a crime that could put them in jail for decades purely on an accusation.
The side of caution certainly changes depending on whose perspective you take!
I'm beginning to wonder if we'll have to develop new dating norms (neo-Victorianism?) in order to cope with this problem.
I don't think the law will help much because presumption of innocence gives rapists too much leeway ("he said, she said") and presumption of guilt invites false accusations, both of which are huge political problems.
Or we could accelerate current social trends and develop a formal caste system, whereby a female's word is always accepted prima facie against males ("he admitted to being on the grassy knoll"), and where male testimony is not admissible in court cases involving females.
I don't think the law will help much because presumption of innocence gives rapists too much leeway ("he said, she said") and presumption of guilt invites false accusations, both of which are huge political problems.
Or we could accelerate current social trends and develop a formal caste system, whereby a female's word is always accepted prima facie against males ("he admitted to being on the grassy knoll"), and where male testimony is not admissible in court cases involving females.
How is that any different than relaying some horrifying tale of abuse that wasn't dealt with properly under the old system?
The only information it provides is telling us what the journalist wants us to think.
How about some stats? Some numbers? Some experts?