California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

@dlowan,

Quote:

To the Editor:

“Students File Complaints on Assaults at Columbia” (news article, April 25) suggests that campus judicial boards often privilege the rights of the accused over the rights of the alleged victims. In our experience, the opposite is usually true.

On most college campuses, students accused of sexual assault have far fewer rights than students accused of any other crime.

Moreover, they typically are not guaranteed rights that, in the criminal justice system, are considered fundamental: the right to confront the evidence against them, the right to cross-examine witnesses and the right to a lawyer.

And their cases are decided by an eclectic combination of students, professors and administrators, none of whom typically have experience with criminal law.

Taking these cases out of the hands of people with no criminal law experience and putting them in the hands of people who investigate crimes for a living — namely, police officers and prosecutors — will help ensure that everyone’s rights are protected.

As even the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network has recently pointed out, no college would think itself qualified to adjudicate a murder case. Why then should colleges believe themselves qualified to judge rape cases?

MATT KAISER
JUSTIN DILLON
Washington, April 25, 2014

The writers are partners at a law firm that has defended college students in campus disciplinary proceedings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/opinion/the-rights-of-the-accused.html?_r=0

0 Replies

My question is why the hell for a serous crime of "rape" are we forcing the universities to set up a parallel "legal" system that contain little to none of the due process protections of the real legal system to say nothing of using more likely then not standard instead of at the very least the preponderance of the evidence standard?

Someone had just compare setting up such a system for other serous crimes such as murder and I tend to agree it make no more logical sense to do so for rape/sexual assault then it does for other serous crimes.

I can just see a universal stating that while there was not enough evidence that the student did in fact committed murder for the legal system and no charges was ever file our own "legal" system with little or no due process rights had found him guilty and are therefore ending his college career.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

No it doesn't. For someone to be expelled from school, a drastic punishment that results in tens of thousands of dollars lost and horrible effects to career and future educational opportunities, the standard of proof is much lower.

This is the part of the problem. Schools are being forced to act like courts with the ability to pass judgement. They are under political pressure to exact a very harsh penalty.

This happens without the normal civil rights protections that we generally enjoy.

1 Reply

@firefly,

I'm sorry you don't think my comment is relevant but I disagree. Max and perhaps others have suggested this rule will hurt the falsely accused. I have responded to that. others have suggested that the number of false accusations are very minimal and I have responded to that. Rape is rape whether it occurs on campus or in a back alley and whether it is investigate by a university or police. If there are a meaningful number of false accusations within the set of crimanlly prosecuted rapes, I see no reason to believe there aren't in the set of campus assaults.

Oh, and I have commented quite specifically on the rule. Obviously my opinion is not in step with yours but but is agreement the price of admission to this thread?

In any case to the extent my comments are not precisely on point, by A2K standards, they come very, very close. Since when does any thread have so narrow a focus as you seem to desire?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

No it doesn't. For someone to be expelled from school, a drastic punishment that results in tens of thousands of dollars lost and horrible effects to career and future educational opportunities, the standard of proof is much lower.

This is the part of the problem. Schools are being forced to act like courts with the ability to pass judgement. They are under political pressure to exact a very harsh penalty.

This happens without the normal civil rights protections that we generally enjoy.

It's certainly refreshing to see you argue against political correctness.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

It's certainly refreshing to see you argue against political correctness.

Don't push it Finn!

I would like to think this means I am open-minded, but civil rights for the accused used to be a Liberal cause.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
It's certainly refreshing to see you argue against political correctness.

Don't push it Finn!

I would like to think this means I am open-minded, but civil rights for the accused used to be a Liberal cause.

Back when I was a liberal individual rights was a liberal cause, it was the conservatives who were arguing for using the government to enforce conformity. Then liberals decided that oppinions need to be regulated and that the police state is a good idea.

Liberals abandoned me before I abandoned them.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Then liberals decided that oppinions need to be regulated and that the police state is a good idea.

Sorry Hawkeye but both the extreme sides of the political spectrum wish to control our bodies and our sex lives with special note of women bodies.

Where the far left is in control we get the silliness such as the subject of this thread and where the far right is concern we get laws to limit the control of women over their own reproduction systems.

Both view women as children that need the state protections and control.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Then liberals decided that oppinions need to be regulated and that the police state is a good idea.

BillRM wrote:

Sorry Hawkeye but both the extreme sides of the political spectrum wish to control our bodies and our sex lives with special note of women bodies.

Where the far left is in control we get the silliness such as the subject of this thread and where the far right is concern we get laws to limit the control of women over their own reproduction systems.

I have a lot of trouble thinking of anyone further to the RIGHT than ME,
and I fully support 1OO% liberty of any chick's deciding autonomously on abortion.
Note that, as of now, I am officially an enrolled voter of Florida.
I was surprized at how ez the registration process was.
I did not even have to stand in line, but I was legally required not to take my gun into the Board of Elections.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I have a lot of trouble thinking of anyone further to the RIGHT than ME,

David you are of course free and welcome to declare yourself anywhere on the political spectrum, however I tend to view you as more of a Liberalism if you can be classify in any simple terms.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I have a lot of trouble thinking of anyone further to the RIGHT than ME,

David you are of course free and welcome to declare yourself anywhere on the political spectrum, however I tend to view you as more of a Liberalism if you can be classify in any simple terms.

??????

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

I have a lot of trouble thinking of anyone further to the RIGHT than ME,

BillRM wrote:

David you are of course free and welcome to declare yourself anywhere on the political spectrum,
however I tend to view you as more of a Liberalism if you can be classify in any simple terms.

Where did I go rong?????
Was it my fonetic spelling ??????

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Where did I go rong?????
Was it my fonetic spelling ??????

LOL

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
I have a lot of trouble thinking of anyone further to the RIGHT than ME,

BillRM wrote:

David you are of course free and welcome to declare yourself anywhere on the political spectrum,
however I tend to view you as more of a Liberalism if you can be classify in any simple terms.
Where did I go rong?????
Was it my fonetic spelling ??????

I think u misspelled rite.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Sorry Hawkeye but both the extreme sides of the political spectrum wish to control our bodies and our sex lives with special note of women bodies.

Currently yes, as I said, but it was not always so. Both the left and the right are currently in agreement that liberty is a threat that cannot be tolerated.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

What has "liberty" got to do with sexual assault?

People have the legal right not to be sexually assaulted--subjected to unwanted sexual contact with another person.

The best way to insure that, particularly among college students, is to require an affirmative consent--which helps to insure the contact is wanted, before the contact, or particular act, is initiated. Making sure you do have consent is a matter of individual responsibility on the part of the person seeking the contact.

An affirmative consent is required for any type of invasive contact--very few people would be happy with a norm that would allow a physician to engage in such acts of contact until they are loudly protested by the person with whom such contact is made--evidence of prior agreement and consent is necessary. Sexual assault laws apply in those situations as well, and the most common complaints against dentists in my state involve unwanted contacts, including fondling, while the patients are not fully awake or able to resist, and where there was no consent for such contact.

People have the right to control the privacy of their own bodies, and access t0 their bodies, regardless of the situations in which that takes place--that's why consent is necessary--that's what differentiates consensual contact from sexual assault. And an affirmative standard of consent helps to differentiate, less ambiguously, between what is clearly wanted, and what isn't.

This new bill isn't trying to control anyone's "sex life"--it's intended to diminish sexual assaults among students--non-consensual, unwanted, sexual contacts. And, at the very least, it focuses attention on what a partner actually wants which makes it much less likely for consent to be violated. It's hard to see how that is to anyone's disadvantage, particularly when the goal is to reduce sexual assaults, which is the aim of this bill.

Why is an affirmative consent of "Yes means yes" not a better standard than just "No means no", which is aleady state law?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

-it's intended to diminish sexual assaults among students--non-consensual, unwanted, sexual contacts.

The road to Hell is paved in good intentions. I give this no weight at all.

Quote:

Why is an affirmative consent of "Yes means yes" not a better standard than just "No means no", which is aleady state law?

Because we have a duty to object if we feel like objecting, which I see no value in negating, and because humans generally dont have sexual relationships in the manor that the law demands....constant asking for permission to go to the next stage of the act. In fact humans dont do hardly anything that way. The law is made for humans and it thus must respect human nature, to not is abuse of the citizens at the hands of the state.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

humans generally don't have sexual relationships in the manor that the law demands

Actually they do. Most people are not sexually assaulting others, they automatically engage in the types of physical contacts that are mutually agreeable, truly consenting, and they seek that, and they don't want to harm anyone by disregarding that.

Sexual assault is abuse at the hands of another person-and that's what happens when consent is disregarded or not present. You seem to make no differentiation between human behavior and that of rutting chimpanzees, although all our laws hold humans to a higher standard..

If it's so hard for people like you to understand whether your contacts are wanted are not, or how to judge that, or to to even care about whether they are wanted or not, that helps to explain why sexual assaults--unwanted contacts-- are a problem. And it is why colleges need standards of consent that focus on prevention rather than just figuring out how to deal with assaults among students after they take place.

Nothing about this new bill negates "No means n0--that is still state law. It's intended to make students more aware of whether they are clearly getting a "No" or a "Yes", so there is less possible misunderstanding about it.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

because humans generally dont have sexual relationships in the manor that the law demands

What manor would that be, Walthamstow?

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

If it's so hard for people like you to understand whether your contacts are wanted are not, or how to judge that, or to to even care about whether they are wanted or not, that helps to explain why sexual assaults--unwanted contacts-- are a problem.

Steve Job's famously said that people dont generally know what they want. I think this is particularly true when it comes to women and sex, so any law predicated on women having knowledge of what they want is going to end up a cluster ****. Even with men this is a problem, there are lots of sex acts that sometimes I like and sometimes I dont, if my wife had to ask all I could say is "maybe, I dont know, we could try it".

This law is more of the same that we have seen from feminists all along, black/white thinking largely divorced from the human experience.

2 Replies

California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know