NYT Op-Ed: What's With This "Innocent Till Proven Guilty" Crap For College Men Accused Of Sexual Assault?
There's a truly disturbing line of thinking within an op-ed by Jon Krakauer and Laura L. Dunn in The New York Times -- an op-ed which asks that we not "weaken" the disgusting Title IX campus sex policies.
These are the policies that have been used to remove due process from men, mainly, with kangaroo court proceedings that one case, had a man expelled from school for "assaulting" a woman by getting a blow job from her while he was passed out.
Krakauer and Dunn write (and check out the bit I boldfaced):
Title IX treats campus sexual misconduct as a civil rights violation, which has led some to demand that campus rape allegations be handled by law enforcement agencies instead of schools. But a Title IX disciplinary proceeding doesn't preclude victims from pursuing criminal charges. Many victims refuse to go to the police, however, because the criminal justice system is designed to favor defendants over their accusers. Not only must the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the defendant is presumed at trial to be innocent -- which encourages scrutiny of the accuser, who is inevitably portrayed by the defense as the one who's really to blame.
Yes, they are horrified by a cornerstone of our justice system: "the defendant is presumed at trial to be innocent," as in, "innocent until proven guilty."
They instead appear to believe that we should just expel whomever somebody points a finger at, all "J'accuse!" -- and too baddiepoo if that person's college prospects, career prospects, and life is ruined.
Do you want to live in their kind of country, with their kind of "justice"?
I sure don't.
They write:
Both of us are concerned that Ms. DeVos is about to make it even more difficult to hold student perpetrators accountable.
Guess what: It isn't the job of some dude who went to business school or some lady with a Ph.D. in gender studies to investigate crimes and determine innocence or guilt.
We have this thing called "the legal system." There are police officers, defense attorneys, courts, and judges.
That's the forum where rape accusations, investigations, and trials belong. And that's the place that offers the best insurance that the proceeding will be fair.
Sometimes, sure, a guilty person may go free due to a lack of evidence.
But let's say you are the accused, and you're innocent. Would you like to be convicted by some college student council coven because, I dunno, you have kind of a guilty look to you and you can't prove you didn't do what you were accused of?
Lemme know whether that works for you.
via @pebonilla
Really stupid at best, or ignorant at worse op-ed.
What Krakauer and Dunn completely ignore, is that beyond just reducing the standard to 50/50, is that the whole thing is exactly as you describe, a kangaroo court, led by the ill trained, ignorant of due process and law, and with huge agendas and incentives.
But it's okay, because these are civil penalties in a school, not criminal penalties that might affect someone's lives.
Kraukauer has moved from into the wild, and into thin air, to out of his ass.
jerry at August 4, 2017 10:58 PM
some lady with a Ph.D. in gender studies to investigate crimes
Oh, in which case you're really screwed, young man. You're the patriarchy, see? and you're all guilty, guilty, guilty.
Or as Beria is alleged to have said show me the man, and I'll show you the crime.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 5, 2017 5:55 AM
Women never lie about rape, Amy! Just ask the legendary Lena Dumbass!
You know, the anti-social justice warrior brigade on YouTube often adds announcements to their videos not to troll the targets of their videos.
God knows why they ask that. Personally, I think people should troll the shit out of Lena Dumbass.
Patrick at August 5, 2017 6:37 AM
Because the accuser in a rape or harassment case never lies. Not in the Duke lacrosse case, not in the University of Virginia fraternity case, not in the Mattress Girl case, not in the Scottsboro Boys case, not ever.
And protecting the perhaps-falsely accused is not something a group of academics with PhDs in grievance studies is worried about, unless it's a black man sitting on death row with 12 witnesses saying he did it.
Protecting the narrative is much more important than protecting the innocent. The narrative is "rape culture" and "patriarchy." And it must be protected and nurtured.
It's not conceivable to them that a few innocents may be incarcerated or killed in furtherance of that narrative; they believe the narrative so completely.
Conan the Grammarian at August 5, 2017 6:56 AM
Meh. It's the New York Times. They lost me when they published Coates' odious "whitey owes me reparations" nonsense.
They'll continue sliding down the relevancy scale until they're at HuffPo levels or worse.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 5, 2017 8:14 AM
It isn't that it is inconceivable Conan. It is entirely justified because the narrative is good and unapproved narrative is evil. Those innocents were sacrificed for the greater good and that is all that matters. At least to them that is all that matters. After all, they can conceive that they may one day be those innocents being sacrificed to the narrative.
Ben at August 5, 2017 9:22 AM
The ideological fellow travelers of these barking moonbats are already sitting on every court in the land, including the Supreme Court.
And people wonder why those of us who want to stop this slide into legal anarchy voted for Trump.
Isab at August 5, 2017 10:09 AM
From the Op-Ed piece Amy linked:
This article claims that the standard was, on college campuses, "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt." And it's been that way for decades.
Is that true?
In fairness to the authors of this braindamaged article, I don't quite get the impression that they're trying to say that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is an outrageous standard and that we must do away with it. They seem to be arguing that the standard in campus assaults should be much lower because "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard in criminal court. They're not trying to argue that criminal courts must change this.
Not that I agree with them. But they should have their positions presented accurately.
One thing I do wonder about is where they got this information:
Patrick at August 5, 2017 12:08 PM
The problem with having multiple standards in multiple overlapping jurisdictions is the OJ situation; a man acquitted of a crime is subsequently sued for committing the very crime for which he was acquitted.
So, pursue criminal charges and, if those fail, sue in civil court or press charges in campus court. Harass the accused in court after court, until you find a court with a low-enough burden of proof that will permit you to exact your retribution.
Conan the Grammarian at August 5, 2017 12:24 PM
A male student was recently expelled because someone saw him and girlfriend horsing around in the yard. She insists she was not assaulted and they are still dating but she was not allowed to give testimony. There are multiple cases where the girl decided a year later that she was assaulted (I guess he didn't end it nicely).
When feminists insist that all male/female sex is assault and that all men are rapists, and convince their students of this, kangaroo courts are an inevitable consequence.
cc at August 5, 2017 2:23 PM
The problem with having multiple standards in multiple overlapping jurisdictions is the OJ situation; a man acquitted of a crime is subsequently sued for committing the very crime for which he was acquitted
This is the rule in every jurisdiction. Civil cases are about monetary damages. No criminal penalties.
The problem with the colleges is that courts have found constitutional due process rights outside of criminal court.
The colleges are violating those rights and are getting successfully sued for these violations
I am in favor of a refund for all tuition, board and room incured by any college student who is thrown out on a sexual assault complaint without constitutional due process. The college should also be forced to issue a clean transcript for transfer to another school.
Isab at August 5, 2017 2:27 PM
"but the defendant is presumed at trial to be innocent -- which encourages scrutiny of the accuser."
And, that is exactly how it should be. IN EVERY case, not just rape cases, the accuser should be questioned - under "scrutiny" as they are claiming. Just how is that a bad thing? We need to know what is their motive for making an accusation.
Just look at history; some claim that the accusations of "she is a witch" were done by jealous women who thought the "witch" was a threat to take away their husbands. Or look at honor killings in the Mid-East today. Often it turns out to be about money. Accuse your sister of dishonoring the family and then kill her so she can't collect half of your parents inheritance.
These authors are really going down a dangerous path if they want to take away "innocent until proven guilty." Because it won't end at just cries of rape on college campuses. It will spill out into society at large.
charles at August 5, 2017 6:56 PM
Like all revolutionaries, they never think the revolution will get them. But it will. Revolutions always eat their own.
Conan the Grammarian at August 5, 2017 7:42 PM
Conan writes:
I see what you're saying, but I have to point out, you're exaggerating. First there is not an indefinite number of different standards regarding an acceptable burden of proof, so you could not hound a person indefinitely until you find a court that is willing to convict. You're eventually going to run out of standards of evidence.
I understand why you brought up OJ, since he's probably the most famous person in the U.S. to caught by one standard having escaped another, but could you have picked a less sympathetic character?
Yeah, yeah, I know. It doesn't matter how convinced we are of OJ's guilt or the despicable thug-like attempt to use force to reclaim memorabilia that rightfully belongs to someone else, he's still entitled to fair treatment by the law.
When I was participating in online discussions about George Zimmerman's acquittal, some seemed to take comfort in the mistaken idea that Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin (Trayvon's parents) would undoubtedly be suing Zimmerman in civil court.
Why didn't that happen? Very simple. Florida law protects you from civil suits when the court has ruled you acted in self-defense. Technically, the court did not actually say Zimmerman acted in self-defense; the jury decided that the state didn't meet its burden of proof. However, since self-defense is the only justification for his actions that day, his acquittal implies it.
Thankfully, Trayvon's parents didn't opt to drain their resources in legalistic hair-splitting and pursue a civil suit they were likely to lose.
Patrick at August 6, 2017 12:05 AM
Thankfully, Trayvon's parents didn't opt to drain their resources in legalistic hair-splitting and pursue a civil suit they were likely to lose.
Patrick at August 6, 2017 12:05 AM
Another reason not to pursue a civil suit. People who are lower middle class without big insurance policies are generally judgment proof.
You can't get blood out of a turnip.
Isab at August 6, 2017 3:41 AM
Isab:
Perhaps, but Zimmerman did have a generous fund set up for his legal defense. Unless that drained him completely, he might have had something worth taking.
But the point is moot, since Florida law protects him from that.
However, even if you can't get a huge financial windfall from Zimmerman, can't you at least garnish his wages or something like that?
On the subject of O.J. Simpson, I believe Fred Goldman found ways of compelling him to give up funds, even when Simpson did cry poverty. Such as, despite Simpson's insistence that he would not part with his mother's piano to pay off Goldman, the law compelled him to do just that.
And all the proceeds from his book, "If I Did It," went to Fred Goldman (which is as good a reason as any to buy the book).
Patrick at August 6, 2017 10:26 AM
"However, even if you can't get a huge financial windfall from Zimmerman, can't you at least garnish his wages or something like that?"
You can try, but generally that won't yield enough to cover the cost of your attorneys.
There is a reason that most civil suits are directed at either insurance companies or corporations with deep pockets.
The lawyers dont find it worth their time to go after individuals, who can often evade the debt by declaring bankruptcy.
A criminal conviction can bootstrap your way to civil court victory assuming someone has standing to sue.
Not every injury or death is compensatable in court. State law determies if and which relatives can sue on behalf of a dead victim.
Isab at August 6, 2017 12:48 PM
"The college should also be forced to issue a clean transcript for transfer to another school."
The problem is that there are only a relatively small number of admissions officers in the U.S.; they have professional associations and conferences, and in general they are fairly tight. There is bound to be a grapevine. Even if the school who expels the falsely accused student issues a clean transcript, word will get around. That student, on applying to other schools, will get a bunch of rejection letters of the "We're sorry, but we do not have any slots remaining in your major for this term" variety. It's collusion, but unless someone is willing to break ranks and has documented their conversations, it's impossible to prove.
Cousin Dave at August 7, 2017 7:35 AM
Yes, "preponderance of the evidence" is bad enough. But the real problem is that, under the OCR's prodding, the schools have gone way beyond that, to a "convict by any means necessary" standard.
They've gone to convictions based on anonymous and third-party accusations.
They've gone to criminalizing ordinary consenting behavior.
They've gone to restricting the defendant's right to present a defense.
They've gone to "gotcha" tactics where they get statements from the accused under the guise of an informal conversation, or an implied grant of immunity.
They've gone to trial and conviction in absentia, and the accused not knowing of the accusations until after they have been expelled
They've gone to encouraging the accuser to slander the accused on campus, sometimes for years.
They've gone to different sets of legal rights for different classes of people.
This is the standard of justice that post-modern feminism wants to apply to all sex crimes. Most feminists will be happy to see this standard implemented, on the assumption that only (lower-class) men will be impacted. But as stated above, revolutions eat their own. Once that door is opened, the new standard won't be limited to just sex crimes with male defendants. Mob justice does not respect fine legal distinctions.
Cousin Dave at August 7, 2017 7:44 AM
Hadn't I read something that Millennials were having sex at a much lower rate than previous generations?
Well, there is a reason.
FIDO at August 8, 2017 4:38 AM
Leave a comment