Furthermore, talking about something on the stand where one guy will be as dickish as possible to try and discredit you is a lot harder on a person than just getting the word out. Heck, getting the word out is practically a compulsion.
Media attention can actually help mitigate how this is handled. People are going to now be on the lookout for the defense attorney holding her longer than necessary. People other than the jury are going to notice if he’s being a jerk, so the risk calculation changes.
But, more than that, this sounds like a woman who is ignorant of how the court system works, and can easily be led to think that testifying about a rape will be horrible.
Oh, and a note to Rand Rover: every statement is predicated on the OP and news article being accurate. You kinda need that to be able to even discuss it. Every statement about the alleged rapists in the thread is obviously predicated by “Assuming this is true.” We don’t have to pull that stupid “allegedly” crap.
Yeah, I didn’t really think that through. I’ve never used a school’s adjudication system, and was picturing something more like Judge Judy where you have to agree to allow them to be the sole arbitration. But that wouldn’t make sense, really.
Though I still think there must be something accomplished by having the school adjudicate, even if only by implication. Perhaps the idea is to make her feel like it’s been dealt with as well as it’s going to be, and that pressing charges would be a waste of time.
Even on Judge Judy, its only civil cases. I don’t think you can waive the right to press criminal charges.
Having the school adjudicate something thats so clearly a criminal offense is kinda bizarre. My school did that sort of thing for breaking school rules, and occasionally minor criminal acts like pot smoking, but I’d think for a major criminal offense like this, the school would want to steer clear and tell the victim to use the real courts. I mean, if someone gets murdered, do they convene a similar student panel to see if they’re going to expel the suspect?
What standard of evidence is needed? Must the board find their guilt determined beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it the lesser standard of “clear and convincing” evidence needed? Maybe just “preponderance of the evidence?”
Must the board’s decision be unanimous? Does the accused have the right to an attorney, to confront the witnesses against him, and to decline to incriminate himself without that being held against him?
I’d surely like to know the answers to those questions. Because if the board can reach a finding by majority (but not unanimous) vote, on preponderance of the evidence, and the accused isn’t given the right to counsel, then I wouldn’t agree that the evidence must have been “pretty damning.” If the conditions I just laid out were true, then some very thin evidence might result in a board finding of guilt.
That’s pretty much my take on just about anything produced by 60 minutes. There are always snippets of truth in their stories but they never let that get in the way of providing sensationalist fiction.
What I found more amazing than this story is that somebody is actually stupid enough to believe that 60 minutes is a reliable news source.
He’s asking an important question: It’s impossible to evaluate the significance of the Judicial Board’s finding without knowing the rules by which said Board makes it’s judgments and what rights it gives to participants before it.
Only two examples where the manipulation was so ham handed and over the top as to be caught out. Your overwhelming faith in 60 Minutes (or any news magazine program) as a unbiased news source is as endearing as child’s faith in Santa Claus. In ANY news story where a human drama is being laid out there is a slant or an angle. Huge amounts of story tweaking goes on behind the scenes of stories like these in terms of what they decide to put in and leave out and how they present the story.
In the end the facts are that she dropped criminal proceedings, and this mess was dropped into the laps of the college. At that point it was more or less a “he said / she said” of claims of consensual (drunk) sex vs being raped while in an incapacitated state. People have drunk sex all the time in college, in fact it may be the default state for sex in college. Short of being mind readers what would you have the college do in assessing guilt with the above facts in their lap.
Per the article after the expulsions and suspensions the college also instituted an almost total ban on male and female basketball team socializing.
Per your note
Given the facts above, how is the college administration supposed to make this awkward social situation she has chosen to walk back into better, or fix it for her?
What exactly would you have them do so that other students did not judge her?
I really don’t know what is true or not here - I tent toward agnosticism in cases such as this. Saved me a bit of grief in the Duke situation - I didn’t know with any certainty what happened and so didn’t have to walk back an unfortunate assertion.
I am coming to suspect, though, that these university disciplinary boards in whatever form they take (honor code, judicial board, whatever) are no substitute for a court of law when it comes to serious criminal activity. And this assuredly includes sexual misconduct or worse.
Unfortunately universities have every incentive to run as many cases as possible through this process that affords no real protection for the accused or proper punishment for rapists. Actual crimes that get reported to the police would be disclosed to the public through the Jeanne Clery Act, and that could hurt enrollment.
Universities also seem to be treating these sessions as touchy-feely sessions looking to get the students involved to confront their behavior and maybe get some counseling. Fine and good, for alcohol and noise complaints. But this is probably the wrong approach for a rapist.
I want to be clear that I am not making any judgements about this particular case - I don’t know anything about it. That said, there are women in every college in the country who are inordinately attracted to male athletes and do things that that they end up regretting, especially if alcohol is involved. I saw it when I was in school and if anything it is worse now. Big-time college programs have female students competing to be “hostesses” for recruits whan they come for their visits - their job is to entertain the recruits and hopefully get them to commit to the football or basketball program. They even keep statistics on what percentage of recruits they “host” end up signing with the school. “Mary, only 33% of your recruits end up signing with us, but 75% of Julie’s do. Maybe you just aren’t trying hard enouigh.” Nudge-nudge, wink wink. Again, women are competing to get these unpaid positions.
Remember a few years ago when seemingly half of the University of Colorado football team was being accused of rape? It got the coach fired. Not one single player ever went to court, let alone be convicted.
In the aftermath of a basketball player getting thrown off the team due to an honor code violation at Brigham Young University, a website solicited feedback from former athletes of color on their experiences.
A Duke University female student targeted Duke athletes and wrote report cards about them and their performance in the bedroom in an email that got circulated.
My point is that athletes in college often find themselves in situations that most regular students just don’t experience. I tend to refrain from judgement in these situations until all the facts are in. There’s crazy shit going on with athletes in college, and just being involved does not mean they are guilty of anything.
Which itself leads to quite a few pieces about what seems like a clearly fucked up system, one in which victims are not allowed to discuss on-campus verdicts with anyone. Transparency and accountability seem to be out of the question.
