You are reading his defense attorney’s interpretation of her statement correctly, yes. I would not say that the point is not in dispute; he claims that it is not. Attorneys generally claim that any point in our favor is not in dispute.
I believe what you meant to say was, any reasonable person would interpret that to mean there is a higher burden of proof on her that she some time later said ‘no’ than there would be in other circumstances. It certainly doesn’t grant permission if both parties agree she did later say ‘no’.
No, absolutely not. In order to have consent for sex you actually have to have consent. My own story: slept next to ex naked (I hate PJs) for 15 years. We often had consensual sex. Relationship went downhill. One night he grabbed me and tried to rape me. I said no, I said get off me, and he persisted until I managed to get hold of the clock radio and whalloped him. I went to a friends house and never went back. I didn’t report it because I knew the police would just laugh and/or lock me up for assault. Just because you agree to sex one time doesn’t mean you agree to it for all eternity. Even if you do things that men might mistake as being sexual, such as wearing short skirts or getting naked for sleeping you still need to get consent or it’s rape. It’s also hard to believe men can’t tell the difference between a woman who is enjoying it and one who is not.
And they could run as low as .00000001%. Hell, your very own link that you use to support your statement says as much. In reference to trying to come to an accurate percentage for false rape reports, it says…
Let’s play “use your imagination.”
Oh no, I forgot my birth control last night! Wait, is that some kind of sore? You slept with my best friend last night?! You brought the condom, right? No, I don’t want anal. Wait a minute, something is hurting. OMG is your phone recording this? I think I drank too much, I just need to sleep right now. Ugh, my period just started and I feel gross.
There are a million and one reasons why someone might not want to sleep with someone at a given time. I don’t know what, if anything, happened in this particular case. But no, being naked is not “consent to sex.” Consent to sex is consent to sex.
It points toward the sex being consensual, and it weighs noticeably in favor of the accused’s argument that the sex was consensual.
It is not dispositive as to the consensual nature of the sex, as noted by even sven and spamforbrains above.
What? People get kicked out of school all the time, for reasons as routine as poor grades or academic dishonesty to breaches of the law, such as underage drinking or vandalism.
Furthermore, I think workplaces ARE required to maintain a safe environment, and they would get in trouble if they knowingly retained someone they had a strong reason to believe was assaulting coworkers.
McCardle considers the 41% figure more reliable than the 2%.
It’s clear that the “vast majority” of allegations claim just isn’t supported by any data. It’ rumor and hearsay on top of rumor and hearsay.
Yale’s standard is affirmative consent. Their page says:
http://www.yale.edu/equalopportunity/policies/
So being naked in bed doesn’t count as consent according to the policy.
What data could they possibly have to support this? In most cases of rape there isn’t any data other than people’s testimony, which isn’t actually data. However, since women almost never benefit and often suffer horribly from reporting rapes, I have trouble believing false accusations are all that common.
All I (at least) was arguing was that when a man says she said “yes” and the woman says she said “no”, I’m more likely to believe the man who was in bed with a female naked by her choice than I am to believe another man. I’m not saying it either does or does not, by itself, push it above the preponderance of evidence status.
In general I have no idea how one decides such issues on the preponderance of evidence if the only evidence is he said – she said. It can only be done on a subjective basis of how truthful each appears to be.
I’m sorry to hear about this encounter.
You did the right thing: you got the hell out of there and never went back.
The accuser, in this instance, left and came back to sleep with him the accused in his bed.
There is simply ZERO inclination that non-consensual sex occurred, other than the accuser’s claim. I fail to see how this meets the standard to terminate a student. It most certainly would not result in a conviction in a court of law.
yeah, that doesn’t look good, but it’s possible she was just highly confused about what happened. Remember, these are inexperienced college students and a lot of young women are brain washed by their parents into being very passive. It might have taken her some time to process the fact she was just attacked by someone she considered to be a friend. In what way does she benefit from this accusation?
My own personal recommendation: if someone tries to rape you, fight like hell. Get DNA samples under your fingernails and try to kill the guy. Probably won’t stop the attack, but it has other benefits. HE will know for sure you didn’t consent, and your injuries may (probably not) sway a jury into agreeing that you didn’t consent.
Or if one person’s accounts doesn’t make sense in light of other facts. Or if the accused gave an account that is consistent with the charges.
. Discussed at length here. Basically the claim is that when the polygraph came into play a lot of the rape accusations were withdrawn or not pursued by the accuser.
polygraphs? they aren’t even admissible in court due to their inaccuracy.
A lot of women withdraw their accusations after seeing the uphill battle they face. It doesn’t mean the accusations are false.
I think ‘non-retractable’ means that she cannot consent to the sex, then later claim that she did not because she decided it was a bad idea.
This. There is no way a D.A. would even bring charges. That case would be a guaranteed loser.
It is he said\she said. They expelled him on what they say was a ‘preponderance of evidence’. I do not think they know what the term means. Even if she hadn’t came back to the room and spent the night, it would still he said\she said. But she did come back and then waited a year to call it rape. That’s got ‘reasonable doubt’ stamped all over it.
I wouldn’t trust a polygraph in a case where I needed to establish the veracity of a claim of severe sexual trauma.
That said, there does have to be a mechanism by which veracity can be established or tested. And yes, this is tremendously difficult on the alleged victim. That, however, does not moot the right of the accused.
Does such a tug-of-war between rights operate in favor of predators? It does.
I still come down in favor of the rights of the accused.
I fully appreciate the fact that my perspective, and my resultant position, is not and cannot be informed by the trauma experienced by thousands of victims who have been legitimately wronged and traumatized, and whose trauma prevents them from making a coherent or timely enough case to obtain justice.
Nevertheless, I have to prioritize the rights of the accused; the presumption of innocence is necessary to any fair system (regardless of the evidentiary standard needed to overcome that presumption).
“Preponderance of the evidence” means “more likely than not that the thing that is claimed to have happened actually happened.” The law dot com legal dictionary says “the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.”
I do not think that even this low standard could have been met here, given the record as we know it.
This. There is no way a D.A. would even bring charges. That case would be a guaranteed loser.
And it’s precisely this situation that is behind the call for colleges to act as extra-judicial courts wrt to rape allegations. Cases like those at Columbia, Harvard Law, and Yale just won’t hold up in a court of law, so activists and accusers are seeking kangaroo courts with significantly less protections for the accused, and lower standards of evidence.