|
Post by Vince524 on May 2, 2017 21:01:52 GMT -5
This is a case that I've discussed elsewhere before, but it's one that always bothered me. I saw an update so I decided to broach it again. helpsaveoursons.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/20170324-PT-Opening-Brief-FILED-4.pdfBasically, both John Doe and Jane Roe were drunk one night. It seems pretty clear that John was more drunk than Jane, and that the flirting was initiated by Jane. The pair conspired on how she'd then sneak past her friends. Texts clearly indicate that she was going to his dorm for sex. She asked if he had a condom because she wasn't on birth control, indicating that she was aware of the possible consequences of sex. She remembers many parts of that night, although at times she would also claim she didn't. John always claimed to have no memory of the night. At one point, John's roommate walked in on them, she was on top and they weren't covered. Also, her friends came to his door, while he had left and used the bathroom. They asked 3 different times if she was okay, and she responded yes. (This information had to come from her, as he wasn't there, yet she also claims at some points to not remember it.) After the hookup, she left and went looking for friends where she remembers making fun of NASCAR. Occidental made it clear they thought she was raped from the outset, in may have actually convinced Jane Doe of that. A Professor Dirks said that John fit the pattern of a serial rapist, because he was valedictorian, played sports and came from a good family. (Someone needs to explain the Dirks the difference between a profile and a stereotype.) The police investigated and decided that it wasn't rape, that the accuser was able to resist, that it didn't meet the elements of rape of an intoxicated person. John Doe Forwarded this to the investigator, and told her he would, now that the possibility of a criminal charge was behind him, was willing to talk to her. The investigator included the report in her investigation, be finalized her report without interviewing John Doe. The report was entirely redacted from the report and not considered at the hearing. The brief states that for they explained that they did not reach the level of reasonable suspicion, which is a much lower standard of evidence than a preponderance of the evidence. They were aware of this, yet ignored it. John Doe had a very hard time finding someone to help him from Occidentals administration, and the person who did was of no help. He was 18, his entire future on the line, emotional distraught, yet he had no support from the school at all. John and his lawyer made several complaints about their ability to get a copy of the charges. Online, there were big parts redacted, and they weren't allowed to have a physical copy. (This seems like a very common practice in these college hearings.) In addition, John Doe's only way of cross examining Jane Roe was questions he could submit in writing in advance. This of course precludes the chance to counter with a follow up question when she says something inconsistent. He asked 38 questions. They only asked, in some form, 15 of those questions. They're listed, and in my lay opinion, several seem very relevant. The brief points out inconsistencies from Roe. She was too intoxicated to remember, yet she supplied many details that only she could provide. In the end, John Doe was found responsible for sexual assault, not by any claim of force, but because she was too incapacitated to consent and John Doe should have know she was. This despite her being the initiator, her asking for a condom, her going to her room and her texting an out of state friend that she was going to have sex now. That in Occidentals mind equals too intoxicated to understand that she's about to have sex. There's more, of course. And this is his side, but it seems pretty damning. Unless they can point to other evidence, it seems completely unfair that they expelled him when they had a contractual obligation to give him a fair hearing. They've marked his records that he was expelled for sexual assault, which will affect him getting into other colleges and his job prospects. I'd like to hear other opinions, especially from our lawyer members.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 20:13:41 GMT -5
For some reason, posting on legal issues always feels like work, I suppose because I feel some extra obligation not to talk out of my ass.
I've only got part of this story -- one side's opening brief, and I don't know what the other side will be arguing. Thus, there is only so much I can say. I will also note, as someone who has had the experience of drinking to blackout, that it is perfectly possible to remember some stuff and not other stuff, so that part doesn't seem odd to me. Sounds like she was too drunk to consent, but then it also sounds like he may have been too drunk to realize that. Also it sounds like she (like me, by the way) is one of those coherent drunks who seems a lot more sober than she actually is, even when blackout drunk. I'm just saying -- it's been a very long time since i've been that drunk, but I've sent perfectly coherent emails and had perfectly coherent (I'm told) conversations I can't remember. That's one reason I stop at a drink or two, and have for quite some time. So I don't read her story and say, "oh, she's lying."
That said, I have a kneejerk reaction against colleges holding administrative hearings on crimes like rape. Stuff like that belongs in a court. Whatever he did or didn't do, he has rights that should be protected.
She likely is very scared and confused, and can't recall exactly what transpired. That's scary and very unfortunate. But assuming he was in a similarly disabled state, and thought she consented, I wouldn't think he should be punished for it. He should at least have a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that was the case in court. I say a pox on colleges holding administrative hearings on such serious issues.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 3, 2017 20:31:51 GMT -5
My take was that she was very emotional and upset for losing her virginity under those circumstances. Understandable. I personally think the professor who told her that John Doe fit the profile of a serial rapist because he played sports, came from a good family and got good grades twisted her into believing she was raped.
However drunk she was, he was at least that drunk if not more so. A lot of the story bothers me. Why exclude the police report that concluded it wasn't rape, but 2 people's bad judgement. Why should an 18 year old with his entire future on the line have to face this without anyone in his corner?
It seems clear she knew she was having sex. I think it was also clear her friends knew she was engaging in behavior she'd regret the next day but people do that all the time.
She went to his dorm. If he had an off campus apartment 10 minutes down the road (My daughter is getting one like that next semester.) and she'd driven there and gotten pulled over on in an accident, she would have been held responsible for her actions.
I don't look at this as a case of her being a bad guy. I do wonder if the college made her a victim.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 4, 2017 7:35:18 GMT -5
I say a pox on colleges holding administrative hearings on such serious issues. Agreed. Beyond that, I think the issue of "consent" continues to be built on double standards (even if those double standards are reflective of reality, far more often than not): if two drunk/impaired people have sex, it shouldn't be the case that demonstrating consent is the responsibility of one more than the other.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on May 4, 2017 8:55:01 GMT -5
I say a pox on colleges holding administrative hearings on such serious issues. Agreed. Beyond that, I think the issue of "consent" continues to be built on double standards (even if those double standards are reflective of reality, far more often than not): if two drunk/impaired people have sex, it shouldn't be the case that demonstrating consent is the responsibility of one more than the other. Exactly. Why is drunken sex automatically rape these days? If both are impaired, why is it automatically the fault of the guy if they have sex? Why is he the alleged rapist, by default, and not the female? This type of standard seems to be a bit like a drunk female driver hitting a male drunk driver, but the male driver is the one who gets blamed because he was drunk and the female gets off because...well...she's female. Apparently, only males are culpable for their actions when they're drunk. Drunk male = totally responsible for everything he did while drunk because impaired males should somehow have total control over their actions. Drunk female = not at all responsible for drunk actions because she was totally impaired.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 9:41:06 GMT -5
As for the "why is it always assumed that the man was the aggresser?": to be blunt and explicit, I think it's because it is easy for a man to penetrate a completely unconscious (or close to it) female, whereas it's not so easy for a woman to force an unconscious man to penetrate her. The amount of alcohol required to incapacitate the brain to that degree tends to incapacitate the penis, as well. Thus, many presume that if a man can still function sexually, he still has enough capacity to consent. (And frankly, I think that is usually true.) Alas, incapacitation enhances the degree to which an unwilling woman could become a receptacle. Men also tend to be stronger physically than women. And women are far more often raped by men than vice versa.
That said, it doesn't sound like that was this case here. Here we have two very drunk people, and the woman, while she may have been dead drunk and incapable of thinking coherently, seemed by all the signs to be consenting, as evidenced by text messages and witness testimony. The guy sounds like he was too drunk to assess whether maybe she was too drunk to give such consent. A more sober guy might have said "yeah, she's too wasted." But a drunk guy, not so much -- one's ability to assess others' drunkenness tends to be considerably impaired when one is drunk oneself. Assuming that was the case here, I do not think this was rape, the young man should not have been punished, and I feel bad for both young people involved, who will regret this the rest of their lives.
And always, for a crime as serious as rape, we need a court and the protections and procedures of a court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 9:54:40 GMT -5
I will also add - time was, and not too long ago, colleges shut down women who were date-raped, hushing up the crime. It happened to a friend of mine. It was especially true if the guy was a good student, athlete, and/or from a "good" family. I'll bet it still happens. Sounds like this school may have gone too far in the other direction.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on May 4, 2017 10:10:34 GMT -5
As for the "why is it always assumed that the man was the aggresser?": to be blunt and explicit, I think it's because it is easy for a man to penetrate a completely unconscious (or close to it) female, whereas it's not so easy for a woman to force an unconscious man to penetrate her. But even that answer is loaded with biased assumptions. I'm not referring to the extreme cases where the woman was allegedly black-out drunk. I'm referring to cases where both are drunk, not unconscious. The narrative surrounding these hypotheticals always seems to craft a story that the woman is always blacked out and incapacitated. I'm unaware of women who black out every time they drink or get drunk. My post was referring to situations where, all things being equal (including an assumption of equal level of inebriation), the male is automatically labeled as the one who should've somehow had cognitive control of the situation and that the female is absolved of any culpability for the drunken sex. Not rape. Just sex. I'm not referring to those cases where the woman was reportedly incapacitated. And, no disrespect meant to you Cass, but when referring to this type of case, you automatically strawman it with a hypothetical that cast the girl as blacked out, incapacitated drunk, rather than just simply inebriated, like what apparently happened in this case. This is probably the second or third story I've read like this lately, where two young people get buzzed/drunk and fuck (which many of us have done), the school or some authority finds out about it, and the male is automatically labeled a rapist, as if the female's participation was somehow out of her control. My point was that, even in cases where both parties have assumed equal levels of inebriation, thus equal levels of consent and situational control, the assumption of guilt is always biased against the male, despite the specific facts about the specific case. None of which has anything to do with this case or cases like it. No need for the hypothetical strawman. On this, we agree completely. And that's my overall point. It seems we've gotten to such a point of "rape culture" / "campus rape" hysteria that, no matter the actual facts, the male is automatically presumed to be at fault because, given the bullshit narrative that seems to be repeated more and more on campuses and garbage sites like Salon and HuffPo, all men are misogynist rapists whether they know it or not. As horrible as it is that there are cases where some supposedly "good, upstanding" star athlete suffers no consequences at all for actually raping a girl, and the girl is silenced and shamed , we should take care not to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. Two wrongs don't make a right. And, we should take more care as a society not to have such short memories for these horrible cases. Remember that piece of garbage Jameis Winston from FL State just a few years ago? Schools should not be the arbiters of rape cases, or any legal matters. The police should handle that, but they also need to get a lot better at handling them. It seems we (as a society) never handle these types of cases well at all. They are understandably emotionally-charged, but that is also to the detriment of justice sometimes. They need to be handled with more compassion toward the victims, more discretion, and more critical and objective approaches to the investigation and the handling of the facts. I freely admit, though, that I have a hypersensitive sense of justice, where I irrationally (but not unjustifiably) demand that all situations be fair to everyone involved. But, unfortunately life doesn't work that way, so stories like this frustrate me to no end. Why can't people just be rational, compassionate, and fair to each other? Sigh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 10:20:19 GMT -5
And here we agree completely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 11:17:47 GMT -5
I repeat that it sounds like this particular young man was wronged by the university, and that he and young men in his particular position should not be punished. I also repeat that two wrongs do not make a right.
All that said, I see one positive coming out of the mess: perhaps young men, as well as young women, will start getting schooled about the dangers of drunk sex. Women have been getting this particular lecture for generations -- drink makes us more vulnerable, and that if something happens, we may not only be victimized (or perhaps do something we wouldn't do sober), but also shamed for "bringing it on ourselves." Perhaps now young men will be more likely to get a similar lecture.
If both sexes are aware that nasty consequences could well follow, it may act as a restraint, resulting in fewer date rapes (and morning-after regrets). Maybe young men will discourage their drunk buddies from heading off with random girls (can't tell you how many times women do this with their drunk female friends). Maybe drunk young men will have that little seed planted in the back of their head that reminds them, yeah, maybe going for sex isn't a totally awesome idea.
Frankly, in my college days, this burden was pretty much wholly on the girls. It shouldn't be. I got a lecture my brother most definitely didn't. (I can't picture my dad schooling him on the dangers of drunk sorority girls...)
So yeah, bad case. But I hope when the pendulum swings back, it settles in the middle, with a greater awareness on both sexes that drunk sex can have serious consequences.
I mean, sure. Drunk kids will continue to do dumb things because drunk kids. But maybe fewer of them if both sides are aware that bad consequences could ensue. It doubles the chances that one person might have second thoughts before acting.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 4, 2017 11:43:51 GMT -5
Someone broke this case down for me differently. They took it to some rape activists. This is what she wrote:
Let's also keep in mind that Occidental was under a lot of pressure because they had mishandled rape cases in the past in the opposite direction, so it appears that they were on a crusade.
And that seems to be happening a lot.
Student A is described as tipsy, Student B fall down drunk. They're making out in public and told to make it private.
Student A brings B back to a dorm room they share with a roommate, (Who happens to be B's significant other,) and a sexual act is preformed.
Student B is sent away and later that night, A has sex with another student.
Student A remembers what happened, Student B doesn't never files a charge.
Rape or No?
Another case. Student A and Student B are in a relationship. They go out to dinner and a move, go back to A's place and have sex.
The next day, someone thinks B was raped because of a bruise on B's neck. It's known as a hickey. B says repeatedly, I'm fine, I wasn't raped"
Should the school take any action?
Student A and B are both on a casino cruz. A feels someone shove 2 fingers up her skirt and penetrate her anally.
A confronts B, he's arrested and his hands are bagged for evidence.
Charges are dropped against student B. Forensic evidence was negative. B passed 4 polygraph tests. Video also shows it wasn't B, but believed to be a nearby person known a C
What action should the college take?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 4, 2017 11:49:13 GMT -5
Technically, for the pendulum to have swung in the other direction, wouldn't there have to be women raping men and society blaming and shaming the men into staying silent about it? It wasn't that long ago when college frat boys went around chanting No means yes, yes means anal. I don't think the pendulum has moved all that much. Other than that, I agree with what Cass said.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 4, 2017 11:56:15 GMT -5
Well, I posted something about male victims recently, but that's a different discussion. There is a case right now, 2 actually, where a man made a claim against a women, 1 was another student, the other separate case she worked for the college.
Both cases ended up with the man being expelled.
But by the pendulum swinging too far the other way, we're speaking not of rape per se, but of where a woman claimed raped and was presumed to be lying or the college would cover it up to not lose their star quarter back, or a student whose parents were boosters or just worried about bad publicity. Still happens I'm sure.
But now, with the threat of losing fed $ if they're not seen to be doing 'something' it seems as if some colleges make you guilty until proven innocent.
Im out of time, but google Findlay College rape case
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 4, 2017 12:08:31 GMT -5
I feel very badly for any guy who is falsely accused. They shouldn't be, and it's unfortunate. See Cass's's's advice re: drinking and fucking above. It's what I tell/will tell all three of my sons, only much more emphatically. The problem, for me, is when you take a case or two or three (eta: the false accusation cases) and talk about it like it's a goddamn epidemic. Let me know when it's actually an epidemic.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 4, 2017 14:28:20 GMT -5
I somehow missed Opty's post before, but just wanted to mention... But even that answer is loaded with biased assumptions. I'm not referring to the extreme cases where the woman was allegedly black-out drunk. I'm referring to cases where both are drunk, not unconscious. The narrative surrounding these hypotheticals always seems to craft a story that the woman is always blacked out and incapacitated. I'm unaware of women who black out every time they drink or get drunk. My post was referring to situations where, all things being equal (including an assumption of equal level of inebriation), the male is automatically labeled as the one who should've somehow had cognitive control of the situation and that the female is absolved of any culpability for the drunken sex. Not rape. Just sex. I'm not referring to those cases where the woman was reportedly incapacitated. And, no disrespect meant to you Cass, but when referring to this type of case, you automatically strawman it with a hypothetical that cast the girl as blacked out, incapacitated drunk, rather than just simply inebriated, like what apparently happened in this case. It seems from the above that you are misunderstanding what an alcohol-induced blackout is. It's more like amnesia than unconsciousness (though "consciousness" in any meaningful way is arguably absent, the body and some parts of the brain are on auto-pilot, so to speak). And it seems clear in this case that the woman did experience one or more blackouts. Unless a person is repeating the same story every 5 minutes, or unless one purposely tests their memory, it's very likely that one wouldn't know the person was experiencing an alcohol-induced blackout. Intoxicated, sure. In a blackout, no. Blackouts can also happen from drinking quickly, and not necessarily in huge quantities like we think of with being inebriated. Slurring or stumbling may be absent as well. I say this to say that it's something we should be teaching the kiddos. Literally someone might not be conscious of or remember their words or actions or decisions while seeming to be in control of basic faculties. Unfair rape charges notwithstanding, that's something I think conscientious people would, or should, care about.
|
|