The Uncomfortable Truth About Campus Rape Policy
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
How is that any different than relaying some horrifying tale of abuse that wasn't dealt with properly under the old system?
The only information it provides is telling us what the journalist wants us to think.
How about some stats? Some numbers? Some experts?
What I don't really understand is why he was punished at all. Even according to her account he hasn't committed any crime.
I'm not sure you need stats here though, if the presumption of innocence has been abandoned that is a very serious regardless of how many times it has made a difference so far.
If you have a link to more information I'd be interested to read it.
In most crimes involving consent, it is only necessary that the prosecution show that the defendant committed the act constituting the crime in order to establish guilt. Consent is an affirmative defense which must be proven by the defense. If I take your car it's theft unless consent can be established (i.e., you loaned me your keys). Similarly if I punch you in the stomach it's assault unless consent can be established (i dunno, you said "hit me in the gut! I want to see how strong my abs are.")
Rape and sexual assault are the only times when consent is assumed and its lack must be proven.
If Bob has sex with Alice, and Alice later alleges rape, that should be taken as prima facie evidence that a rape occurred. It should be on Bob to prove that the activity was consensual. Anything else vastly increases the risk of sexual assault and reduces the likelihood that offenders will be punished.
Absolutely not. Everyone has the right to a presumption of innocence.
The key issue is whether consent was there at the time of the sex. There have been a string of well publicized cases in which the woman decided she was raped only after the relationship didn't pan out the way she expected.
Really? What I think it means is that he shouldn't be punished until it's actually been eatablihed that he did something. It seems to me that the process here was different.
So what does it actually mean?
>Rape and sexual assault are the only times when consent is assumed and its lack must be proven.
Which is eminently sensible, since it's almost never rape when two people have sex, whereas it's almost always assault when someone punches you on the nose.
I don't think the law will help much because presumption of innocence gives rapists too much leeway ("he said, she said") and presumption of guilt invites false accusations, both of which are huge political problems.
Or we could accelerate current social trends and develop a formal caste system, whereby a female's word is always accepted prima facie against males ("he admitted to being on the grassy knoll"), and where male testimony is not admissible in court cases involving females.