3 ms·
The purpose of internal disciplinary systems is to have a weaker burden of proof. Meeting "beyond a reasonable doubt" is very difficult when the victim and per
by superuser2 10y ago
The purpose of internal disciplinary systems is to have a weaker burden of proof.
Meeting "beyond a reasonable doubt" is very difficult when the victim and perpetrator are in something resembling a romantic relationship and behind closed doors, to the point that almost no rapists would be found guilty.
Schools instead use the standard of "more likely than not" to return a finding of "responsible," which means the school can get rid of the rapist, even if there's not enough evidence to put him in prison. Lower certainty required for a less drastic action.
If only cases that DAs think are winners get acted on, the vast majority of campus rapes are immune from punishment.
- forrestthewoods 10y agoPresumption of Innocence is considered a human right by the United Nations. Manipulating the system to implicitly lessen the burden of proof is horrific. But at least the intentions are noble. As the current police system's handling of rape cases is also horrific. However two wrongs don't make a right.
- DanBC 10y agoBalance of probability has nothing to do with presumed innocent.
- zo1 10y ago>"Lower certainty required for a less drastic action." If you consider what happens to male college students if they are accused of rape and found "guilty" to any degree by the university, then you wouldn't say it's a "less drastic action". They get expelled, likely have their reputations and lives ruined. This is the reason we have courts, and it is the reason we don't give judge/execution rights to police.
- Avshalom 10y agoGetting expelled is less drastic than being put in prison.
- chris_wot 10y agoIn other words, it allows them to get rid of who they see to be "undesirable". There's a reason why the legal system requires a certainly level of certainty before a conviction stands!
- guard-of-terra 10y ago> Meeting "beyond a reasonable doubt" is very difficult when the victim and perpetrator are in something resembling a romantic relationship and behind closed doors, to the point that almost no rapists would be found guilty. That's totally fine if you ask me. I think we should be having people signing this paper when they turn adolescent: That they understand that they are responsible for selecting their sexual partners, and once they engage in consentual sex with them, they can no longer accuse this person of rape unless they later acquire a restraining order against them. They can still accuse their sexual partners of violence (that's verifiable) but not of rape. Do not want to sign it? You have to tell this before any kind of sex to your potential partners.
- tehwebguy 10y ago> I think we should be having people signing this paper when they turn adolescent: > That they understand that they are responsible for selecting their sexual partners, and once they engage in consentual sex with them, they can no longer accuse this person of rape unless they later acquire a restraining order against them. They can still accuse their sexual partners of violence (that's verifiable) but not of rape. > Do not want to sign it? You have to tell this before any kind of sex to your potential partners. Were you born like 200 years ago? Please do not visit my country.
- Khaine 10y agoSorry but if its he said/she said how it faire on the accused? To get kicked out of school, have massive debts, have their name trashed all because you had drunken sex with someone and they regret it in the morning? We have courts for a reason. And these kangaroo courts are a travesty of justice.