12 ms·

> And if sexual harassment occurs on-campus, or involving staff or students, surely that is a University matter? ------------------ No, I think that's a polic

> And if sexual harassment occurs on-campus, or involving staff or students, surely that is a University matter? ------------------ No, I think that's a police matter. The contrary view strikes me as saying that if a member of my company sexually assaults another that's a company matter rather than a police matter. The flaw being that the company is going to look out for itself, just as the university will. The third party, ideally, shouldn't have that conflict of interest.

TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
Jurisdiction is not mutually exclusive.
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  Frequently it is. Interfering with a police investigation is illegal, taking action against someone who the courts have found innocent can be grounds for a lawsuit. Frankly it strikes me that things would be significantly better if jurisdiction was always exclusive.
  - Nimi 13y ago
    Interesting point. I've recently read about a case in my university where the student, who was disaffected with the university's response to a sexual harassment complaint, filed a complaint with the police, then was told the police can't do anything while the university hasn't issued a final ruling. That is opposite to what the law here says, but if the law simply said that criminal offenses are police matters, period, the police's response would likely have been very different.
csense 13y ago
> > if sexual harassment occurs on-campus, or involving staff or students, surely that is a University matter? > No, I think that's a police matter. I think it depends on who the victim reports it to, and which channel they want to impose consequences. I've heard that going through the legal process can be stressful enough for some victims of sexual violence / harassment that they refuse to go through with it. From the standpoint of police / prosecutors, investigating / prosecuting crimes where the victim isn't cooperative or isn't willing to testify at trial, and there is little other evidence, isn't an effective use of limited government resources. Whereas the university discipline process to suspend or expel a student for misconduct is essentially a private administrative proceeding which may be a more attractive forum for victims to pursue: There's a lower standard of proof, so the process is more likely to be successful; and the accused does not necessarily have a right to face the accuser in such a setting (it's clear that Constitutional rule in criminal proceedings is supposed to make it harder for a person to ruin someone else's life with a false criminal accusation, but it also creates a big psychological problem for some victims to overcome.) My understanding is that university and police investigations are independent processes with different standards of proof.

TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago

Jurisdiction is not mutually exclusive.

6d0debc071 13y ago
Frequently it is. Interfering with a police investigation is illegal, taking action against someone who the courts have found innocent can be grounds for a lawsuit. Frankly it strikes me that things would be significantly better if jurisdiction was always exclusive.
- Nimi 13y ago
  Interesting point. I've recently read about a case in my university where the student, who was disaffected with the university's response to a sexual harassment complaint, filed a complaint with the police, then was told the police can't do anything while the university hasn't issued a final ruling. That is opposite to what the law here says, but if the law simply said that criminal offenses are police matters, period, the police's response would likely have been very different.

csense 13y ago

> > if sexual harassment occurs on-campus, or involving staff or students, surely that is a University matter? > No, I think that's a police matter. I think it depends on who the victim reports it to, and which channel they want to impose consequences. I've heard that going through the legal process can be stressful enough for some victims of sexual violence / harassment that they refuse to go through with it. From the standpoint of police / prosecutors, investigating / prosecuting crimes where the victim isn't cooperative or isn't willing to testify at trial, and there is little other evidence, isn't an effective use of limited government resources. Whereas the university discipline process to suspend or expel a student for misconduct is essentially a private administrative proceeding which may be a more attractive forum for victims to pursue: There's a lower standard of proof, so the process is more likely to be successful; and the accused does not necessarily have a right to face the accuser in such a setting (it's clear that Constitutional rule in criminal proceedings is supposed to make it harder for a person to ruin someone else's life with a false criminal accusation, but it also creates a big psychological problem for some victims to overcome.) My understanding is that university and police investigations are independent processes with different standards of proof.