Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Shines Light On College Rape (136 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  these are always tough cases (3+ / 0-)

    1) Lots of alcohol involved

    2) the two parties know each other.

    3) They are of the same background

    so the prosecutors and juries are very
    loath to try and figure this out.

    With the rise in electronic surveillance it's a lot easier,
    if there is a hallway camera that shows the girl unable to walk, well, then it's good evidence for "Lack of Consent",
    if the camera shows them both walking and kissing
    and being very affectionate, that's evidence that at least
    some part of the event was consensual.

    The steubenville case had a lot of camera pics and the girl involved was unconscious and being carried, sure did a lot to show lack of consent, and make a case.

    i suspect in a lot of future cases we will see, collating of instragram and cell phone pics, and that will let a reasonable picture get built.

    •  That raises lots of possibilities (0+ / 0-)

      for new tech apps.

      •  maybe a Party Down app? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Lyon, sethtriggs

        if the phone detects you've spent 2-3 hours in a bar,
        it turns on the camera and audio and records it all for 24 hours before deletion?

        I'm not sure if you could reliably determine if the owner is drunk, maybe a Voice recognition app to tell if someone is slurring their words and then go into record mode for a few hours and delete after 24 hours?

        of course it'd have to be a required app by the school,
        to get any level of ubiquity, most students wouldn't load it otherwise.  Maybe build it into a mandatory school app which you use for buying meals or getting into buildings, but,
        that's about it

    •  Sometimes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Richard Lyon, Lost and Found

      But suggesting that is always the case or even typical is really nonsense.

      No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

      by koNko on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 08:45:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's more commonly the case (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        than you would think.

        The woman gets raped, calls police afterwards, gets a rape kit taken. That's evidence #1.

        Someone, maybe even multiple people, saw the woman falling-down drunk around the same time. That's evidence #2.

        There was a case in Virginia recently where a probably rapist was let off by the college administrative process. He didn't even deny having sex with the victim, which should have been a lucky break for the victim since no rape kit was taken at the time. His only excuse at the hearing was that it was simply "bad sex" or "sex she regretted". But there was a second witness who saw the victim falling-down drunk right around the time of the alleged rape. There was no way she could have sobered up enough to be capable of giving consent for hours after that observation.

        Now, I wasn't on the board and have nothing to do with this case; I read about it in the news afterwards. And I'd be loath to apply the "preponderance of the evidence" standard toward getting someone kicked out of college or worse, or even suspended. Arguably public colleges can't do that because they are an agency of the government, and it violates due process. The federal government can't mandate it of private colleges, for the same reason, regardless of what the staff lawyers for the DoE want to believe. It might be a sufficient standard to justify measures such as ongoing restraining orders, and requiring the alleged perpetrator to bear the burden of avoiding taking the same classes, etc.

        But given the evidence in the news media, and that's a hard thing to say since I don't have first-hand knowledge of what evidence was presented to the hearing board, I would have found him guilty. Responsible. On clear and convincing evidence, perhaps even beyond a reasonable doubt. Why didn't the board find this, even on a lesser evidentiary standard? Arguably because they simply did not want to state that the victim was incapable of giving consent because she was drunk. He wasn't let off because of the burden of proof, he was let off because the board believed in myths from rape culture.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site