Just because a law says you have to do something doesn’t make it due process. Registering your car isn’t due process. You don’t get due process unless you’re in court. This isn’t that. There is no court. A “hearing” of school officials isn’t due process. There’s no sentencing. There’s no lawyers. There’s no guilty or not guilty. There’s a bunch of school admins doing a dance and then picking if you get kicked out.
How are they being silenced? Because anytime you make something harder, more embarrassing, or riskier, people won’t do it. This is also not hard to understand.
Again, I can hear it in your words and tone. You WANT this to be true. You want women to be brave enough to always stand up for themselves. You WANT a fair process with legal style standards to impose true justice based on facts. This isn’t that. It doesn’t get you closer to that. All it does it shut women up by making it harder for them to do the right thing.
Just because a law says you have to do something doesn’t make it due process.
So your entire argument is that I am misusing a word, because I am using it in the context of how it is commonly understood vs the legal definition? Yeah, great argument.
How are they being silenced? Because anytime you make something harder, more embarrassing, or riskier, people won’t do it. This is also not hard to understand.
I understand that. I don’t understand why you believe it is significantly harder or more embarrassing to have one more person (lawyer) in the room and to answer their questions, in addition to already having to tell the story to strangers appointed by the school anyway. It’s nearly insignificant difference compared to how much damage false allegations do.
PS: If you want to pointlessly focus on word lawyering.
Citizens may also be entitled to have the government observe or offer fair procedures, whether or not those procedures have been provided for in the law on the basis of which it is acting. Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional. Suppose, for example, state law gives students a right to a public education, but doesn’t say anything about discipline. Before the state could take that right away from a student, by expelling her for misbehavior, it would have to provide fair procedures, i.e. “due process.”
Ah, okay. I’m sorry that I assumed you meant the word that you said and couldn’t read your mind. I’ll keep working on that telepathy, and you keep working on being accurate. One day we’ll understand each other.
Now if what you want is fairness, explain to me how the administration on these panels can be unbiased when their salaries and jobs rely on the fact that they’re not known as the “rape university”. Explain to me how these victims could appeal an unfair judgment made by biased administration.
Our legal process is filled with ways to make sure you get a fair trial, and even then not everyone does. This kangaroo court they’re setting up does not have any of those provisions and will not be fair. All it does is dissuade people from reporting.
Our legal process is filled with ways to make sure you get a fair trial, and even then not everyone does. This kangaroo court they’re setting up does not have any of those provisions and will not be fair. All it does is dissuade people from reporting.
So your alternative is, let’s not even try to have a court with evidence, let’s just have one kangoroo decide whose life gets ruined based on their prejudices.
Now if what you want is fairness, explain to me how the administration on these panels can be unbiased when their salaries and jobs rely on the fact that they’re not known as the “rape university”.
How is that not the current situation already? Also, since when this does not work the other way as well, not wanting to be known as “university that protects rapists”?
So both systems (current and previous) are horribly unfair and prone to abuse by the administration. Right? We now agree on that, yes?
If I have to pick between an unfair system with extra rape, or an unfair system with extra kids getting kicked out of school for no reason, I’m picking the one with less rape.
So both systems (current and previous) are horribly unfair and prone to abuse by the administration. Right? We now agree on that, yes?
Just because both systems are unfair does not mean one of them is not worse.
If I had to guess, I think we disagree on how much difference does having a lawyer present make. I believe the difference for victims is small. Making a rape victim slightly more uncomfortable compared to the current system and a rapist slightly more likely to go unpunished.
Many rape victims did not speak up even before this, because adding a lawyer is a drop in a bucket compared to everything else.
At the same time, the chance of expelling an innocent person goes down much more if you add the minimum protections of having someone speak up for the accused.
unfair system with extra kids getting kicked out of school for no reason
If the only consequence was being kicked out of their current school, I would agree with you. But being kicked out for SA will follow them. What other school will accept them? What employer will want to give a job to someone that they believe probably committed SA?
Sure, if they are a rich kid with a trust fund, expulsion probably does nothing to them anyway. Not having representation is going to screw over people who are vulnerable to begin with much more. People that are already unpopular. That the administration and others already have prejudice against.
But the biggest difference is not even this. Even if it was just a trolley problem with 3 people getting raped on one side and making one innocent person homeless on the other side (which I don’t believe is the real ratio), there is an important difference with a hypothetical. That one innocent person sees you pulling the lever. His friends see you pulling the lever. Every person who is worried about being in that place (being falsely accused) sees you pulling the lever.
The number of people who will accept being “sacrificed for the greater good” willingly is miniscule. Best case scenario, most will vote for literal Hitler as long as he promises not to “sacrifice them for the greater good”. Worst case scenario, the innocent person on the rails grabs a gun and “takes revenge” on the lever pullers and the society that enabled it.
Except the numbers prove my point. They go unreported before this change was made. There are clearly different reasons why they are not reported. Making the process unfair did not even work. It did not solve the issue.
I honestly can’t make you understand this.
Just because a law says you have to do something doesn’t make it due process. Registering your car isn’t due process. You don’t get due process unless you’re in court. This isn’t that. There is no court. A “hearing” of school officials isn’t due process. There’s no sentencing. There’s no lawyers. There’s no guilty or not guilty. There’s a bunch of school admins doing a dance and then picking if you get kicked out.
How are they being silenced? Because anytime you make something harder, more embarrassing, or riskier, people won’t do it. This is also not hard to understand.
Again, I can hear it in your words and tone. You WANT this to be true. You want women to be brave enough to always stand up for themselves. You WANT a fair process with legal style standards to impose true justice based on facts. This isn’t that. It doesn’t get you closer to that. All it does it shut women up by making it harder for them to do the right thing.
So your entire argument is that I am misusing a word, because I am using it in the context of how it is commonly understood vs the legal definition? Yeah, great argument.
I understand that. I don’t understand why you believe it is significantly harder or more embarrassing to have one more person (lawyer) in the room and to answer their questions, in addition to already having to tell the story to strangers appointed by the school anyway. It’s nearly insignificant difference compared to how much damage false allegations do.
PS: If you want to pointlessly focus on word lawyering.
But I was never trying to talk about legal definition but the common sense right not to be punished by government law/regulation without reason.
Ah, okay. I’m sorry that I assumed you meant the word that you said and couldn’t read your mind. I’ll keep working on that telepathy, and you keep working on being accurate. One day we’ll understand each other.
Now if what you want is fairness, explain to me how the administration on these panels can be unbiased when their salaries and jobs rely on the fact that they’re not known as the “rape university”. Explain to me how these victims could appeal an unfair judgment made by biased administration.
Our legal process is filled with ways to make sure you get a fair trial, and even then not everyone does. This kangaroo court they’re setting up does not have any of those provisions and will not be fair. All it does is dissuade people from reporting.
So your alternative is, let’s not even try to have a court with evidence, let’s just have one kangoroo decide whose life gets ruined based on their prejudices.
How is that not the current situation already? Also, since when this does not work the other way as well, not wanting to be known as “university that protects rapists”?
Ok good. Almost there.
So both systems (current and previous) are horribly unfair and prone to abuse by the administration. Right? We now agree on that, yes?
If I have to pick between an unfair system with extra rape, or an unfair system with extra kids getting kicked out of school for no reason, I’m picking the one with less rape.
Just because both systems are unfair does not mean one of them is not worse.
If I had to guess, I think we disagree on how much difference does having a lawyer present make. I believe the difference for victims is small. Making a rape victim slightly more uncomfortable compared to the current system and a rapist slightly more likely to go unpunished.
Many rape victims did not speak up even before this, because adding a lawyer is a drop in a bucket compared to everything else.
At the same time, the chance of expelling an innocent person goes down much more if you add the minimum protections of having someone speak up for the accused.
If the only consequence was being kicked out of their current school, I would agree with you. But being kicked out for SA will follow them. What other school will accept them? What employer will want to give a job to someone that they believe probably committed SA?
Sure, if they are a rich kid with a trust fund, expulsion probably does nothing to them anyway. Not having representation is going to screw over people who are vulnerable to begin with much more. People that are already unpopular. That the administration and others already have prejudice against.
But the biggest difference is not even this. Even if it was just a trolley problem with 3 people getting raped on one side and making one innocent person homeless on the other side (which I don’t believe is the real ratio), there is an important difference with a hypothetical. That one innocent person sees you pulling the lever. His friends see you pulling the lever. Every person who is worried about being in that place (being falsely accused) sees you pulling the lever.
The number of people who will accept being “sacrificed for the greater good” willingly is miniscule. Best case scenario, most will vote for literal Hitler as long as he promises not to “sacrifice them for the greater good”. Worst case scenario, the innocent person on the rails grabs a gun and “takes revenge” on the lever pullers and the society that enabled it.
How many false rape accusations are there compared to unreported rapes?
One in five women have been sexually assaulted. Do you know five women? Have a mom and a couple sisters? At least one has been assaulted.
I disagree with you because I look at the actual numbers.
Except the numbers prove my point. They go unreported before this change was made. There are clearly different reasons why they are not reported. Making the process unfair did not even work. It did not solve the issue.