Never used the word mildly, yes they are uncomfortable pointed questions. I admitted that multiple times. But they are still just questions.
No it is not. You may be surprised to learn that Lawyers are also human who don’t want to traumatize the victims. Hell, even if they were evil and did not care, they won’t do it because it would make them and their client look bad and likely loose them the case.
I believe a process where both sides are represented and able to present their case will bring truth far more often than administrators running the process however they feel like.
Arguably true, but only because rape cases usually lack any supporting evidence. The only way to “unskew” it is to require less evidence, resulting in more convictions of innocent people. I argue that going too far in the direction of “require less evidence” is bad. That is what the whole argument is about.
I disagree
I do not, now who is disingenuous?
Again, trying to attack my character based on your incorrect assumptions about ehat the effects of this policy would be
Your characterisation of attack lawyers as mildly asking questions is disingenuous.
Never used the word mildly, yes they are uncomfortable pointed questions. I admitted that multiple times. But they are still just questions.
“Just” Nope, they’re character assassination putting the victim on trial instead of the perpetrator. Saying it isn’t doesn’t change the reality. Read about it if you care, but you don’t and won’t.
Seems we either disagree on what “character-assasination” means or one of us has flawed understanding of how witness testimony in court works.
Considering how many actual court documents I read through and how many explanations from lawyers how various rules and procedures work I watched, I would be surprised if it was me with the flawed understanding but it is possible. I was never in court myself after all.
But you are still dodging a big issue with your argument. You are saying the same administrators that are so smart they can determine who is guilty on their own without any lawyers, proper process or cross examination are simultaneously dumb enough to be swayed by a character-assasination and would let 99 out of 100 rapists go.
I didn’t say they would be swayed by it, I said it shouldn’t happen.
I’m amused by your switch from how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim to less specific stuff including some videos from lawyers, but you still, as I predicted, have no intention of reading rape victims accounts because as you’ve made clear again and again, women’s experiences aren’t what you want to understand. I’m not sure the rapist defending lawyers made a lot of videos about how they harangue rape victims in court and drag their reputation through the mud as the standard defence technique. I don’t know why you thought that the lawyers would admit to that on youtube.
Let’s ignore you misreading what I wrote about court documents and procedures and suggesting I instead get information from the most biased and subjective source available.
I didn’t say they would be swayed by it, I said it shouldn’t happen.
Are you arguing the lawyers would do character assassination on rape victims for fun, even though they would know it does not help them win the case?
Because if it did not work, they have no real reason to do it. And if it works, back to my argument about administrators being incapable.
So what actually is your argument? Why shouldn’t be lawyers allowed or even required at the school hearings?
I was under the impression you were afraid they would do character assassinations to get rapists of the hook, further traumatizing the victims. Now you say that is not what you claim and you were just talking about actual courts for some reason?
The character assassination and sex life trashing that lawyers do in rape trials is unnecessary, harrowing for the victims, is based on an illogical argument that a woman who has sex with anyone wants sex with everyone, obstructs justice by letting the vast majority of rapists go free, and should not be allowed in school over an exclusion. Kids get excluded every week over far less, but you just care about the rich rapists being allowed to bring their expensive lawyers in to harass girls for speaking out over sexual violence and stay in the same dining hall as their victims.
Actually, I made ten points, and you ignored almost all of them, as usual.
“Just” Nope, they’re character assassination putting the victim on trial instead of the perpetrator. Saying it isn’t doesn’t change the reality. Read about it if you care, but you don’t and won’t.
Seems we either disagree on what “character-assasination” means or one of us has flawed understanding of how witness testimony in court works.
Considering how many actual court documents I read through and how many explanations from lawyers how various rules and procedures work I watched, I would be surprised if it was me with the flawed understanding but it is possible. I was never in court myself after all.
But you are still dodging a big issue with your argument. You are saying the same administrators that are so smart they can determine who is guilty on their own without any lawyers, proper process or cross examination are simultaneously dumb enough to be swayed by a character-assasination and would let 99 out of 100 rapists go.
I didn’t say they would be swayed by it, I said it shouldn’t happen.
I’m amused by your switch from how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim to less specific stuff including some videos from lawyers, but you still, as I predicted, have no intention of reading rape victims accounts because as you’ve made clear again and again, women’s experiences aren’t what you want to understand. I’m not sure the rapist defending lawyers made a lot of videos about how they harangue rape victims in court and drag their reputation through the mud as the standard defence technique. I don’t know why you thought that the lawyers would admit to that on youtube.
Let’s ignore you misreading what I wrote about court documents and procedures and suggesting I instead get information from the most biased and subjective source available.
Are you arguing the lawyers would do character assassination on rape victims for fun, even though they would know it does not help them win the case?
Because if it did not work, they have no real reason to do it. And if it works, back to my argument about administrators being incapable.
You’re confusing court with school. I’m not.
So what actually is your argument? Why shouldn’t be lawyers allowed or even required at the school hearings?
I was under the impression you were afraid they would do character assassinations to get rapists of the hook, further traumatizing the victims. Now you say that is not what you claim and you were just talking about actual courts for some reason?
The character assassination and sex life trashing that lawyers do in rape trials is unnecessary, harrowing for the victims, is based on an illogical argument that a woman who has sex with anyone wants sex with everyone, obstructs justice by letting the vast majority of rapists go free, and should not be allowed in school over an exclusion. Kids get excluded every week over far less, but you just care about the rich rapists being allowed to bring their expensive lawyers in to harass girls for speaking out over sexual violence and stay in the same dining hall as their victims.