|
Post by hchoops on Jun 9, 2016 14:32:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Jun 9, 2016 17:07:00 GMT -5
There were three consensual sexual encounters between the two prior to the "assault." Hmmm
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 13, 2016 6:54:22 GMT -5
There were three consensual sexual encounters between the two prior to the "assault." Hmmm That can happen. No means no. I am not saying I know what happened here, but you cannot rule out sexual assault just because there were prior consensual encounters.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jun 13, 2016 8:47:05 GMT -5
True, and I do not know for sure either. But, what about her leaving and then returning and climbing into bed with him after the alleged assault? It seems, at the least, unclear what happened. IMO that makes it seem as if Yale's decision was more for political reason than the result of an unbiased investigation of the incident.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 13, 2016 8:53:19 GMT -5
True, and I do not know for sure either. But, what about her leaving and then returning and climbing into bed with him after the alleged assault? It seems, at the least, unclear what happened. IMO that makes it seem as if Yale's decision was more for political reason than the result of an unbiased investigation of the incident. Read John Krakauer's book Missoula about campus sexual assault at the University of Montana. He reviews a variety of studies which demonstrate that the assumptions we have about the behavior of sexual assault victims are just plain wrong. Again, I don't know who is right here, but some of the facts that we might reflexively think are probative really prove nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jun 13, 2016 9:08:41 GMT -5
I have read his book and he does raise interesting questions. What is your intent in recommending that particular book?
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 13, 2016 9:13:02 GMT -5
I have read his book and he does raise interesting questions. What is your intent in recommending that particular book?It is the only book I have read on the topic (although it has prompted me to read articles as I come across them.) I have five kids (three boys and two girls) between the ages of 17 and 26 and they have a host of friends. It is relevant to their lives. I also look at these issues from the perspective of a lawyer considering burden of proof and fundamental fairness--which is lacking in many of these college tribunals. This stuff is hard which is why I think it is important to separate out evidence that matters from evidence that does not---and from what I have read the fact that the victim returns to the assaulter does not prove much.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jun 13, 2016 9:22:16 GMT -5
I have read his book and he does raise interesting questions. What is your intent in recommending that particular book?It is the only book I have read on the topic (although it has prompted me to read articles as I come across them.) I have five kids (three boys and two girls) between the ages of 17 and 26 and they have a host of friends. It is relevant to their lives. I also look at these issues from the perspective of a lawyer considering burden of proof and fundamental fairness--which is lacking in many of these college tribunals. This stuff is hard which is why I think it is important to separate out evidence that matters from evidence that does not---and from what I have read the fact that the victim returns to the assaulter does not prove much. The sad fact is that this is a typical "he said, she said" situation. In such cases there is little in the way of "proof" (as most people understand it). Krakauer did a good job of demonstrating a series of cases (5 in all out of 80 complaints) where there did not seem to be an unbiased investigation after a complaint. Most of what the book says has little or nothing to do with this individual case.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 13, 2016 9:47:20 GMT -5
It is the only book I have read on the topic (although it has prompted me to read articles as I come across them.) I have five kids (three boys and two girls) between the ages of 17 and 26 and they have a host of friends. It is relevant to their lives. I also look at these issues from the perspective of a lawyer considering burden of proof and fundamental fairness--which is lacking in many of these college tribunals. This stuff is hard which is why I think it is important to separate out evidence that matters from evidence that does not---and from what I have read the fact that the victim returns to the assaulter does not prove much. The sad fact is that this is a typical "he said, she said" situation. In such cases there is little in the way of "proof" (as most people understand it). Krakauer did a good job of demonstrating a series of cases (5 in all out of 80 complaints) where there did not seem to be an unbiased investigation after a complaint. Most of what the book says has little or nothing to do with this individual case. I agree that there is not a lot of proof. My only point was that some things that we reflexively think matter (including the post assault behavior of the victim) are not as important as one might think. The real difficulty here is that these cases are adjudicated in a campus disciplinary setting, often with no right to counsel, no right to compel attendance of witnesses, no right for the accused to see medical records,, no right to discovery, etc. The danger for the alleged assaulter is having to explain for the rest of his or her life why he was kicked out of a college. The danger for the victim is that if nobody can figure out what happened because it is a he said/she said situation that she has to go to school with a rapist who might be laughing his way through school. Neither is acceptable which is why these are no winners. I have no idea why Yale chose to bounce Jack Montague. I do know that nobody (Montague, the young woman, Yale) will look good by the end of this.
|
|