
The Uncomfortable Truth About Campus Rape Policy - jseliger
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/?single_page=true
======
ZeroGravitas
Is it weird for me to want more than a journalist finding the most likeable
victim/perpetrator and telling the story from his side before launching into
their pitch about changing how rapes are dealt with?

How is that any different than relaying some horrifying tale of abuse that
wasn't dealt with properly under the old system?

The only information it provides is telling us what the journalist wants us to
think.

How about some stats? Some numbers? Some experts?

~~~
Grustaf
I agree that it's irrelevant that the guy was so gifted, even if he had been a
stupid and awful person he shouldn't be punished for something he didn't do.

What I don't really understand is why he was punished at all. Even according
to her account he hasn't committed any crime.

I'm not sure you need stats here though, if the presumption of innocence has
been abandoned that is a very serious regardless of how many times it has made
a difference so far.

~~~
bitwize
Presumption of innocence doesn't mean what you think it means.

In most crimes involving consent, it is only necessary that the prosecution
show that the defendant committed the act constituting the crime in order to
establish guilt. Consent is an _affirmative_ defense which must be proven by
the defense. If I take your car it's theft unless consent can be established
(i.e., you loaned me your keys). Similarly if I punch you in the stomach it's
assault unless consent can be established (i dunno, you said "hit me in the
gut! I want to see how strong my abs are.")

Rape and sexual assault are the only times when consent is assumed and its
lack must be proven.

If Bob has sex with Alice, and Alice later alleges rape, that should be taken
as _prima facie_ evidence that a rape occurred. It should be on Bob to prove
that the activity was consensual. Anything else vastly increases the risk of
sexual assault and reduces the likelihood that offenders will be punished.

~~~
gozur88
>If Bob has sex with Alice, and Alice later alleges rape, that should be taken
as prima facie evidence that a rape occurred.

Absolutely not. Everyone has the right to a presumption of innocence.

The key issue is whether consent was there _at the time of the sex_. There
have been a string of well publicized cases in which the woman decided she was
raped only after the relationship didn't pan out the way she expected.

------
whymsicalburito
So much for innocent until proven guilty.

~~~
phailhaus
That's because this is a crime that is very difficult to prove either way, and
people are erring on the side of caution.

~~~
gozur88
The "side of caution" is innocence.

~~~
phailhaus
No, clearly the "side of caution" people are taking is on the side of accuser.
Given that a significant percentage of rapes go unreported, people believe
it's more likely that the accuser is telling the truth than not. The problem
is that there is very little evidence of rape other than personal testimony.

~~~
gozur88
Oh, I see what people are saying. It's just wrong. You can't convict people of
a crime that could put them in jail for decades purely on an accusation.

~~~
phailhaus
Yes, but the reality people are facing is that it's either that or rapists go
free most of the time.

~~~
gozur88
Then rapists go free. That's the price of not putting innocent people in jail.

------
squozzer
I'm beginning to wonder if we'll have to develop new dating norms (neo-
Victorianism?) in order to cope with this problem.

I don't think the law will help much because presumption of innocence gives
rapists too much leeway ("he said, she said") and presumption of guilt invites
false accusations, both of which are huge political problems.

Or we could accelerate current social trends and develop a formal caste
system, whereby a female's word is always accepted prima facie against males
("he admitted to being on the grassy knoll"), and where male testimony is not
admissible in court cases involving females.

