To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
being convicted of any kind of sexual assault being grounds for being expelled from a university sounds reasonable to me, and not allowing someone to live on campus or attend parties if they have a previous record when signing up likewise works for me
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
I am sold a video game from a friend. That friend then reports the game as stolen to the police. The police arrest me for theft. My defense is I had permission to take it, but if I don't have proof, ie a bill of sale, this defense doesn't fly.
It may or may not, but changing the law to further protect you from your friends false claims is the opposite of what these changes achieve.
e: I'm really enjoying and terrified that the examples used to support these changes, are in fact miscarriages of justice. And people seem okay with that.
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
A crime that requires a police investigation is already too big for a school to handle.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
colleges are businesses and are terrible arbiters of sensitive issues like rape because they care more about optics than anything else
if there's a problem with reporting it to law enforcement we should fix that but I don't trust a college administration even a little bit (and I don't trust cops very much so that says something)
No one is saying you have to, but I would argue it's the victims prerogative who they decide to trust.
We should absolutely fix the problem with reporting to law enforcement though. Don't think anyone disagrees there.
The victims perogative? So if the victim thinks their parents would be the best to investigate rape the parents get to do so and dole out punishment?
The parents can absolutely decide to punish an accused sexual offender within their authority, which mostly involves keeping them off the property and getting a restraining order. It's only tricky because schools are government entities with a bad track record that are extremely important to graduate from.
colleges are businesses and are terrible arbiters of sensitive issues like rape because they care more about optics than anything else
if there's a problem with reporting it to law enforcement we should fix that but I don't trust a college administration even a little bit (and I don't trust cops very much so that says something)
No one is saying you have to, but I would argue it's the victims prerogative who they decide to trust.
We should absolutely fix the problem with reporting to law enforcement though. Don't think anyone disagrees there.
The victims perogative? So if the victim thinks their parents would be the best to investigate rape the parents get to do so and dole out punishment?
The parents can absolutely decide to punish an accused sexual offender within their authority, which mostly involves keeping them off the property and getting a restraining order. It's only tricky because schools are government entities with a bad track record that are extremely important to graduate from.
exactly, the victim should trust the university to be there for them, and create a place as safe as is reasonably possible but beyond that it's a law enforcement issue
like, I'm totally fine with universities making sure a victim and an accused never run into each other in classes or moving dorms around while a case is ongoing or even if the accused is found innocent continuing that
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
The defense doesn't have a burden of affirmative proof of anything in a criminal case. Defendants are assumed not guilty by default. The burden would be entirely on the prosecution to prove that the item was not given freely.
In the land of spherical cows and frictionless planes, sure.
In reality, any defendant trying to make that argument is going to find the burden on them to make the case that this item found in their possession which had belonged to the victim was, in fact, given freely.
That's not how it worked the one time I went to court over accused theft, to even get that far proof had to be supplied that it was even originally owned by my brother (which was necessary to prove the break in blah blah)
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
being convicted of any kind of sexual assault being grounds for being expelled from a university sounds reasonable to me, and not allowing someone to live on campus or attend parties if they have a previous record when signing up likewise works for me
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
being convicted of any kind of sexual assault being grounds for being expelled from a university sounds reasonable to me, and not allowing someone to live on campus or attend parties if they have a previous record when signing up likewise works for me
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
being convicted of any kind of sexual assault being grounds for being expelled from a university sounds reasonable to me, and not allowing someone to live on campus or attend parties if they have a previous record when signing up likewise works for me
edit: removed dumb thing
That is answering the opposite question though, what conviction is grounds for expulsion. My question is what crimes are grounds for removing school aithority, because there are very grey areas with what Caan get you expelled that aren't or are very slightly illegal.
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
A crime that requires a police investigation is already too big for a school to handle.
But not all crimes are reported; again, a kid at my university was justly suspended for unprovable (criminally) death threats, which are a crime. Another kid was immediately failed in a class for what could be argued to be breaking and entering, but would also never be charged. Those are absolutely crimes and yet there is no reason to delay punishment for a conviction.
the university should do everything it can to facilitate victims and law enforcement coming together, because that is a hard process
free legal advice for victims, counselors, outreach to volunteer organizations, a dedicated (female) officer who's job is hearing out victims within the university itself, I'm fine with all of it
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
I am sold a video game from a friend. That friend then reports the game as stolen to the police. The police arrest me for theft. My defense is I had permission to take it, but if I don't have proof, ie a bill of sale, this defense doesn't fly.
It may or may not, but changing the law to further protect you from your friends false claims is the opposite of what these changes achieve.
How so? Most of our laws are built on a "permission denied unless explicitly granted" model - that is, the underlying assumption is that no permission was granted, unless shown to exist. Honestly, the only law I can think of where it is built on "permission granted unless explicitly denied" is sexual assault.
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
That's up to the school I suppose, but they shouldn't be involved in any crimes beyond the capacity of a security guard at any other business in the country. After the fact, they can set their own rules about what crimes deserve an additional consequence from the university.
if you steal something from someone you can say that you always owned it and the onus is on them to prove that is a lie before they can even do anything about the theft
if you loan something to someone, 99.9% of the time they can just keep it forever and you'd be fucked trying to get it back (unless you also lie and say they stole it, but that's not a good path to go down)
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
being convicted of any kind of sexual assault being grounds for being expelled from a university sounds reasonable to me, and not allowing someone to live on campus or attend parties if they have a previous record when signing up likewise works for me
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
being convicted of any kind of sexual assault being grounds for being expelled from a university sounds reasonable to me, and not allowing someone to live on campus or attend parties if they have a previous record when signing up likewise works for me
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
being convicted of any kind of sexual assault being grounds for being expelled from a university sounds reasonable to me, and not allowing someone to live on campus or attend parties if they have a previous record when signing up likewise works for me
edit: removed dumb thing
That is answering the opposite question though, what conviction is grounds for expulsion. My question is what crimes are grounds for removing school aithority, because there are very grey areas with what Caan get you expelled that aren't or are very slightly illegal.
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
A crime that requires a police investigation is already too big for a school to handle.
But not all crimes are reported; again, a kid at my university was justly suspended for unprovable (criminally) death threats, which are a crime. Another kid was immediately failed in a class for what could be argued to be breaking and entering, but would also never be charged. Those are absolutely crimes and yet there is no reason to delay punishment for a conviction.
Not all crimes that need to be reported are reported. And not all punishments get the right person.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
The defense doesn't have a burden of affirmative proof of anything in a criminal case. Defendants are assumed not guilty by default. The burden would be entirely on the prosecution to prove that the item was not given freely.
In the land of spherical cows and frictionless planes, sure.
In reality, any defendant trying to make that argument is going to find the burden on them to make the case that this item found in their possession which had belonged to the victim was, in fact, given freely.
yeah override is correct on this. The reason the cops tell you to record the serial number on your bike is that "no officer, this is my bike" is enough of a defense on its own. It's on the prosecution to prove ownership, and theft.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
Or to put it another way, it's not having sex that isn't a crime - it's having consentual sex that isn't a crime.
I am sold a video game from a friend. That friend then reports the game as stolen to the police. The police arrest me for theft. My defense is I had permission to take it, but if I don't have proof, ie a bill of sale, this defense doesn't fly.
I know this is a standard response but its not actually true. If I have something in my possession and someone else says I stole it, the court must still prove that I stole it. Its simply not how the law works even if it wasn't a fairly ridiculous hypothetical.
At most simple possession would indicate possession of stolen goods, and even then the state must prove the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe the items were stolen.
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
The defense doesn't have a burden of affirmative proof of anything in a criminal case. Defendants are assumed not guilty by default. The burden would be entirely on the prosecution to prove that the item was not given freely.
In the land of spherical cows and frictionless planes, sure.
In reality, any defendant trying to make that argument is going to find the burden on them to make the case that this item found in their possession which had belonged to the victim was, in fact, given freely.
yeah override is correct on this. The reason the cops tell you to record the serial number on your bike is that "no officer, this is my bike" is enough of a defense on its own. It's on the prosecution to prove ownership, and theft.
Which, if we're comparing apples to apples, is equivalent to a defense of "we didn't have sex" when we're talking about rape - in the theft case, you're asserting that the act never actually happened.
But in the argument of consensual sex, the act occurring is established as a point of fact, it's just being argued that the circumstances render it lawful. So, if we're actually going to compare a similar argument for theft, then we have to denote a case where the act of property transfer has occurred, but the actual legality of the act in question is in contention. And in that case, while in theory the weight of establishing the criminality of the act is on the prosecution, in reality the legal and societal assumptions regarding ownership are going to favor the prosecution.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
Or to put it another way, it's not having sex that isn't a crime - it's having consentual sex that isn't a crime.
I am sold a video game from a friend. That friend then reports the game as stolen to the police. The police arrest me for theft. My defense is I had permission to take it, but if I don't have proof, ie a bill of sale, this defense doesn't fly.
I know this is a standard response but its not actually true. If I have something in my possession and someone else says I stole it, the court must still prove that I stole it. Its simply not how the law works even if it wasn't a fairly ridiculous hypothetical.
At most simple possession would indicate possession of stolen goods, and even then the state must prove the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe the items were stolen.
and there's a very good reason for this, otherwise people would be suing left and right to "reclaim property" that wasn't theirs!
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
That's up to the school I suppose, but they shouldn't be involved in any crimes beyond the capacity of a security guard at any other business in the country. After the fact, they can set their own rules about what crimes deserve an additional consequence from the university.
Again, you are not answering my question.
Cheating is not a crime. Should the university be allowed to punish it?
Breaking and entering to look at test answers is a crime. Should the university be allowed to punish it without a conviction?
Death threats are a crime that doesn't directly impact academic integrity. Should the university be allowed to punish without a conviction?
I am not asking these questions randomly: these are all things that happened within my department within a single year at a public university, and I believe the school was justified in all three punishments. But a conviction standard would prevent them from ever punishing cheating and leave them with no way to effectively punish other offenses in a timely fashion (and no, "separate them" doesn't work when an entire department is in one building, it effectively kicks somebody out of their major).
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
The defense doesn't have a burden of affirmative proof of anything in a criminal case. Defendants are assumed not guilty by default. The burden would be entirely on the prosecution to prove that the item was not given freely.
In the land of spherical cows and frictionless planes, sure.
In reality, any defendant trying to make that argument is going to find the burden on them to make the case that this item found in their possession which had belonged to the victim was, in fact, given freely.
yeah override is correct on this. The reason the cops tell you to record the serial number on your bike is that "no officer, this is my bike" is enough of a defense on its own. It's on the prosecution to prove ownership, and theft.
Which, if we're comparing apples to apples, is equivalent to a defense of "we didn't have sex" when we're talking about rape - in the theft case, you're asserting that the act never actually happened.
But in the argument of consensual sex, the act occurring is established as a point of fact, it's just being argued that the circumstances render it lawful. So, if we're actually going to compare a similar argument for theft, then we have to denote a case where the act of property transfer has occurred, but the actual legality of the act in question is in contention. And in that case, while in theory the weight of establishing the criminality of the act is on the prosecution, in reality the legal and societal assumptions regarding ownership are going to favor the prosecution.
Legal and societal assumptions? Lets keep the goal posts in place for a moment, yes the onus is absolutely on the defense to prove they aren't a rapist in the eyes of society. They are absolutely not on the defense in the court room to prove they aren't a rapist.
Most of the time, sometimes it's a black guy and the jury is racist, that happens a lot, but that's not the ideal state and is something we should actively be trying to fix (in the same way the jury might not believe a woman they see as slutty so the biasas in our justice system are just shitty all around). Thing is, it never even makes it to a court room if there's no evidence a crime occurred, and that includes rape
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
That's up to the school I suppose, but they shouldn't be involved in any crimes beyond the capacity of a security guard at any other business in the country. After the fact, they can set their own rules about what crimes deserve an additional consequence from the university.
Again, you are not answering my question.
Cheating is not a crime. Should the university be allowed to punish it?
Breaking and entering to look at test answers is a crime. Should the university be allowed to punish it without a conviction?
Death threats are a crime that doesn't directly impact academic integrity. Should the university be allowed to punish without a conviction?
I am not asking these questions randomly: these are all things that happened within my department within a single year at a public university, and I believe the school was justified in all three punishments. But a conviction standard would prevent them from ever punishing cheating and leave them with no way to effectively punish other offenses in a timely fashion (and no, "separate them" doesn't work when an entire department is in one building, it effectively kicks somebody out of their major).
If they don't have enough evidence to prove it and get a conviction why should they have enough evidence to destroy someone academically for it? Cheating requires some kind of evidence too, last I checked.
That's just an opinion though. The university can expel students for whatever they want as long as its in accordance with their rules, the point I think Spool was making was that they shouldn't be required to
Colleges don't investigate sexual violence because they want to enforce a code of conduct. They do so because they must do so under Title IX requirements to combat discrimination. The college's interest is never that of the victim or the accused - its interest is entirely tied to compliance with Title IX and the consequences of failing to do so, most importantly the loss of federal dollars.
Colleges should be barred entirely from investigating sexual assault (and all other crimes), and tie any on-campus consequences for rapists to a conviction.
The first part is definitely true. I don't think I've ever seen either side of the issue happy with how campuses handle these sort of cases. As for the second part, campuses are liable for their students, and letting a potential rapist do whatever is a pretty big security risk. That said, thanks to the wonders of the internet, there are ways to prohibit physical entry onto campus while law enforcement investigates/tries without significantly impacting the studies of the accused.
Colleges don't investigate sexual violence because they want to enforce a code of conduct. They do so because they must do so under Title IX requirements to combat discrimination. The college's interest is never that of the victim or the accused - its interest is entirely tied to compliance with Title IX and the consequences of failing to do so, most importantly the loss of federal dollars.
Colleges should be barred entirely from investigating sexual assault (and all other crimes), and tie any on-campus consequences for rapists to a conviction.
The first part is definitely true. I don't think I've ever seen either side of the issue happy with how campuses handle these sort of cases. As for the second part, campuses are liable for their students, and letting a potential rapist do whatever is a pretty big security risk. That said, thanks to the wonders of the internet, there are ways to prohibit physical entry onto campus while law enforcement investigates/tries without significantly impacting the studies of the accused.
They sure as shit don't need to let a potential rapist do whatever they want, they can monitor them more closely and tell campus police to keep an eye on them, rearrange their schedules so they avoid the victim, etc
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter? There are noncrimes or incredibly minor crimes that can get you removed from the educational system, even in public universities. At what point does a crime become too big to let a school have any say in how they discipline the student for it?
That's up to the school I suppose, but they shouldn't be involved in any crimes beyond the capacity of a security guard at any other business in the country. After the fact, they can set their own rules about what crimes deserve an additional consequence from the university.
Again, you are not answering my question.
Cheating is not a crime. Should the university be allowed to punish it?
Breaking and entering to look at test answers is a crime. Should the university be allowed to punish it without a conviction?
Death threats are a crime that doesn't directly impact academic integrity. Should the university be allowed to punish without a conviction?
I am not asking these questions randomly: these are all things that happened within my department within a single year at a public university, and I believe the school was justified in all three punishments. But a conviction standard would prevent them from ever punishing cheating and leave them with no way to effectively punish other offenses in a timely fashion (and no, "separate them" doesn't work when an entire department is in one building, it effectively kicks somebody out of their major).
If they don't have enough evidence to prove it and get a conviction why should they have enough evidence to destroy someone academically for it? Cheating requires some kind of evidence too, last I checked.
That's just an opinion though. The university can expel students for whatever they want as long as its in accordance with their rules, the point I think Spool was making was that they shouldn't be required to
Cheating isn't a crime. You can't convict for it, and you sure as shit can't get beyond a reasonable doubt that cheating took place in most circumstances.
The other cases were caught by a professor or a group of other students, neither of which is enough to convict but is more than enough for a preponderance of evidence.
In theory you can go to another college, just like you can fire somebody for a suspected crime at work and they can find another job. But yes, institutions you are part of have a great and terrible power over you.
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
The defense doesn't have a burden of affirmative proof of anything in a criminal case. Defendants are assumed not guilty by default. The burden would be entirely on the prosecution to prove that the item was not given freely.
In the land of spherical cows and frictionless planes, sure.
In reality, any defendant trying to make that argument is going to find the burden on them to make the case that this item found in their possession which had belonged to the victim was, in fact, given freely.
yeah override is correct on this. The reason the cops tell you to record the serial number on your bike is that "no officer, this is my bike" is enough of a defense on its own. It's on the prosecution to prove ownership, and theft.
Which, if we're comparing apples to apples, is equivalent to a defense of "we didn't have sex" when we're talking about rape - in the theft case, you're asserting that the act never actually happened.
But in the argument of consensual sex, the act occurring is established as a point of fact, it's just being argued that the circumstances render it lawful. So, if we're actually going to compare a similar argument for theft, then we have to denote a case where the act of property transfer has occurred, but the actual legality of the act in question is in contention. And in that case, while in theory the weight of establishing the criminality of the act is on the prosecution, in reality the legal and societal assumptions regarding ownership are going to favor the prosecution.
Legal and societal assumptions? Lets keep the goal posts in place for a moment, yes the onus is absolutely on the defense to prove they aren't a rapist in the eyes of society. They are absolutely not on the defense in the court room to prove they aren't a rapist.
Most of the time, sometimes it's a black guy and the jury is racist, that happens a lot, but that's not the ideal state and is something we should actively be trying to fix (in the same way the jury might not believe a woman they see as slutty so the biasas in our justice system are just shitty all around). Thing is, it never even makes it to a court room if there's no evidence a crime occurred, and that includes rape
Once again, here's the point - in pretty much all legal cases where the underlying act occurring is not in question, just the legality of said act, the argument that said act was actually legal tends to be biased against the defendant, because we work off a "permission denied except where explicitly granted" model.
If you were caught trespassing, and tried to argue that you had permission (and the owner is asserting that no, you didn't), the onus is going to be on you to show that you actually did.
If you were found with someone else's property on your possession, and you assert that the owner gave it to you (and they are asserting that no, they didn't), the onus is going to be on you to show the item was willingly and knowingly transferred to you.
Pretty much the only time where that pattern inverts is sexual assault, where the expectation is for the victim to demonstrate lack of consent.
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
The defense doesn't have a burden of affirmative proof of anything in a criminal case. Defendants are assumed not guilty by default. The burden would be entirely on the prosecution to prove that the item was not given freely.
In the land of spherical cows and frictionless planes, sure.
In reality, any defendant trying to make that argument is going to find the burden on them to make the case that this item found in their possession which had belonged to the victim was, in fact, given freely.
yeah override is correct on this. The reason the cops tell you to record the serial number on your bike is that "no officer, this is my bike" is enough of a defense on its own. It's on the prosecution to prove ownership, and theft.
Which, if we're comparing apples to apples, is equivalent to a defense of "we didn't have sex" when we're talking about rape - in the theft case, you're asserting that the act never actually happened.
But in the argument of consensual sex, the act occurring is established as a point of fact, it's just being argued that the circumstances render it lawful. So, if we're actually going to compare a similar argument for theft, then we have to denote a case where the act of property transfer has occurred, but the actual legality of the act in question is in contention. And in that case, while in theory the weight of establishing the criminality of the act is on the prosecution, in reality the legal and societal assumptions regarding ownership are going to favor the prosecution.
Yeah. And they favor the prosecution more if the person is black, doesn't mean we should codify this as the way justice should operate.
I mean really, your argument is so fucking Goosey I have a hard time believing you are making it.
"Prejudiced assumptions might allow someone who received a gift to be wrongly convicted of theft, ergo we should try and replicate those incorrect assumptions into rape cases"
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
The defense doesn't have a burden of affirmative proof of anything in a criminal case. Defendants are assumed not guilty by default. The burden would be entirely on the prosecution to prove that the item was not given freely.
In the land of spherical cows and frictionless planes, sure.
In reality, any defendant trying to make that argument is going to find the burden on them to make the case that this item found in their possession which had belonged to the victim was, in fact, given freely.
yeah override is correct on this. The reason the cops tell you to record the serial number on your bike is that "no officer, this is my bike" is enough of a defense on its own. It's on the prosecution to prove ownership, and theft.
Which, if we're comparing apples to apples, is equivalent to a defense of "we didn't have sex" when we're talking about rape - in the theft case, you're asserting that the act never actually happened.
But in the argument of consensual sex, the act occurring is established as a point of fact, it's just being argued that the circumstances render it lawful. So, if we're actually going to compare a similar argument for theft, then we have to denote a case where the act of property transfer has occurred, but the actual legality of the act in question is in contention. And in that case, while in theory the weight of establishing the criminality of the act is on the prosecution, in reality the legal and societal assumptions regarding ownership are going to favor the prosecution.
Legal and societal assumptions? Lets keep the goal posts in place for a moment, yes the onus is absolutely on the defense to prove they aren't a rapist in the eyes of society. They are absolutely not on the defense in the court room to prove they aren't a rapist.
Most of the time, sometimes it's a black guy and the jury is racist, that happens a lot, but that's not the ideal state and is something we should actively be trying to fix (in the same way the jury might not believe a woman they see as slutty so the biasas in our justice system are just shitty all around). Thing is, it never even makes it to a court room if there's no evidence a crime occurred, and that includes rape
Once again, here's the point - in pretty much all legal cases where the underlying act occurring is not in question, just the legality of said act, the argument that said act was actually legal tends to be biased against the defendant, because we work off a "permission denied except where explicitly granted" model.
If you were caught trespassing, and tried to argue that you had permission (and the owner is asserting that no, you didn't), the onus is going to be on you to show that you actually did.
If you were found with someone else's property on your possession, and you assert that the owner gave it to you (and they are asserting that no, they didn't), the onus is going to be on you to show the item was willingly and knowingly transferred to you.
Pretty much the only time where that pattern inverts is sexual assault, where the expectation is for the victim to demonstrate lack of consent.
It helps that in those other cases the physical evidence is pretty cut and dried. Something has happened that normally shouldn't happen. Sex happens normally though.
Also, the timing of the whole thing matters. Everything is after the fact with sexual crime, but not with theft and trespassing. Theoretically the accuser must first prove a crime was committed in all cases: if you finish trespassing or give back the item before a report is filed, it is that much harder to prosecute
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So Hedgie, how do I prove that the sexual intercourse was not rape? A signed document, video proof? Like, starting with the presumption of guilt and putting the onus on the defendant to prove otherwise is insane! Especially in a circumstance like this where hard proof for an act committed in private is nearly impossible to come by either way. You're talking crazy here
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited January 2016
We had an affirmative consent thread less than a year ago, and like all rape threads it got locked when people got too goosey about it. Can we maybe stick to the question of campus justice, to which the notion of affirmative consent is extremely tangential?
On that issue, I don't buy the argument that campus police shouldn't be involved in rape because they sometimes are incentivized to sweep it under the rug--if we were disqualifying organizations from handing out justice due to corruption we wouldn't have anybody handling this.
The university definitely has a responsibility to keep its students safe, and if it fails in that responsibility we go after them for it--isn't covering up a crime already illegal?--but that doesn't mean we exclude all campus police everywhere automatically.
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
The defense doesn't have a burden of affirmative proof of anything in a criminal case. Defendants are assumed not guilty by default. The burden would be entirely on the prosecution to prove that the item was not given freely.
In the land of spherical cows and frictionless planes, sure.
In reality, any defendant trying to make that argument is going to find the burden on them to make the case that this item found in their possession which had belonged to the victim was, in fact, given freely.
yeah override is correct on this. The reason the cops tell you to record the serial number on your bike is that "no officer, this is my bike" is enough of a defense on its own. It's on the prosecution to prove ownership, and theft.
Which, if we're comparing apples to apples, is equivalent to a defense of "we didn't have sex" when we're talking about rape - in the theft case, you're asserting that the act never actually happened.
But in the argument of consensual sex, the act occurring is established as a point of fact, it's just being argued that the circumstances render it lawful. So, if we're actually going to compare a similar argument for theft, then we have to denote a case where the act of property transfer has occurred, but the actual legality of the act in question is in contention. And in that case, while in theory the weight of establishing the criminality of the act is on the prosecution, in reality the legal and societal assumptions regarding ownership are going to favor the prosecution.
Yeah. And they favor the prosecution more if the person is black, doesn't mean we should codify this as the way justice should operate.
I mean really, your argument is so fucking Goosey I have a hard time believing you are making it.
"Prejudiced assumptions might allow someone who received a gift to be wrongly convicted of theft, ergo we should try and replicate those incorrect assumptions into rape cases"
It's not prejudiced assumptions. It's the fact that for most crimes, we work on the model "permission denied unless explicitly granted".
Again, take trespassing. If you are caught on someone else's property (the act is established), but assert that you actually had permission while the owner is saying that you did not, the reality is that you're going to have to show that you did, because the assumption of the law is that without express permission, you don't have a right to be there.
Again, from my experience at a university with a very large campus, it'd be almost impossible to separate an accuser from the accused in a reasonable fashion without delaying their them for the duration of the separation. It is not a minor punishment.
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
The defense doesn't have a burden of affirmative proof of anything in a criminal case. Defendants are assumed not guilty by default. The burden would be entirely on the prosecution to prove that the item was not given freely.
In the land of spherical cows and frictionless planes, sure.
In reality, any defendant trying to make that argument is going to find the burden on them to make the case that this item found in their possession which had belonged to the victim was, in fact, given freely.
yeah override is correct on this. The reason the cops tell you to record the serial number on your bike is that "no officer, this is my bike" is enough of a defense on its own. It's on the prosecution to prove ownership, and theft.
Which, if we're comparing apples to apples, is equivalent to a defense of "we didn't have sex" when we're talking about rape - in the theft case, you're asserting that the act never actually happened.
But in the argument of consensual sex, the act occurring is established as a point of fact, it's just being argued that the circumstances render it lawful. So, if we're actually going to compare a similar argument for theft, then we have to denote a case where the act of property transfer has occurred, but the actual legality of the act in question is in contention. And in that case, while in theory the weight of establishing the criminality of the act is on the prosecution, in reality the legal and societal assumptions regarding ownership are going to favor the prosecution.
Yeah. And they favor the prosecution more if the person is black, doesn't mean we should codify this as the way justice should operate.
I mean really, your argument is so fucking Goosey I have a hard time believing you are making it.
"Prejudiced assumptions might allow someone who received a gift to be wrongly convicted of theft, ergo we should try and replicate those incorrect assumptions into rape cases"
It's not prejudiced assumptions. It's the fact that for most crimes, we work on the model "permission denied unless explicitly granted".
Again, take trespassing. If you are caught on someone else's property (the act is established), but assert that you actually had permission while the owner is saying that you did not, the reality is that you're going to have to show that you did, because the assumption of the law is that without express permission, you don't have a right to be there.
Yeah, but that's if you're caught trespassing. The crime of rape is reported after the fact. This makes it hard for colleges, which have no forensic capabilities, to take meaningful investigative and punitive action.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
Now, I'd like to stop you there: expulsion from college is a far more severe punishment than plenty of punishments that the criminal justice system metes out. If I had to choose, back when I was in undergrad, between expulsion or spending a week in jail, for example, I'd pick the week in jail and it wouldn't even be a hard decision. Expulsion will effectively blacklist you from a college education, as pretty much any other reputable college will require your college disciplinary record as part of the applications process, and a college isn't a social club or a restaurant or whatever other silly analogy we're throwing up today, it's basically the gateway to the middle class. Getting thrown out of college would have more severe effects in the short or long term than a whole range of actual criminal punishments.
Which isn't to say that a college shouldn't be allowed to expel anyone for anything other than a criminal conviction! But there needs to be some standard of evidence and due process, doesn't there?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We had an affirmative consent thread less than a year ago, and like all rape threads it got locked when people got too goosey about it. Can we maybe stick to the question of campus justice, to which the notion of affirmative consent is extremely tangential?
On that issue, I don't buy the argument that campus police shouldn't be involved in rape because they sometimes are incentivized to sweep it under the rug--if we were disqualifying organizations from handing out justice due to corruption we wouldn't have anybody handling this.
The university definitely has a responsibility to keep its students safe, and if it fails in that responsibility we go after them for it--isn't covering up a crime already illegal?--but that doesn't mean we exclude all campus police everywhere automatically.
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
I think the campus police issue is more that campus shouldn't have a separate police force answerable to...idk the campus president or whoever they are answerable to. If the campus needs 50 full time officers, it should contract them through the city/county. At least this way the chief of police can't be fired by the campus president because the athletic director is trying to protect his boys. In some cases where its a big school in the middle of nowhere(Penn State, Notre Dame) this may not make a meaningful difference, but in other places it might.
Can we please just drop anything related to the affirmative consent discussion? The discussion is already low quality and there was a thread about it that got locked for being worse.
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
Now, I'd like to stop you there: expulsion from college is a far more severe punishment than plenty of punishments that the criminal justice system metes out. If I had to choose, back when I was in undergrad, between expulsion or spending a week in jail, for example, I'd pick the week in jail and it wouldn't even be a hard decision. Expulsion will effectively blacklist you from a college education, as pretty much any other reputable college will require your college disciplinary record as part of the applications process, and a college isn't a social club or a restaurant or whatever other silly analogy we're throwing up today, it's basically the gateway to the middle class. Getting thrown out of college would have more severe effects in the short or long term than a whole range of actual criminal punishments.
Which isn't to say that a college shouldn't be allowed to expel anyone for anything other than a criminal conviction! But there needs to be some standard of evidence and due process, doesn't there?
I don't think anybody is saying colleges can't improve their justice systems, but I think that barring colleges from taking any action on crimes without a criminal conviction is a ridiculous standard to hold them to, regardless of the specific crime involved. Forcing colleges to investigate or make a pretense of investigating doesn't seem reasonable either.
We had an affirmative consent thread less than a year ago, and like all rape threads it got locked when people got too goosey about it. Can we maybe stick to the question of campus justice, to which the notion of affirmative consent is extremely tangential?
On that issue, I don't buy the argument that campus police shouldn't be involved in rape because they sometimes are incentivized to sweep it under the rug--if we were disqualifying organizations from handing out justice due to corruption we wouldn't have anybody handling this.
The university definitely has a responsibility to keep its students safe, and if it fails in that responsibility we go after them for it--isn't covering up a crime already illegal?--but that doesn't mean we exclude all campus police everywhere automatically.
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
The argument that is made is that an expulsion for sexual assault is such a grievous black mark that can close a number of doors, so it has to be treated differently. Of course, there are a number of other grounds for expulsion that are just as much of a black mark in the academic world, such as plagiarism, and yet there's no real outcry over students removed on those grounds.
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter?
All felonies should be handled by the police, full stop. Rape is a felony.
A university should never, ever investigate a felony without police involvement, as that's basically contaminating evidence.
The cutoff line should be somewhere in the misdemeanor list. As in, maybe handling drug possession internally, but referring drug sales to the cops. There's a whole list of misdemeanors and the university should just have a checklist of which ones get automatically bumped up to the police, which ones they're willing to handle internally.
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter?
All felonies should be handled by the police, full stop. Rape is a felony.
A university should never, ever investigate a felony without police involvement, as that's basically contaminating evidence.
The cutoff line should be somewhere in the misdemeanor list. As in, maybe handling drug possession internally, but referring drug sales to the cops. There's a whole list of misdemeanors and the university should just have a checklist of which ones get automatically bumped up to the police, which ones they're willing to handle internally.
The point I am trying to make is that there doesn't have to be a dichotomy, and the university should not have to wait on the police to expel somebody. If they are willing to expel somebody because a security guard caught them smoking pot, they should not have to wait for a police investigation because the security guard caught them selling pot. Universities absolutely can and should be able to take their own disciplinary action independent of a police investigation.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
We had an affirmative consent thread less than a year ago, and like all rape threads it got locked when people got too goosey about it. Can we maybe stick to the question of campus justice, to which the notion of affirmative consent is extremely tangential?
On that issue, I don't buy the argument that campus police shouldn't be involved in rape because they sometimes are incentivized to sweep it under the rug--if we were disqualifying organizations from handing out justice due to corruption we wouldn't have anybody handling this.
The university definitely has a responsibility to keep its students safe, and if it fails in that responsibility we go after them for it--isn't covering up a crime already illegal?--but that doesn't mean we exclude all campus police everywhere automatically.
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
The argument that is made is that an expulsion for sexual assault is such a grievous black mark that can close a number of doors, so it has to be treated differently. Of course, there are a number of other grounds for expulsion that are just as much of a black mark in the academic world, such as plagiarism, and yet there's no real outcry over students removed on those grounds.
There absolutely is a debate on the level of evidence, fairness of process, and severity of punishment on plagiarism cases. It's just not as salacious a story as it is for sexual assault cases, so it doesn't make the rounds at the usual clickbait vendors.
Posts
being convicted of any kind of sexual assault being grounds for being expelled from a university sounds reasonable to me, and not allowing someone to live on campus or attend parties if they have a previous record when signing up likewise works for me
edit: removed dumb thing
It may or may not, but changing the law to further protect you from your friends false claims is the opposite of what these changes achieve.
e: I'm really enjoying and terrified that the examples used to support these changes, are in fact miscarriages of justice. And people seem okay with that.
A crime that requires a police investigation is already too big for a school to handle.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The parents can absolutely decide to punish an accused sexual offender within their authority, which mostly involves keeping them off the property and getting a restraining order. It's only tricky because schools are government entities with a bad track record that are extremely important to graduate from.
exactly, the victim should trust the university to be there for them, and create a place as safe as is reasonably possible but beyond that it's a law enforcement issue
like, I'm totally fine with universities making sure a victim and an accused never run into each other in classes or moving dorms around while a case is ongoing or even if the accused is found innocent continuing that
In the land of spherical cows and frictionless planes, sure.
In reality, any defendant trying to make that argument is going to find the burden on them to make the case that this item found in their possession which had belonged to the victim was, in fact, given freely.
That is answering the opposite question though, what conviction is grounds for expulsion. My question is what crimes are grounds for removing school aithority, because there are very grey areas with what Caan get you expelled that aren't or are very slightly illegal.
But not all crimes are reported; again, a kid at my university was justly suspended for unprovable (criminally) death threats, which are a crime. Another kid was immediately failed in a class for what could be argued to be breaking and entering, but would also never be charged. Those are absolutely crimes and yet there is no reason to delay punishment for a conviction.
free legal advice for victims, counselors, outreach to volunteer organizations, a dedicated (female) officer who's job is hearing out victims within the university itself, I'm fine with all of it
How so? Most of our laws are built on a "permission denied unless explicitly granted" model - that is, the underlying assumption is that no permission was granted, unless shown to exist. Honestly, the only law I can think of where it is built on "permission granted unless explicitly denied" is sexual assault.
That's up to the school I suppose, but they shouldn't be involved in any crimes beyond the capacity of a security guard at any other business in the country. After the fact, they can set their own rules about what crimes deserve an additional consequence from the university.
if you loan something to someone, 99.9% of the time they can just keep it forever and you'd be fucked trying to get it back (unless you also lie and say they stole it, but that's not a good path to go down)
Not all crimes that need to be reported are reported. And not all punishments get the right person.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
yeah override is correct on this. The reason the cops tell you to record the serial number on your bike is that "no officer, this is my bike" is enough of a defense on its own. It's on the prosecution to prove ownership, and theft.
I know this is a standard response but its not actually true. If I have something in my possession and someone else says I stole it, the court must still prove that I stole it. Its simply not how the law works even if it wasn't a fairly ridiculous hypothetical.
At most simple possession would indicate possession of stolen goods, and even then the state must prove the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe the items were stolen.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Which, if we're comparing apples to apples, is equivalent to a defense of "we didn't have sex" when we're talking about rape - in the theft case, you're asserting that the act never actually happened.
But in the argument of consensual sex, the act occurring is established as a point of fact, it's just being argued that the circumstances render it lawful. So, if we're actually going to compare a similar argument for theft, then we have to denote a case where the act of property transfer has occurred, but the actual legality of the act in question is in contention. And in that case, while in theory the weight of establishing the criminality of the act is on the prosecution, in reality the legal and societal assumptions regarding ownership are going to favor the prosecution.
and there's a very good reason for this, otherwise people would be suing left and right to "reclaim property" that wasn't theirs!
Again, you are not answering my question.
Cheating is not a crime. Should the university be allowed to punish it?
Breaking and entering to look at test answers is a crime. Should the university be allowed to punish it without a conviction?
Death threats are a crime that doesn't directly impact academic integrity. Should the university be allowed to punish without a conviction?
I am not asking these questions randomly: these are all things that happened within my department within a single year at a public university, and I believe the school was justified in all three punishments. But a conviction standard would prevent them from ever punishing cheating and leave them with no way to effectively punish other offenses in a timely fashion (and no, "separate them" doesn't work when an entire department is in one building, it effectively kicks somebody out of their major).
Legal and societal assumptions? Lets keep the goal posts in place for a moment, yes the onus is absolutely on the defense to prove they aren't a rapist in the eyes of society. They are absolutely not on the defense in the court room to prove they aren't a rapist.
Most of the time, sometimes it's a black guy and the jury is racist, that happens a lot, but that's not the ideal state and is something we should actively be trying to fix (in the same way the jury might not believe a woman they see as slutty so the biasas in our justice system are just shitty all around). Thing is, it never even makes it to a court room if there's no evidence a crime occurred, and that includes rape
If they don't have enough evidence to prove it and get a conviction why should they have enough evidence to destroy someone academically for it? Cheating requires some kind of evidence too, last I checked.
That's just an opinion though. The university can expel students for whatever they want as long as its in accordance with their rules, the point I think Spool was making was that they shouldn't be required to
The first part is definitely true. I don't think I've ever seen either side of the issue happy with how campuses handle these sort of cases. As for the second part, campuses are liable for their students, and letting a potential rapist do whatever is a pretty big security risk. That said, thanks to the wonders of the internet, there are ways to prohibit physical entry onto campus while law enforcement investigates/tries without significantly impacting the studies of the accused.
Steam: pazython
They sure as shit don't need to let a potential rapist do whatever they want, they can monitor them more closely and tell campus police to keep an eye on them, rearrange their schedules so they avoid the victim, etc
Cheating isn't a crime. You can't convict for it, and you sure as shit can't get beyond a reasonable doubt that cheating took place in most circumstances.
The other cases were caught by a professor or a group of other students, neither of which is enough to convict but is more than enough for a preponderance of evidence.
In theory you can go to another college, just like you can fire somebody for a suspected crime at work and they can find another job. But yes, institutions you are part of have a great and terrible power over you.
Once again, here's the point - in pretty much all legal cases where the underlying act occurring is not in question, just the legality of said act, the argument that said act was actually legal tends to be biased against the defendant, because we work off a "permission denied except where explicitly granted" model.
If you were caught trespassing, and tried to argue that you had permission (and the owner is asserting that no, you didn't), the onus is going to be on you to show that you actually did.
If you were found with someone else's property on your possession, and you assert that the owner gave it to you (and they are asserting that no, they didn't), the onus is going to be on you to show the item was willingly and knowingly transferred to you.
Pretty much the only time where that pattern inverts is sexual assault, where the expectation is for the victim to demonstrate lack of consent.
Yeah. And they favor the prosecution more if the person is black, doesn't mean we should codify this as the way justice should operate.
I mean really, your argument is so fucking Goosey I have a hard time believing you are making it.
"Prejudiced assumptions might allow someone who received a gift to be wrongly convicted of theft, ergo we should try and replicate those incorrect assumptions into rape cases"
It helps that in those other cases the physical evidence is pretty cut and dried. Something has happened that normally shouldn't happen. Sex happens normally though.
Also, the timing of the whole thing matters. Everything is after the fact with sexual crime, but not with theft and trespassing. Theoretically the accuser must first prove a crime was committed in all cases: if you finish trespassing or give back the item before a report is filed, it is that much harder to prosecute
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
On that issue, I don't buy the argument that campus police shouldn't be involved in rape because they sometimes are incentivized to sweep it under the rug--if we were disqualifying organizations from handing out justice due to corruption we wouldn't have anybody handling this.
The university definitely has a responsibility to keep its students safe, and if it fails in that responsibility we go after them for it--isn't covering up a crime already illegal?--but that doesn't mean we exclude all campus police everywhere automatically.
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
It's not prejudiced assumptions. It's the fact that for most crimes, we work on the model "permission denied unless explicitly granted".
Again, take trespassing. If you are caught on someone else's property (the act is established), but assert that you actually had permission while the owner is saying that you did not, the reality is that you're going to have to show that you did, because the assumption of the law is that without express permission, you don't have a right to be there.
Yeah, but that's if you're caught trespassing. The crime of rape is reported after the fact. This makes it hard for colleges, which have no forensic capabilities, to take meaningful investigative and punitive action.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Now, I'd like to stop you there: expulsion from college is a far more severe punishment than plenty of punishments that the criminal justice system metes out. If I had to choose, back when I was in undergrad, between expulsion or spending a week in jail, for example, I'd pick the week in jail and it wouldn't even be a hard decision. Expulsion will effectively blacklist you from a college education, as pretty much any other reputable college will require your college disciplinary record as part of the applications process, and a college isn't a social club or a restaurant or whatever other silly analogy we're throwing up today, it's basically the gateway to the middle class. Getting thrown out of college would have more severe effects in the short or long term than a whole range of actual criminal punishments.
Which isn't to say that a college shouldn't be allowed to expel anyone for anything other than a criminal conviction! But there needs to be some standard of evidence and due process, doesn't there?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think the campus police issue is more that campus shouldn't have a separate police force answerable to...idk the campus president or whoever they are answerable to. If the campus needs 50 full time officers, it should contract them through the city/county. At least this way the chief of police can't be fired by the campus president because the athletic director is trying to protect his boys. In some cases where its a big school in the middle of nowhere(Penn State, Notre Dame) this may not make a meaningful difference, but in other places it might.
I don't think anybody is saying colleges can't improve their justice systems, but I think that barring colleges from taking any action on crimes without a criminal conviction is a ridiculous standard to hold them to, regardless of the specific crime involved. Forcing colleges to investigate or make a pretense of investigating doesn't seem reasonable either.
The argument that is made is that an expulsion for sexual assault is such a grievous black mark that can close a number of doors, so it has to be treated differently. Of course, there are a number of other grounds for expulsion that are just as much of a black mark in the academic world, such as plagiarism, and yet there's no real outcry over students removed on those grounds.
A university should never, ever investigate a felony without police involvement, as that's basically contaminating evidence.
The cutoff line should be somewhere in the misdemeanor list. As in, maybe handling drug possession internally, but referring drug sales to the cops. There's a whole list of misdemeanors and the university should just have a checklist of which ones get automatically bumped up to the police, which ones they're willing to handle internally.
The point I am trying to make is that there doesn't have to be a dichotomy, and the university should not have to wait on the police to expel somebody. If they are willing to expel somebody because a security guard caught them smoking pot, they should not have to wait for a police investigation because the security guard caught them selling pot. Universities absolutely can and should be able to take their own disciplinary action independent of a police investigation.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
There absolutely is a debate on the level of evidence, fairness of process, and severity of punishment on plagiarism cases. It's just not as salacious a story as it is for sexual assault cases, so it doesn't make the rounds at the usual clickbait vendors.