DeVos to make getting away with campus rape easy again

[bripat9643]

You know that isn't due process. When he has a trial by jury and is convicted, then the university can kick him out.

Hmmm, no they won't, because they can't risk the liability of being sued by the unjustly accused. Several universities have already been sued. They will also have the Dept of Justice down on their ass.

Colleges are trying to protect their reputations and so would rather handle campus rape allegations themselves. Frequently, there is not enough hard evidence of rape to take it to a criminal court. But the accusation has been made and the college still has the responsibility to keep its female students safe. If your daughter told you she was raped at college but the D.A. refused to prosecute due to "lack of evidence," would you agree the guy who did it should continue to attend that school? That the school has no right to kick him out?

Have you noticed how your vision of justice lines up perfectly with sharia?

Go soak your head. I asked a question that still hasn't been answered by you or BriPat.
I agree that no young man should be "railroaded" by a rape allegation. If the current policies do that, they should be changed. If these changes allow colleges to go back to their previous shenanigans of hiding and covering up rape on campus in order to protect their reputations, that is another kettle of fish.

No changes in the law needed. You simply don't count on a college to handle crimes, you call the police. It's not hard to understand. Preserve evidence call the cops file a report. Done.

I agree the law should be involved. I do not necessarily agree that the college is helpless to expel a student unless a court of law finds him guilty of the crime, however. I have seen the other side of that issue.

So you want to ruin the lives of young men who have been convicted of nothing. You just got done saying you didn't want to do that.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[bripat9643]

Surprising how many USMB members are pro-campus rape.

Anything you guys want to come clean about?

It's amazing how you can feed yourself since you're obviously dumber than a cockroach.

 

[Tilly]

Go soak your head. I asked a question that still hasn't been answered by you or BriPat.
I agree that no young man should be "railroaded" by a rape allegation. If the current policies do that, they should be changed. If these changes allow colleges to go back to their previous shenanigans of hiding and covering up rape on campus in order to protect their reputations, that is another kettle of fish.

This is your question:

If your daughter told you she was raped at college but the D.A. refused to prosecute due to "lack of evidence," would you agree the guy who did it should continue to attend that school? That the school has no right to kick him out?

Are you out of your puny mind? Wtf is wrong with you?

I asked first. Besides, what's wrong with my question?

You are suggesting that young men have their lives potentially destroyed on the basis of an accusation but no evidence.
You can't see how utterly outrageous that is?
What if you were the mother of the boy instead of the girl?
Do you think you might understand then?

 

[OldLady]

Where does anything I said lead you to believe that I want to punish people on accusation alone? And you still haven't answered my question.

Yout think kicking someone out of school under the cloud of a rape accusation is not punishment?! (per your question)

Wtf is wrong with you?

Do you know how many acts of rape are not prosecuted? It's a lot more than you probably realize. Do you think it's ALRIGHT for young men to commit the occasional rape now and then (after all, boys will be boys, and the girls probably liked it)?

No, so lets go around throwing random men in prison because they can't prosecute all the rapists.

You are falsely accusing me of that stance. If you're going to champion "justice," you could at least be fair yourself.

You were whining because some rapes aren't prosecuted. Apparently you believe what happened in the cases being discussed is a solution to that issue. If not, then what is your solution?

Maybe those policies meant to ensure that accusations of rape are actually taken seriously on campus went too far? Maybe they need to be modified? I think throwing them away entirely could be unfair to the victims. Why can't the policies protect the rights of BOTH?

 

[OKTexas]

Yep, everyone deserves to be pushed thorough a kangaroo court without due process, I mean, fuck the Constitution and actual evidence, RIGHT?

You freaking drama queens really crack me up.

Two questions on the above.......

1. have you heard of anyone going to prison on the charge of rape WITHOUT a court due-process?
Someone may be expelled from a school, but going to jail without due process???

2. We have certainly employed "due process" in investigating Hillary for Whitewater and Benghazi...YET, according to you nitwits, that is NOT enough......

So, sometimes you folks like the due process and sometimes it is YOU morons who want to lynch someone based on biases.

Did you notice schools aren't allowed to consider police reports in their kangaroo courts? It all boils down to one persons word against another. Not what I call justice, when a persons reputation can be ruined for the rest of their lives. There have been too many proven false allegations not to leave these investigations in the hands of the police.

Also, I tell ya what, put the evidence of what Comey found and the bitches obstruction and false statements in front of a grand jury with an unbiased prosecutor and I'll accept their decision. Not doing so proves there are different standards for the rich and powerful.


.

Your inability to discuss anything without bringing Hillary Clinton into it borders on obsession. Hillary Clinton is not the center of the universe - though apparently she's the center of your universe. Try, just try to discuss issues without bringing her into it!

I agree with the first paragraph of your statement, but the second is just plain off topic, and off the wall.

The second paragraph was a response to the other posters second paragraph. But if you don't like people pointing out regressive hypocrisy, stop being hypocritical.


.

 

[Richard-H]

The Constitution guarantees that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. In most cases of rape it's not possible to PROVE it. The result being that many rapists are not prosecuted.

On the otherhand, there are many proven cases of false accusations of rape. Many times this proof comes after the accused has spent many years in prison.

While there is no easy solution for the former case, the continuous false accusations of rape create a culture of cynicism towards accusations of rape. This leads to an increased number of real rapes not being persecuted.

Besides those who are falsely accused, people who suffer real rapes are being victimized by those who make false accusations.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You know that isn't due process. When he has a trial by jury and is convicted, then the university can kick him out.

Hmmm, no they won't, because they can't risk the liability of being sued by the unjustly accused. Several universities have already been sued. They will also have the Dept of Justice down on their ass.

Colleges are trying to protect their reputations and so would rather handle campus rape allegations themselves. Frequently, there is not enough hard evidence of rape to take it to a criminal court. But the accusation has been made and the college still has the responsibility to keep its female students safe. If your daughter told you she was raped at college but the D.A. refused to prosecute due to "lack of evidence," would you agree the guy who did it should continue to attend that school? That the school has no right to kick him out?

Have you noticed how your vision of justice lines up perfectly with sharia?

Go soak your head. I asked a question that still hasn't been answered by you or BriPat.
I agree that no young man should be "railroaded" by a rape allegation. If the current policies do that, they should be changed. If these changes allow colleges to go back to their previous shenanigans of hiding and covering up rape on campus in order to protect their reputations, that is another kettle of fish.

No changes in the law needed. You simply don't count on a college to handle crimes, you call the police. It's not hard to understand. Preserve evidence call the cops file a report. Done.

I agree the law should be involved. I do not necessarily agree that the college is helpless to expel a student unless a court of law finds him guilty of the crime, however. I have seen the other side of that issue.

So you can destroy someone's life and career on nothing but an accusation? How is that justice and where does it stop? How about the college kick the girl out as well then? Is that fair?

 

[Richard-H]

Yep, everyone deserves to be pushed thorough a kangaroo court without due process, I mean, fuck the Constitution and actual evidence, RIGHT?

You freaking drama queens really crack me up.

Two questions on the above.......

1. have you heard of anyone going to prison on the charge of rape WITHOUT a court due-process?
Someone may be expelled from a school, but going to jail without due process???

2. We have certainly employed "due process" in investigating Hillary for Whitewater and Benghazi...YET, according to you nitwits, that is NOT enough......

So, sometimes you folks like the due process and sometimes it is YOU morons who want to lynch someone based on biases.

Did you notice schools aren't allowed to consider police reports in their kangaroo courts? It all boils down to one persons word against another. Not what I call justice, when a persons reputation can be ruined for the rest of their lives. There have been too many proven false allegations not to leave these investigations in the hands of the police.

Also, I tell ya what, put the evidence of what Comey found and the bitches obstruction and false statements in front of a grand jury with an unbiased prosecutor and I'll accept their decision. Not doing so proves there are different standards for the rich and powerful.


.

Your inability to discuss anything without bringing Hillary Clinton into it borders on obsession. Hillary Clinton is not the center of the universe - though apparently she's the center of your universe. Try, just try to discuss issues without bringing her into it!

I agree with the first paragraph of your statement, but the second is just plain off topic, and off the wall.

The second paragraph was a response to the other posters second paragraph. But if you don't like people pointing out regressive hypocrisy, stop being hypocritical.


.

I apologize. I didn't read the post that you were replying to. I'm just sick of hearing about Clinton. She's a political 'has been'.

 

[nat4900]

I apologize. I didn't read the post that you were replying to. I'm just sick of hearing about Clinton. She's a political 'has been'.

Actually,little need to apologize. Tigger is OBSESSED with blaming Clinton....Its easier for the nitwit than defending the orange moron's actions.

 

[impuretrash]

I asked first. Besides, what's wrong with my question?

You would punish people on accusation alone? I find prigs revolting, and you are definitely a prig. You yourself might be the kind of person who would level an accusation like that and ruin someone's life on a whim or because you got dumped.

Wtf is wrong with you?

Where does anything I said lead you to believe that I want to punish people on accusation alone? And you still haven't answered my question.

Yout think kicking someone out of school under the cloud of a rape accusation is not punishment?! (per your question)

Wtf is wrong with you?

Do you know how many acts of rape are not prosecuted? It's a lot more than you probably realize. Do you think it's ALRIGHT for young men to commit the occasional rape now and then (after all, boys will be boys, and the girls probably liked it)?

No, so lets go around throwing random men in prison because they can't prosecute all the rapists.

 

[whitehall]

Does the left allege that Police investigations are insufficient in cases of sexual assault? What else is there?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You're speaking with a forked tongue. You say that no man should be railroaded because of a rape accusation, but then you advocate and defend exactly that, that a man should be railroaded because of a rape accusation, in the absence of sufficient evidence to support it.

LIbEralism truly is a mental and moral disease, as you have so kindly demonstrated yet again.

Colleges are trying to protect their reputations and so would rather handle campus rape allegations themselves. Frequently, there is not enough hard evidence of rape to take it to a criminal court. But the accusation has been made and the college still has the responsibility to keep its female students safe. If your daughter told you she was raped at college but the D.A. refused to prosecute due to "lack of evidence," would you agree the guy who did it should continue to attend that school? That the school has no right to kick him out?

Go soak your head. I asked a question that still hasn't been answered by you or BriPat.
I agree that no young man should be "railroaded" by a rape allegation. If the current policies do that, they should be changed. If these changes allow colleges to go back to their previous shenanigans of hiding and covering up rape on campus in order to protect their reputations, that is another kettle of fish.

 

[OldLady]

If you take a look at the article linked in the OP, it explains that the Obama policy required investigation by the college which provides a preponderance of evidence. The policy does not anywhere even imply that a student accused of rape is booted out solely on an accusation. The charge is investigated and must meet the standard of "more likely than not." If the colleges are not conducting their investigations properly, maybe they need to up their game. Since the accused is not given a criminal conviction by the college or labelled a "sex offender," I don't understand why using the "preponderance of evidence" standard is causing such a shit fit here.

I have seen stalkers and abusers get away with their bullshit over and over while the "laws" do nothing. The laws are to punish, not to protect.

 

[Meathead]

If you take a look at the article linked in the OP, it explains that the Obama policy required investigation by the college which provides a preponderance of evidence. The policy does not anywhere even imply that a student accused of rape is booted out solely on an accusation. The charge is investigated and must meet the standard of "more likely than not." If the colleges are not conducting their investigations properly, maybe they need to up their game. Since the accused is not given a criminal conviction by the college or labelled a "sex offender," I don't understand why using the "preponderance of evidence" standard is causing such a shit fit here.

I have seen stalkers and abusers get away with their bullshit over and over while the "laws" do nothing. The laws are to punish, not to protect.

I guess semantic acrobatics are your last refuge. You're a prig and a dingbat to boot.

Kick them out of school because of an accusation - my ass!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Where does anything I said lead you to believe that I want to punish people on accusation alone? And you still haven't answered my question.

The fact that in this very thread, you continue to defend and advocate that men accused of rape be punished, even in the absence of sufficient evidence to support such an accusation, would be a bit of a hint, don't you think?

Perhaps you have genuinely fooled yourself with your Orwellian doublethink, but you're not fooling the rest of us.

 

[OldLady]

If you take a look at the article linked in the OP, it explains that the Obama policy required investigation by the college which provides a preponderance of evidence. The policy does not anywhere even imply that a student accused of rape is booted out solely on an accusation. The charge is investigated and must meet the standard of "more likely than not." If the colleges are not conducting their investigations properly, maybe they need to up their game. Since the accused is not given a criminal conviction by the college or labelled a "sex offender," I don't understand why using the "preponderance of evidence" standard is causing such a shit fit here.

I have seen stalkers and abusers get away with their bullshit over and over while the "laws" do nothing. The laws are to punish, not to protect.

I guess semantic acrobatics are your last refuge. You're a prig and a dingbat to boot.

Kick them out of school because of an accusation - my ass!

An investigation concluding that it is more likely than not that the rape was committed is NOT "kicking them out of school because of an accusation."

 

[Meathead]

If you take a look at the article linked in the OP, it explains that the Obama policy required investigation by the college which provides a preponderance of evidence. The policy does not anywhere even imply that a student accused of rape is booted out solely on an accusation. The charge is investigated and must meet the standard of "more likely than not." If the colleges are not conducting their investigations properly, maybe they need to up their game. Since the accused is not given a criminal conviction by the college or labelled a "sex offender," I don't understand why using the "preponderance of evidence" standard is causing such a shit fit here.

I have seen stalkers and abusers get away with their bullshit over and over while the "laws" do nothing. The laws are to punish, not to protect.

I guess semantic acrobatics are your last refuge. You're a prig and a dingbat to boot.

Kick them out of school because of an accusation - my ass!

An investigation concluding that it is more likely than not that the rape was committed is NOT "kicking them out of school because of an accusation."

Of course it is you dingbat. Now go away. I don't suffer fools and prigs gladly.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

If you take a look at the article linked in the OP, it explains that the Obama policy required investigation by the college which provides a preponderance of evidence. The policy does not anywhere even imply that a student accused of rape is booted out solely on an accusation. The charge is investigated and must meet the standard of "more likely than not." If the colleges are not conducting their investigations properly, maybe they need to up their game. Since the accused is not given a criminal conviction by the college or labelled a "sex offender," I don't understand why using the "preponderance of evidence" standard is causing such a shit fit here.

I have seen stalkers and abusers get away with their bullshit over and over while the "laws" do nothing. The laws are to punish, not to protect.

Based on that reply two things come to mind. The first is you don't let amateurs process a crime scene. There's a reason they make so much of that yellow tape. It's to keep idiots like school people from messing it up. Again, the school has no business investigating anything!

Second, you're correct. Laws don't protect you from a crime. You do. So you must be all for concealed carry on campus.

 

[OldLady]

If you take a look at the article linked in the OP, it explains that the Obama policy required investigation by the college which provides a preponderance of evidence. The policy does not anywhere even imply that a student accused of rape is booted out solely on an accusation. The charge is investigated and must meet the standard of "more likely than not." If the colleges are not conducting their investigations properly, maybe they need to up their game. Since the accused is not given a criminal conviction by the college or labelled a "sex offender," I don't understand why using the "preponderance of evidence" standard is causing such a shit fit here.

I have seen stalkers and abusers get away with their bullshit over and over while the "laws" do nothing. The laws are to punish, not to protect.

I guess semantic acrobatics are your last refuge. You're a prig and a dingbat to boot.

Kick them out of school because of an accusation - my ass!

An investigation concluding that it is more likely than not that the rape was committed is NOT "kicking them out of school because of an accusation."

Of course it is you dingbat. Now go away. I don't suffer fools and prigs gladly.

Your only actual argument here has been to call me names. Which means you have no more understanding of these policy changes than I do. At least I know what a preponderance of the evidence is. It is the standard in most civil cases, in family court cases, and all but criminal cases. Since the campus investigations do not result in criminal convictions, there is no reason why the preponderance standard cannot be used. Too many rapes were being ignored. Now if colleges would continue to take rape accusations seriously, do their best to change the culture so that "no means no," none of this would be necessary.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Constitution guarantees that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. In most cases of rape it's not possible to PROVE it. The result being that many rapists are not prosecuted.

The Constitution doesn't actually say or imply that anywhere. Nevertheless, it is a principle that has long been held to be an essential basis of our system of justice, that, even if unwritten, is regarded as having as much legal force as if it were explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[Meathead]

If you take a look at the article linked in the OP, it explains that the Obama policy required investigation by the college which provides a preponderance of evidence. The policy does not anywhere even imply that a student accused of rape is booted out solely on an accusation. The charge is investigated and must meet the standard of "more likely than not." If the colleges are not conducting their investigations properly, maybe they need to up their game. Since the accused is not given a criminal conviction by the college or labelled a "sex offender," I don't understand why using the "preponderance of evidence" standard is causing such a shit fit here.

I have seen stalkers and abusers get away with their bullshit over and over while the "laws" do nothing. The laws are to punish, not to protect.

I guess semantic acrobatics are your last refuge. You're a prig and a dingbat to boot.

Kick them out of school because of an accusation - my ass!

An investigation concluding that it is more likely than not that the rape was committed is NOT "kicking them out of school because of an accusation."

Of course it is you dingbat. Now go away. I don't suffer fools and prigs gladly.

Your only actual argument here has been to call me names. Which means you have no more understanding of these policy changes than I do. At least I know what a preponderance of the evidence is. It is the standard in most civil cases, in family court cases, and all but criminal cases. Since the campus investigations do not result in criminal convictions, there is no reason why the preponderance standard cannot be used. Too many rapes were being ignored. Now if colleges would continue to take rape accusations seriously, do their best to change the culture so that "no means no," none of this would be necessary.

If someone is guilty of rape or any other serious crime, they should be prosecuted and convicted. I don't give a rat's ass if it's on a college campus of white boys and snowflakes or on the mean streets of Baltimore with thugs and public school teachers. But not some half-assed politically correct call from a bunch of college administrators that well, it might have happened.

You have no idea why feminists are despised, do you?

Get over yourself.