I guess the victim doesn't care if that person continues sexually assaulting others outside of campus.
That would be a bit unlikely. Only 12-24% of sex offenders reoffend, and when they do, it's usually not sexual or violent
http://www.csom.org/pubs/needtoknow_fs.pdf
School tribunals aren't courts of law. They should not be used as trials to judge sexual assault cases. They aren't fit to pass judgement.
School tribunals aren't courts of law, which is why someone cannot be sent to jail just because their university found them guilty of a crime.
It should ultimately be up to the university to decide who does and does not attend their institution (within reason, of course). If a school finds that one of their students is breaking school rules, then the school should be able to punish them.
I think most of the problem stems from the fact that even being
accused of sexual assault has a strong chance of fucking up someone's life. But that ultimately stems from a more cultural notion towards these problems, and no amount of repealing legislation is going to change that cultural notion in any meaningful way.
Since they started hiring "officers" with even lower IQs than the low standard demanded for regular police departments. They're basically hall monitors with guns.
Maybe for some universities, but certainly not all. And I strongly doubt most.
Let's look at Ohio State University's requirements to become an officer:
https://dps.osu.edu/police-careers
Now let's look at Columbus's requirements to become an officer:
https://www.criminaljusticedegreesc...umbus-police-department-officer-requirements/
They aren't super different. If anything, OSU is a bit more rigorous as they require 72 college credit hours to serve, whereas Columbus PD only requires a high school diploma or equivalent.
If you believe you've been violated (whether or not that's actually true from an objective standpoint), but you can't prove it, you'll get so frothing mad you'll resort to whatever you can to get redress. It's completely unacceptable for universities that receive federal funding to play ball with this kind of nonsense.
I stated this above, but again, this is ultimately more of a cultural problem. Even without this component of Title IX, it's going to do jack shit to actually stop false rape accusations. With a fair amount of PR, it can be fairly easy to get a university's administration to bend down and at the very least issue some sort of statement.
If anything, keeping this part of Title IX intact would at least give the accused some sort of platform to defend his or herself. It also gives the university justification for not reprimanding the accused by claiming they conducted their own investigation.
You aren't allowed to cross examine witnesses, for example.
I won't deny that. But like calling into question both party's sexual history, it can be very emotionally demanding or even damaging. Cross examinations can be pretty brutal and that would be a major deterrent for actual victims reporting their case.
That being said, I wouldn't be against cross examination so long as it would be handled in a way that wouldn't make possible victims fearful.
Also schools are allowed to permit you to see counsel, but that's the school's decision.
The school cannot restrict you from seeing an attorney, only keep you from having one represent you, which applies to both the accused and the accuser.
If the accused gets a guilty verdict, there's an appeals process for that. Hooray, double jeopardy!
I don't see what the problem is here. If the accused feels that they were wrongly convicted, wouldn't it be a good thing that they are able to appeal it? Are you saying that they
shouldn't be allowed to appeal their conviction?
Yeah it's called hyperbole.
Sounds more like a shitty excuse for a poor claim, but what ever.
Of course you are, I bet you think only 6% to 8% of rape cases turn out to be false too even though that's proven bullshit.
The best source I could find is from the FBI, which stated:
"Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,”
So what's the proof against this?
Yeah, there are a few problems with this study.
1. Given how small the sample size is, it seems a little odd that the actual sources used to gather this evidence aren't listed. Is there a citation page anywhere? Because I can't find one.
2. No authors for the study are listed. Which is odd, because looking at the
"People" section of their website, a lot of these people seem to have a bit of a conflict of interest with this, and I'm really struggling to believe that their personal biases would not have had an impact on this study.
3. The allocation of points is kinda... bad. I checked Lehigh University, and
the first thing they say is that the accused is presumed innocent. However, the only received a 1 for this. The next two points regard written notification and notification of time to prepare, but the study you linked put both of those down as a 0.
I could go through each and everyone one of these, but I'd be here all night and I really don't want to be here all night. But needless to say, this raises quite a number of questions in regards to this study.
