DeVos to make getting away with campus rape easy again

[JoeB131]

Those two falsely accused in your chart sure are happy we have a legal system.

and the 88 who were raped and no one was held to account are pretty sure the system sucks. Good thing they don't have to keep going to school with those guys.

 

[JoeB131]

You have posted two charts that don't agree with each other. The first one says there are two false accusations for every 32 prosecutions. The second also says there is one false accusation for every 161 prosecutions. Furthermore, the first one says there 20 acquittals for every 32 prosecutions. Doesn't an acquittal count as a false accusation?

Nope, it just means that the prosecution didn't do it's job.

I hate to keep breaking this to you, but women don't really lie about being raped. It's humiliating enough to admit you WERE raped to start with.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, but government institutions don't have the authority to violate your Constitutional rights. You always have a right to due process.

The no-wing situation is bullshit. All the university has to do is leave it in the hands of the responsible authority. Instead what they do is intrude on the process and then impose their own unconstitutionality process. These universities are all asking for major lawsuits from the defendants, and many of them have already been sued.

And they'll lose, because there is no right to attend a college. I'm sorry I have to keep explaining this to you.

The Path of least resistance is to throw the rapist off campus. And most places will take the Path of Least Resistance.

And it really isn't any different in the corporate world. The mere accusation of sexual harassment is usually enough to get someone fired. No hearing. No due process.

There's no right to attend college, but once you have applied and have been accepted you have made a contract with whatever institution you are attending. That institution can't simply toss that agreement into the waste bin on a whim. It has to observe due process.

And, yes, a corporation might do the same thing, and if it's unjustified the victim might still sue. Furthermore, a university is not a private corporation. It's an arm of the government. As such, it must follow due process.

Your is the "path of least resistance" only since Obama made it that way. Trump is changing that back to the way things were prior to Obama's reign of error.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Those two falsely accused in your chart sure are happy we have a legal system.

and the 88 who were raped and no one was held to account are pretty sure the system sucks. Good thing they don't have to keep going to school with those guys.

And why did that happen? No evidence? The story didn't add up? Plea bargain?

A lot could have happened to get those results. You think 88 clearly guilty people just walked away and that's not true.

 

[JoeB131]

There's no right to attend college, but once you have applied and have been accepted you have made a contract with whatever institution you are attending. That institution can't simply toss that agreement into the waste bin on a whim. It has to observe due process.

Okay, they had due process. They questioned the victim, the questioned the rapist. Out he goes. That was simple.

Your is the "path of least resistance" only since Obama made it that way. Trump is changing that back to the way things were prior to Obama's reign of error.

Actually, you are going to find that the universities will keep throwing these drunken fratboys out, because they can't risk the liability.

Once someone told you he was a rapist, he became your liability.

 

[JoeB131]

And why did that happen? No evidence? The story didn't add up? Plea bargain?

A lot could have happened to get those results. You think 88 clearly guilty people just walked away and that's not true.

Actually, it's probably exactly true. We still have a strong stigma against reporting rape. "She was asking for it" is still said in polite company. What was she doing at that party? Did she have too much to drink? Did she lead him on?

 

[bripat9643]

There's no right to attend college, but once you have applied and have been accepted you have made a contract with whatever institution you are attending. That institution can't simply toss that agreement into the waste bin on a whim. It has to observe due process.

Okay, they had due process. They questioned the victim, the questioned the rapist. Out he goes. That was simple.

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

Your is the "path of least resistance" only since Obama made it that way. Trump is changing that back to the way things were prior to Obama's reign of error.

Actually, you are going to find that the universities will keep throwing these drunken fratboys out, because they can't risk the liability.

Once someone told you he was a rapist, he became your liability.

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.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

And why did that happen? No evidence? The story didn't add up? Plea bargain?

A lot could have happened to get those results. You think 88 clearly guilty people just walked away and that's not true.

Actually, it's probably exactly true. We still have a strong stigma against reporting rape. "She was asking for it" is still said in polite company. What was she doing at that party? Did she have too much to drink? Did she lead him on?

And because you think it's "probably" true we should just skip all trials and go right to throwing anyone accused in prison.

 

[bripat9643]

And why did that happen? No evidence? The story didn't add up? Plea bargain?

A lot could have happened to get those results. You think 88 clearly guilty people just walked away and that's not true.

Actually, it's probably exactly true. We still have a strong stigma against reporting rape. "She was asking for it" is still said in polite company. What was she doing at that party? Did she have too much to drink? Did she lead him on?

And because you think it's "probably" true we should just skip all trials and go right to throwing anyone accused in prison.

When do we start burning witches at the stake?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

And why did that happen? No evidence? The story didn't add up? Plea bargain?

A lot could have happened to get those results. You think 88 clearly guilty people just walked away and that's not true.

Actually, it's probably exactly true. We still have a strong stigma against reporting rape. "She was asking for it" is still said in polite company. What was she doing at that party? Did she have too much to drink? Did she lead him on?

And because you think it's "probably" true we should just skip all trials and go right to throwing anyone accused in prison.

When do we start burning witches at the stake?

Yes! You know they are "probably" guilty someone said so.

 

[OldLady]

There's no right to attend college, but once you have applied and have been accepted you have made a contract with whatever institution you are attending. That institution can't simply toss that agreement into the waste bin on a whim. It has to observe due process.

Okay, they had due process. They questioned the victim, the questioned the rapist. Out he goes. That was simple.

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

Your is the "path of least resistance" only since Obama made it that way. Trump is changing that back to the way things were prior to Obama's reign of error.

Actually, you are going to find that the universities will keep throwing these drunken fratboys out, because they can't risk the liability.

Once someone told you he was a rapist, he became your liability.

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?

 

[bripat9643]

There's no right to attend college, but once you have applied and have been accepted you have made a contract with whatever institution you are attending. That institution can't simply toss that agreement into the waste bin on a whim. It has to observe due process.

Okay, they had due process. They questioned the victim, the questioned the rapist. Out he goes. That was simple.

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

Your is the "path of least resistance" only since Obama made it that way. Trump is changing that back to the way things were prior to Obama's reign of error.

Actually, you are going to find that the universities will keep throwing these drunken fratboys out, because they can't risk the liability.

Once someone told you he was a rapist, he became your liability.

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?

It doesn't matter what you would agree with. People have rights. You have just argued that we should dispense with their rights because someone is upset. Sorry, but that is not a justification. If a mere accusation is all it takes to punish someone, then you have no justice. You have the same system they used to burn witches at the stake.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

There's no right to attend college, but once you have applied and have been accepted you have made a contract with whatever institution you are attending. That institution can't simply toss that agreement into the waste bin on a whim. It has to observe due process.

Okay, they had due process. They questioned the victim, the questioned the rapist. Out he goes. That was simple.

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

Your is the "path of least resistance" only since Obama made it that way. Trump is changing that back to the way things were prior to Obama's reign of error.

Actually, you are going to find that the universities will keep throwing these drunken fratboys out, because they can't risk the liability.

Once someone told you he was a rapist, he became your liability.

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?

Well we can't have a little thing like no evidence stop our vigilante justice. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing needs reversed. Kangaroo law is going to be fun.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

There's no right to attend college, but once you have applied and have been accepted you have made a contract with whatever institution you are attending. That institution can't simply toss that agreement into the waste bin on a whim. It has to observe due process.

Okay, they had due process. They questioned the victim, the questioned the rapist. Out he goes. That was simple.

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

Your is the "path of least resistance" only since Obama made it that way. Trump is changing that back to the way things were prior to Obama's reign of error.

Actually, you are going to find that the universities will keep throwing these drunken fratboys out, because they can't risk the liability.

Once someone told you he was a rapist, he became your liability.

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?

It doesn't matter what you would agree with. People have rights. You have just argued that we should dispense with their rights because someone is upset. Sorry, but that is not a justification. If a mere accusation is all it takes to punish someone, then you have no justice. You have the same system they used to burn witches at the stake.

We should bring back making people accused of something wear a letter. Those were the days. People who don't even know you could shun you. That sounds fair.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

There's no right to attend college, but once you have applied and have been accepted you have made a contract with whatever institution you are attending. That institution can't simply toss that agreement into the waste bin on a whim. It has to observe due process.

Okay, they had due process. They questioned the victim, the questioned the rapist. Out he goes. That was simple.

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

Your is the "path of least resistance" only since Obama made it that way. Trump is changing that back to the way things were prior to Obama's reign of error.

Actually, you are going to find that the universities will keep throwing these drunken fratboys out, because they can't risk the liability.

Once someone told you he was a rapist, he became your liability.

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?

 

[OldLady]

There's no right to attend college, but once you have applied and have been accepted you have made a contract with whatever institution you are attending. That institution can't simply toss that agreement into the waste bin on a whim. It has to observe due process.

Okay, they had due process. They questioned the victim, the questioned the rapist. Out he goes. That was simple.

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

Your is the "path of least resistance" only since Obama made it that way. Trump is changing that back to the way things were prior to Obama's reign of error.

Actually, you are going to find that the universities will keep throwing these drunken fratboys out, because they can't risk the liability.

Once someone told you he was a rapist, he became your liability.

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.

 

[Meathead]

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?

 

[bripat9643]

There's no right to attend college, but once you have applied and have been accepted you have made a contract with whatever institution you are attending. That institution can't simply toss that agreement into the waste bin on a whim. It has to observe due process.

Okay, they had due process. They questioned the victim, the questioned the rapist. Out he goes. That was simple.

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

Your is the "path of least resistance" only since Obama made it that way. Trump is changing that back to the way things were prior to Obama's reign of error.

Actually, you are going to find that the universities will keep throwing these drunken fratboys out, because they can't risk the liability.

Once someone told you he was a rapist, he became your liability.

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?

Maybe we could adopt stoning as a punishment for rape.

 

[OldLady]

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?

 

[bripat9643]

There's no right to attend college, but once you have applied and have been accepted you have made a contract with whatever institution you are attending. That institution can't simply toss that agreement into the waste bin on a whim. It has to observe due process.

Okay, they had due process. They questioned the victim, the questioned the rapist. Out he goes. That was simple.

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

Your is the "path of least resistance" only since Obama made it that way. Trump is changing that back to the way things were prior to Obama's reign of error.

Actually, you are going to find that the universities will keep throwing these drunken fratboys out, because they can't risk the liability.

Once someone told you he was a rapist, he became your liability.

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.

Actually no, you said precisely the opposite. You said young men should be railroaded and have their entire lives ruined because someone accused them of rape with no corroborating evidence.

It doesn't matter what I would want in the case of my daughter. What matters is what the school policy is.