Gophers Football

[nicksaviking]

 

We can all talk about how wrong it is without creating a system that has, many times now, basically resulted in: if you're accused, you're gone.  And, again, this isn't the kind of accusation that just goes away.  There are few crimes as serious to be found guilty of.  So while you may not be talking directly about injustice for the accused, you are supporting a method of intervention on this issue that is working out that way in practice.  Frankly, I care a lot more about how it works in practice than what you want it to work like.  If in practice it's no longer a fair process, that's all I care about.  It should be a fair process for both parties.

 

And I wasn't suggesting a conspiracy, I was suggesting that money has a way of making things less about what is right and just and more about what is most lucrative.  All we've done is shift the focus for schools to be about over-punishing the accused rather than covering things up.  That isn't justice.  Turning their investigative outcomes into a financial incentive pretty much guarantees the process is rigged.  Just as it was rigged before.

 

I'm not looking for justice, I'm looking for my children's safety, both of them. Considering we never hear parents of victims sexual assault rally for justice for the accused, I'm guessing the idea of justice coming before safety is more of an idyllic thought until it actually affects one's family.

 

But again, I'm all for safeguarding the rights of the accused, if there isn't legal backing in the form of criminal charges, names shouldn't be released. I'm more than accepting of accusations without proof not stigmatizing these guys for life. That's on the media though. Unless the school released these names that's not on them. If they did and I'm just not aware, then yes, I'd find the school culpable in that regard.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not looking for justice, I'm looking for my children's safety, both of them. Considering we never hear parents of victims sexual assault rally for justice for the accused, I'm guessing the idea of justice coming before safety is more of an idyllic thought until it actually affects one's family.

 

But again, I'm all for safeguarding the rights of the accused, if there isn't legal backing in the form of criminal charges, names shouldn't be released. I'm more than accepting of accusations without proof not stigmatizing these guys for life. That's on the media though. Unless the school released these names that's not on them. If they did and I'm just not aware, then yes, I'd find the school culpable in that regard.

 

Sacrificing justice for safety is the first step to having neither.

[Squirrel]

 

Sacrificing justice for safety is the first step to having neither.

But whose justice are you more concerned with here?

[TheLeviathan]

 

But whose justice are you more concerned with here?

 

In THIS situation - the accused.  In the larger context of sexual assault - the victims.

 

This need not be an either/or.  The notion we have to remove due process and basic principles of justice to help victims of abuse absolutely scares me.  As if it's this or say "whelp, nothing we can do for you victims, sorry!" is so ridiculous.  And that we'd use that false dilemma as leverage to do whatever we deem a good solution scares me even more.

 

Some things should not be on the table to help solve this issue.  Our basic sense of justice and law should be among them.

[Mr. Brooks]

Levi- you say tougher penalties don't work.

States everywhere finally started getting tough on DUI several years ago, and that has drastically reduced alcohol related fatalities.

Thirty years ago nobody feared the consequences of driving drunk.

I've heard so many people of my father's generation talk about how the police would give them a warning and follow them home. Could you imagine that happening now? The cop would be fired.

Sure, plenty of people still very behind the wheel, but a lot say it's not worth getting caught.

 

I disagree that tougher penalties don't always work.

In some cases they do, in some they don't.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Levi- you say tougher penalties don't work.
States everywhere finally started getting tough on DUI several years ago, and that has drastically reduced alcohol related fatalities.
Thirty years ago nobody feared the consequences of driving drunk.
I've heard so many people of my father's generation talk about how the police would give them a warning and follow them home. Could you imagine that happening now? The cop would be fired.
Sure, plenty of people still very behind the wheel, but a lot say it's not worth getting caught.

I disagree that tougher penalties don't always work.
In some cases they do, in some they don't.

 

Is it the DUI laws or other measures being taken?  Or improved safety of cars?  Or awareness campaigns?  Or, perhaps, your point may not be valid at all?  You looked at a correlation and deduced causation and it appears to be far from that simple.  In fact, it looks a lot like gun data - a complete scattershot with little in the way of a pattern.

 

This section should be of particular note to you:

 

 

But if making laws stricter doesn’t work, what can states do to reduce their fatal alcohol-related crash rates? The answer, it turns out, may lie more in how the laws are enforced than what the laws are. According to Professor Adam Gerschowitz, the three factors most likely to deter a behavior are “(1) the certainty that the person will be caught and punished; (2) the speed between the time they commit the crime and the time of punishment; and (3) the severity (harshness) of the punishment;” but, he adds, “a large number of social science studies have found that the harshness or severity of the punishment is the least effective deterrent…As such, states should adopt [DUI] policies that are more likely to result in drunk drivers being caught and convicted, not policies that simply punish drunk drivers harshly.”

 

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[Mr. Brooks]

Is it the DUI laws or other measures being taken? Or improved safety of cars? Or awareness campaigns? Or, perhaps, your point may not be valid at all? You looked at a correlation and deduced causation and it appears to be far from that simple. In fact, it looks a lot like gun data - a complete scattershot with little in the way of a pattern.

 

This section should be of particular note to you:

I would agree. The penalties don't need to be overly severe. Having to change colleges is not some catastrophic penalty.

It could be argued these players are getting off incredibly lightly.

Let's find a way to bring some kind of punishment though. The criminal justice system is clearly not capable of doing that.

[TheLeviathan]

I would suggest any time you are decided to have sexual assaulted another person to be a serious penalty.

 

Abandoning the justice system in favor of "punishing" crime through some other means is a horrible idea.

 

Didn't take long for that slippery slope to go off the rails here.

Edited December 20, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[Mike Sixel]

So, Levi, you argue against action over and over on threads like this. What is your answer to forty percent of our sisters being raped? Because your answer in every thread like this is do nothing.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Mike Sixel

[Mr. Brooks]

I would suggest any time you are decided to have sexual assaulted another person to be a serious penalty.

 

Abandoning the justice system in favor of "punishing" crime through some other means is a horrible idea.

 

Didn't take long for that slippery slope to go off the rails here.

What if the criminal justice system is completely not working?

 

So far I haven't heard any suggestions from you on how we fix this epidemic.

[Mr. Brooks]

So, Levi, you argue against action over and over on threads like this. What is your answer to forty percent of our sisters being raped? Because your answer in every thread like this is do nothing.

And he actually takes the opposite side of the coin in the election thread regarding gun control.

 

When innocent kids are dying, Levi suggests action, even if it means borderline constitutional infringement. But not when young women are being assaulted.

[drjim]

 

So, Levi, you argue against action over and over on threads like this. What is your answer to forty percent of our sisters being raped? Because your answer in every thread like this is do nothing.

 

40%?

[USAFChief]

 

And he actually takes the opposite side of the coin in the election thread regarding gun control.

When innocent kids are dying, Levi suggests action, even if it means borderline constitutional infringement. But not when young women are being assaulted.

We have a system in place to deal with the perpetrators when young women (or young men, or old persons even) are being assaulted.

 

The problem is, we don't know that an assault took place in this instance.    

 

[Mr. Brooks]

40%?

I believe Mike took that figure from an earlier post by me.

I have to apologize. That was the number that was in my head, but it is actually 20%.

[Craig Arko]

40%?

CDC estimates 19.3% of the female population; 1.7% of the male population. These don't break out the college age demographic specifically.

 

Apparently some people find those rates more acceptable.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e

 

"Results: In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively.

An estimated 15.2% of women and 5.7% of men have been a victim of stalking during their lifetimes. An estimated 4.2% of women and 2.1% of men were stalked in the 12 months preceding the survey.

With respect to sexual violence and stalking, female victims reported predominantly male perpetrators, whereas for male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the specific form of violence examined. Male rape victims predominantly had male perpetrators, but other forms of sexual violence experienced by men were either perpetrated predominantly by women (i.e., being made to penetrate and sexual coercion) or split more evenly among male and female perpetrators (i.e., unwanted sexual contact and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences). In addition, male stalking victims also reported a more even mix of males and females who had perpetrated stalking against them.

The lifetime and 12-month prevalences of rape by an intimate partner for women were an estimated 8.8% and 0.8%, respectively; an estimated 0.5% of men experienced rape by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, although the case count for men reporting rape by an intimate partner in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 15.8% of women and 9.5% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, whereas an estimated 2.1% of both men and women experienced these forms of sexual violence by a partner in the 12 months before taking the survey. Severe physical violence by an intimate partner (including acts such as being hit with something hard, being kicked or beaten, or being burned on purpose) was experienced by an estimated 22.3% of women and 14.0% of men during their lifetimes and by an estimated 2.3% of women and 2.1% of men in the 12 months before taking the survey. Finally, the lifetime and 12-month prevalence of stalking by an intimate partner for women was an estimated 9.2% and 2.4%, respectively, while the lifetime and 12-month prevalence for men was an estimated 2.5% and 0.8%, respectively.

Many victims of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence were first victimized at a young age. Among female victims of completed rape, an estimated 78.7% were first raped before age 25 years (40.4% before age 18 years). Among male victims who were made to penetrate a perpetrator, an estimated 71.0% were victimized before age 25 years (21.3% before age 18 years). In addition, an estimated 53.8% of female stalking victims and 47.7% of male stalking victims were first stalked before age 25 years (16.3% of female victims and 20.5% of male victims before age 18 years). Finally, among victims of contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner, an estimated 71.1% of women and 58.2% of men first experienced these or other forms of intimate partner violence before age 25 years (23.2% of female victims and 14.1% of male victims before age 18 years)."

Edited December 20, 2016 by Craig Arko

[TheLeviathan]

 

So, Levi, you argue against action over and over on threads like this. What is your answer to forty percent of our sisters being raped? Because your answer in every thread like this is do nothing.

 

C'mon Mike.  I don't argue against any action, I argue against bad action.  We've had two people defending this - one by saying we need to sacrifice justice for safety and another saying we need to form an alternate, non-criminal way to punish people.

 

Both are TERRIBLE justifications and exactly my opposition to this.  Arguing "not this!" is not the same as "nothing!"  

 

My answers are always the harder ones, not the easy ones.  Not the quick ones.  But they're meant to actually work - not just screw one group of people over for another so we can feel like "Yeah! We did something!  And it was quick!" The idea that a problem like this could have a quick easy fix is part of the mistake.  It's going to take time, effort, and some fundamental changes.  

 

Here are a couple links I endorse.  

Edited December 20, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[TheLeviathan]

 

And he actually takes the opposite side of the coin in the election thread regarding gun control.

When innocent kids are dying, Levi suggests action, even if it means borderline constitutional infringement. But not when young women are being assaulted.

 

No, I did not.  In the thread about school massacres I argued the same thing: most of the proposed legislation would have little or no effect.  Pass it if you want, but it will do nothing.  Go look up the thread.  

 

I said there that the real battle is a cultural one.  I suggested I'd like to see a limit on the number of firearms someone owns, but I have no delusions about being able to accomplish that.  I was making a philosophical argument, not a practical one.  

 

Practically speaking, we can do almost nothing with the law on guns because of the lobby.  The cultural battle, as I argued in the school shooting thread (like cigarretes) is the way to go.

[TheLeviathan]

 

What if the criminal justice system is completely not working?

So far I haven't heard any suggestions from you on how we fix this epidemic.

 

Then shouldn't we fix the criminal justice system?  Shouldn't that be the focus instead of setting up some side-tribunal system?

 

I mean, I encounter child abuse as a crime most of all in my work.  I think those people are monsters.  But if we suddenly decided a tribunal of teachers were allowed to determine their guilt and punish them in some way, I'd fight that tooth and nail.  Not because I support child abusers, but because I support our fundamental concept of justice.

 

And supporting those foundations is important for all people, even those we despise.

Edited December 20, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[drjim]

CDC estimates 19.3% of the female population; 1.7% of the male population. These don't break out the college age demographic specifically.

 

Apparently some people find those rates more acceptable.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e

I don't think anyone finds a number above 0 acceptable. But addressing the crisis, in my mind, requires an accurate understanding of what is happening.

 

The CDC numbers also include attempts, plus they have been challenged in their own right and use shoddy methodology.

 

Digging deeper into the study, the earlier suggestion of banning alcohol would do more to reduce rape and sexual assault than anything else by a significant margin.

[TheLeviathan]

We'd "solve" a lot of societal issues by banning booze.

 

It just also comes with a host of issues which makes it a bad recommendation.  However, a dry campus and dry frat/sorority houses might go a long, long way.

 

I think this is a good watch, even if I disagree with elements of it, it's a good debate.

[Craig Arko]

I don't think anyone finds a number above 0 acceptable. But addressing the crisis, in my mind, requires an accurate understanding of what is happening.

The CDC numbers also include attempts, plus they have been challenged in their own right and use shoddy methodology.

Digging deeper into the study, the earlier suggestion of banning alcohol would do more to reduce rape and sexual assault than anything else by a significant margin.

Since teaching responsibility and self-control to young American males is a dead end?

[drjim]

Since teaching responsibility and self-control to young American males is a dead end?

That would be good too.

[Craig Arko]

That would be good too.

Aren't those two of the traits competitive sports are supposed to nurture?

Edited December 20, 2016 by Craig Arko

[drjim]

 

Aren't those two of the traits competitive sports are supposed to nurture?

 

Yes, along with other sources.

 

Mix youthful idiocy, alcohol, raging hormones, general depravity, and an inflated status in an enclosed community, and bad things happen.

 

There is a long, all-encompassing strategy to combat this, and I really, truly believe that good progress has been made on many fronts, but sometimes people are just awful.

[Craig Arko]

Yes, along with other sources.

 

Mix youthful idiocy, alcohol, raging hormones, general depravity, and an inflated status in an enclosed community, and bad things happen.

 

There is a long, all-encompassing strategy to combat this, and I really, truly believe that good progress has been made on many fronts, but sometimes people are just awful.

What strategy is that? I'd like to hear more.

[USAFChief]

 

Since teaching responsibility and self-control to young American males is a dead end?

Just males?

[Squirrel]

Yes, along with other sources.

 

Mix youthful idiocy, alcohol, raging hormones, general depravity, and an inflated status in an enclosed community, and bad things happen.

 

There is a long, all-encompassing strategy to combat this, and I really, truly believe that good progress has been made on many fronts, but sometimes people are just awful.

Omg, this is nothing more than a veiled 'boys will be boys' defense. Shame on you.

[Craig Arko]

Just males?

Point taken. Still the statistics indicate that would be a very good place to start.

[drjim]

 

Omg, this is nothing more than a veiled 'boys will be boys' defense. Shame on you.

 

Defense?

[Squirrel]

I went to school on a dry campus, it didn't stop anything.

 

And yes, both men and women need to take responsibility for their actions, but this also needs to be treated very carefully. It does get close to victim blaming/shaming as well as 'okaying' the actions of the aggressor when we start suggesting, 'well, he/she shouldn't have been drinking.' 'He/she shouldn't have been wearing that.' 'He/she shouldn't have agreed to be in her/his room alone because of course things will happen.' 'He/she have been 'promiscuous' before so ... ' I went to a school who did this kind of thing. And as recently as last year, their idea of dealing with the problem, after suggesting all of the above, and letting the victims know it was their fault because of their lack of responsibility in the situation, was to put both parties into a room telling them to resolve their differences. Teaching responsibility is one thing, but there also needs to be consequences, and I don't think the consequences should be for victims to have to face their attackers day after day, while being blamed for what happened to them. And that's what schools have done and still do.

 

This whole issue is being discussed now because the U decided to suspend some of its players for their behavior and part in this. It's not a criminal judgement they are imposing. It's a 'you need to take responsibility for your actions or there will be consequences for actions' judgement they are imposing. And I say, 'Finally!' Maybe it's not ultimately the right way about it, but I think it's a start. And yeah, maybe it's not fair to all of sudden start now, but when will it be fair? Schools and their administrators and boards/regents have for too long brushed this under the rug for the sake of protecting its school's reputation and/or their 'stars,' and that needs to stop. Maybe if they stop brushing it under the rug and stop treating these situations as if it's okay, actual criminality will be reduced later in life by some of these students who have for years grown up to believe it's okay and take it steps further. Yes, even in this case the university should allow due process, but I don't think it needs to be just about adherence to our legal system. Levi, I understand that you don't think the U should take these steps because it doesn't adhere to the letter of the law. But I respectfully and very strongly disagree. Because rape and sexual assault happen and are often times difficult to prove. I don't think it's unreasonable for any school to start addressing the gray areas of these situations. And I also think it's okay for a school, who is giving a free-ride scholarship to someone, to expect them to represent their school in a more fitting way.