Gophers Football

[TheLeviathan]

 

My point is that your solution is a societal one. It's not something the Universities can have much control over.
Maybe when more is done on society and law enforcement's part, then the universities can walk some of these policies back a bit.

 

I understand the appeal of that, given the deficits of the criminal justice system.  But what you are compromising in the process is too foundational and important to me.

[Mr. Brooks]

I understand the appeal of that, given the deficits of the criminal justice system. But what you are compromising in the process is too foundational and important to me.

I guess to me when you are only risking someone wrongly having to change schools (not jail time or having to register as a sex offender), then I'm OK weighing that risk against protecting women's right not to be assaulted.

 

You may end up being right that it doesn't help. Time will tell. I'm still OK trying it though.

 

You always weigh the consequences on both sides of a civil liberty issue.

 

You don't have the freedom of speech to yell fire in a crowded theater.

In a vacuum that is a clear violation of 1st amendment rights, but when weighed against the consequences, it's more important to protect people from being trampled.

 

You can lose your 2nd amendment rights if you have a history of violence.

 

Cops can search your house without a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion that danger is imminent, like you have a kidnapped person inside, or a bomb.

 

Every single constitutional right, or civil liberty that we have, I can give examples of instances that public safety is given priority over your individual right.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I guess to me when you are only risking someone wrongly having to change schools (not jail time or having to register as a sex offender), then I'm OK weighing that risk against protecting women's right not to be assaulted.

You may end up being right that it doesn't help. Time will tell. I'm still OK trying it though.

 

All of the examples you mentioned run through a court, a judge, or some other authorized official under our judicial system before someone is stripped of them or action is enforced against them.  Not just some panel of individuals with various qualifications.

 

I think you're very mistaken viewing this as only a risk to the accused.  It's certainly that and, as you said, I seriously question it will have enough positive effect to even warrant that risk.  

 

But it's the larger risk I'm worried about.  It's how comfortable we are re-routing how we deal with crime to small, non-judicial tribunals.  That threatens the very nature of justice and threatens to erode the important principles we built our system on.  It suggests we've given up getting that system right and now we're taking matters into our own hands.  I'm not comfortable with that at all.   And I think, given some of the rhetoric you and others are using here, that that's precisely what we're doing.

 

You might think the ends justify the means, I think that's rarely the case.  Especially with something as important as our notion of justice.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[Mr. Brooks]

All of the examples you mentioned run through a court, a judge, or some other authorized official under our judicial system before someone is stripped of them or action is enforced against them. Not just some panel of individuals with various qualifications.

 

I think you're very mistaken viewing this as only a risk to the accused. It's certainly that and, as you said, I seriously question it will have enough positive effect to even warrant that risk.

 

But it's the larger risk I'm worried about. It's how comfortable we are re-routing how we deal with crime to small, non-judicial tribunals. That threatens the very nature of justice and threatens to erode the important principles we built our system on. It suggests we've given up getting that system right and now we're taking matters into our own hands. I'm not comfortable with that at all. And I think, given some of the rhetoric you and others are using here, that that's precisely what we're doing.

 

You might think the ends justify the means, I think that's rarely the case. Especially with something as important as our notion of justice.

Well we completely disagree to the extent that these cases are going to erode any principles of justice.

And that's OK.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well we completely disagree to the extent that these cases are going to erode any principles of justice.
And that's OK.

 

Well, as I linked you to before, there are law professors and judges already excoriating this.  So to what degree they erode anything I guess we'll find out.

 

I'm a guy who prizes principles and practical success.  I think this violates both.  I genuinely hope I'm wrong, the less sexual assaults the better, but I don't think we'll view it that way in the long run.

[Mike Sixel]

No, they're making a decision about a criminal act through a non-criminal proceeding. And so far you've said they need to do that because the criminal proceeding isn't pursued or failed. That's like you being charged with murder, you are declared innocent in a court of law, and then a group of bureacrats in your office hold a two month investigation, declare you a murderer, and fire you.

 

Tell me that doesn't sound preposterous.

By this logic, civil law suits over criminal acts are wrong also?

[TheLeviathan]

 

By this logic, civil law suits over criminal acts are wrong also?

 

You're right the way I phrased that made that unclear.  Civil suits are still happening in a courtroom following a great deal more in terms of procedures, rules, and host of other judicial measures.  They are presided over by a judge, often there is a jury, there are lawyers, etc.

 

[Craig Arko]

http://www.twincities.com/2016/12/21/soucheray-any-u-of-m-player-of-character-would-have-cleared-the-building-helped-the-woman/

[Badsmerf]

Levi, i agree 100% with your stance. I haven't been able to post much, but I am not on board with how this incident is being handled. This rhetoric of punishment for prevention is coming from the same people that oppose the war on drugs. I find the example about murder precisely what this is about. I believe the law will be on my side when this gets sorted out.

[Mr. Brooks]

Levi, i agree 100% with your stance. I haven't been able to post much, but I am not on board with how this incident is being handled. This rhetoric of punishment for prevention is coming from the same people that oppose the war on drugs. I find the example about murder precisely what this is about. I believe the law will be on my side when this gets sorted out.

I'm not sure where you are going with the comparison to the war on drugs.

Drug use doesn't directly impact others the way that sexual assault does.

Are you saying that if someone doesn't think drugs should be treated as a criminal matter then they are hypocrites if they think sexual assault should be?

 

The bigger and more apt difference in this situation though is that nobody here is calling for these guys to go to prison. This is a university policy issue. Just like schools and workplaces can have a policy against drugs, which most of us who oppose the war on drugs understand is completely different than law enforcement, and are OK with.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Levi, i agree 100% with your stance. I haven't been able to post much, but I am not on board with how this incident is being handled. This rhetoric of punishment for prevention is coming from the same people that oppose the war on drugs. I find the example about murder precisely what this is about. I believe the law will be on my side when this gets sorted out.

 

I also think history will show this strategy to be ineffective for what it is intended for.  

 

Crimes belong in criminal court.  Throw these idiots out for lewd behavior or even harassment, but assault?  Nope, not the proper place for that determination.

 

We should never sacrifice basic rights and judicial principles just to feel like we're doing something.  The scumbag's right to defend himself in the wake of a criminal allegation are the same as mine.  I don't want to chip away at them.

Edited December 22, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not sure where you are going with the comparison to the war on drugs.
Drug use doesn't directly impact others the way that sexual assault does.
Are you saying that if someone doesn't think drugs should be treated as a criminal matter then they are hypocrites if they think sexual assault should be?

The bigger and more apt difference in this situation though is that nobody here is calling for these guys to go to prison. This is a university policy issue. Just like schools and workplaces can have a policy against drugs, which most of us who oppose the war on drugs understand is completely different than law enforcement, and are OK with.

 

Policies about drugs still entail law enforcement when the drug has criminal punishments.  And when they don't (like drug testing for employment and that sort of thing.  Or drug testing for welfare benefits) I oppose those policies on the same grounds.

 

Crimes should go through the criminal courts where all the foundational protections of our system are in place.  No tribunal at work, college, or anywhere else should be determining if you murdered someone, embezzled, sexually assaulted, robbed, or kidnapped anyone.  That's not the proper place for those matters.

 

All of these students did more than enough to be kicked out just for their lewd behavior.  That's sufficient.  We don't have to decide if they were criminals, leave that to the authorities.

[Mr. Brooks]

Policies about drugs still entail law enforcement when the drug has criminal punishments. And when they don't (like drug testing for employment and that sort of thing. Or drug testing for welfare benefits) I oppose those policies on the same grounds.

 

Crimes should go through the criminal courts where all the foundational protections of our system are in place. No tribunal at work, college, or anywhere else should be determining if you murdered someone, embezzled, sexually assaulted, robbed, or kidnapped anyone. That's not the proper place for those matters.

 

All of these students did more than enough to be kicked out just for their lewd behavior. That's sufficient. We don't have to decide if they were criminals, leave that to the authorities.

What if you have an employee that you know is stealing from the company, but the police say there is not enough evidence to charge them?

[TheLeviathan]

What if you have an employee that you know is stealing from the company, but the police say there is not enough evidence to charge them?

Then you gather more evidence if you want to pursue the crime.

 

Depending on the state you could just fire them also, but you do so under at will laws, not because you declare them a thief.

[Badsmerf]

The point about the war on drugs is that no matter how much you enforce, people will continue to do them. I don't think sexual assault is the same crime, but punishment alone isn't going to stop it.

 

I guess I'm not as willing to abandon my ideal of justice for the sake of punishment add others. This isn't taking a stand against sexual assault. Want to do that? Initiate programs to help avoid it. Pitt I place systems which make it more difficult for these things to happen. Create awareness and propose athletes take a mandatory seminar on it if you feel singling them out is important. Being the judge and jury to label these kids with sexual assault is terrible.

 

I also disagree they could have been expelled for lewd behavior. Punished sure, but within reason. I don't see how Tracy survives this.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Then you gather more evidence if you want to pursue the crime.

Depending on the state you could just fire them also, but you do so under at will laws, not because you declare them a thief.

 

That is such a pedantic argument.....so, fire them is ok, just don't call them names? The effect is still the same.

 

You seem ok with them expelling the students, you just want them labeled differently? Is that where we are?

[Mike Sixel]

 

The point about the war on drugs is that no matter how much you enforce, people will continue to do them. I don't think sexual assault is the same crime, but punishment alone isn't going to stop it.

I guess I'm not as willing to abandon my ideal of justice for the sake of punishment add others. This isn't taking a stand against sexual assault. Want to do that? Initiate programs to help avoid it. Pitt I place systems which make it more difficult for these things to happen. Create awareness and propose athletes take a mandatory seminar on it if you feel singling them out is important. Being the judge and jury to label these kids with sexual assault is terrible.

I also disagree they could have been expelled for lewd behavior. Punished sure, but within reason. I don't see how Tracy survives this.

 

They are doing all that, it clearly isn't working. 

 

What's your next plan?

 

I agree, punishing others doesn't deter people. I would hope that isn't the point here, I would hope they are, you know, punishing people because they did something wrong....

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there many instances where a criminal case is dismissed (due to lack of preponderance of evidence, perhaps) but the corresponding civil suit is found for the plaintiff?

Such that the found criminally innocent person is still liable for damages to the alleged victim (or surviving family, as the case may be)?

I seem to recall that was the resolution of the OJ trials.

Yes, different courts have different thresholds of guilt/liability. My wife said the U's actions likely fall under administrative law, which is separate from criminal law. It's technically part of civil law but is handled differently with its own set of laws and courts.

 

My wife said administrative law is incredibly complex but here's what I was able to glean from it:

 

Think of the U of M like you do the Department of Health Services, as an agency with its own rights to both issue and revoke, say, licenses for day care centers. If a day care center violates the rules set in place by the DHS, they will revoke the day care center's license and levy fines against the center. None of this operates under either criminal or "normal" civil courts.

 

Basically, my understanding is that administrative law is set up for agencies to operate somewhat independently of the traditional court system for speed and efficiency. My wife suspects the U falls under this situation, as the students are trying to move the cast into district (traditional) court.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That is such a pedantic argument.....so, fire them is ok, just don't call them names? The effect is still the same.

 

You seem ok with them expelling the students, you just want them labeled differently? Is that where we are?

 

You think firing someone is the same as labeling someone a sexual assaulter?    You can't possibly believe that.  The end effect is not even remotely "the same".

 

I'm not taking issue with any company or organization's ability to enforce a non-criminal policy of conduct.  I'm taking issue with a non-judicial entity making decisions about crimes.  It's easy to look past how HORRIBLE an idea that is when we hate sexual predators.  But that's when it's most important not to look past!

 

The next thing we'll hear is that the courts aren't doing the right thing about child molesters so we'll let the PTA hand out banishments.  Don't like that one?  Come up with any analogy you want where the following are claimed to justify it: The courts aren't "good enough", the "won't someone please think of the children!" emotional appeal of "this is so important we have to do something!", and then we let a non-judicial tribunal decide what happened and how to handle the accused.

 

Want to reduce sexual assaults?  I'm with you, but not every solution should be on the table.  This one most definitely shouldn't be.  Form task forces between the campus police and law enforcement.  Add extra lighting and security around campuses.  Increase awareness and training for officers who field these calls.  Form specific police units to handle these crimes on campuses.  Hit them with the "yes means yes" framework over and over and over again on campus.  Colleges should help victims pursue criminal charges, have counselors and others there to help them through the process so they put these things in the court.

 

But setting up side tribunals of a bunch of stuffed shirt college employees to decide sexual assault?  Good lord what a terrible idea.

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

You think firing someone is the same as labeling someone a sexual assaulter?    You can't possibly believe that.  The end effect is not even remotely "the same".

 

I'm not taking issue with any company or organization's ability to enforce a non-criminal policy of conduct.  I'm taking issue with a non-judicial entity making decisions about crimes.  It's easy to look past how HORRIBLE an idea that is when we hate sexual predators.  But that's when it's most important not to look past!

 

The next thing we'll hear is that the courts aren't doing the right thing about child molesters so we'll let the PTA hand out banishments.  Don't like that one?  Come up with any analogy you want where the following are claimed to justify it: The courts aren't "good enough", the "won't someone please think of the children!" emotional appeal of "this is so important we have to do something!", and then we let a non-judicial tribunal decide what happened and how to handle the accused.

 

Want to reduce sexual assaults?  I'm with you, but not every solution should be on the table.  This one most definitely shouldn't be.  Form task forces between the campus police and law enforcement.  Add extra lighting and security around campuses.  Increase awareness and training for officers who field these calls.  Form specific police units to handle these crimes on campuses.  Hit them with the "yes means yes" framework over and over and over again on campus.  Colleges should help victims pursue criminal charges, have counselors and others there to help them through the process so they put these things in the court.

 

But setting up side tribunals of a bunch of stuffed shirt college employees to decide sexual assault?  Good lord what a terrible idea.

 

I still want clarity...are you suggesting they can expel them for this action, just not label them sexual offenders? 

 

And, I lean toward your position, in the abstract, of working outside the courts. I am. But, and this is important, kicking someone out of college should be up to the college, not the courts. So, yes, those "tribunals" will always exist.

[Badsmerf]

Yes, different courts have different thresholds of guilt/liability. My wife said the U's actions likely fall under administrative law, which is separate from criminal law. It's technically part of civil law but is handled differently with its own set of laws and courts.

 

My wife said administrative law is incredibly complex but here's what I was able to glean from it:

 

Think of the U of M like you do the Department of Health Services, as an agency with its own rights to both issue and revoke, say, licenses for day care centers. If a day care center violates the rules set in place by the DHS, they will revoke the day care center's license and levy fines against the center. None of this operates under either criminal or "normal" civil courts.

 

Basically, my understanding is that administrative law is set up for agencies to operate somewhat independently of the traditional court system for speed and efficiency. My wife suspects the U falls under this situation, as the students are trying to move the cast into district (traditional) court.

That is fine when it comes to things less serious. I don't think anyone would like it had it been a murder charge which wasn't brought to court yet the university still suspended players for murder. I think that should be the distinction here, criminal vs uncriminal. The issue is due process, which is fundamental to our country. I'm amazed people are sifting it under the rug so easily.

 

Brooks, I would feel much better about the situation had the university not labeled these kids sexual perpetrators. Instead, they could have cited a number of code of conduct violations (like levi said) and disciplined within reason. If they chose the same punishments, I still have issue with the individuals which were not directly involved. And again, the university should walk a fine line here because they do not have the power to decide sexual assault.

[Badsmerf]

I still want clarity...are you suggesting they can expel them for this action, just not label them sexual offenders? 

 

And, I lean toward your position, in the abstract, of working outside the courts. I am. But, and this is important, kicking someone out of college should be up to the college, not the courts. So, yes, those "tribunals" will always exist.

It isn't the tribunals which are the problem. It is what they are deciding which is important. Expel them for the things you know they did. If the violations do not fit with expelling, then don't expel. The issue is when we're letting these tribunals make decisions based on acts they find criminal. That is should be beyond their scope and they should rely on the courts.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That is fine when it comes to things less serious. I don't think anyone would like it had it been a murder charge which wasn't brought to court yet the university still suspended players for murder. I think that should be the distinction here, criminal vs uncriminal.

The thing is, that's not how it works legally (if my wife is correct and, in fact, the U of M is granted rights under administrative law, something she did not have time to research this morning during our conversation).

 

They're separate forms of law. The severity of the situation, to my knowledge, has no bearing on the rights of either court to enact judgment, the same way it works in civil and criminal suits.

 

Two different courts, two different forms of law.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I still want clarity...are you suggesting they can expel them for this action, just not label them sexual offenders? 

 

And, I lean toward your position, in the abstract, of working outside the courts. I am. But, and this is important, kicking someone out of college should be up to the college, not the courts. So, yes, those "tribunals" will always exist.

 

Yes, what they hold as their ethics policy is up to them.  If consenting group sex is something the university wants to put as actionable in their policy - that is their right.  I don't have a problem with them having a tribunal to determine sexual harassment, lewd behavior, or whatever other non-criminal matters they want to put in their policy.  And if they deem a student violated one of those non-criminal policies - boot them.  Have a process for it, but boot away.

 

But to expel someone for "sexual assault" is to determine a crime happened.  Your policy should be to refer all crime to the courts.  If someone is accused of sexual assault at your work place they don't get the department heads together to determine your guilt.  They call the police.  

 

Why should colleges be any different?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

But to expel someone for "sexual assault" is to determine a crime happened.  Your policy should be to refer all crime to the courts.  If someone is accused of sexual assault at your work place they don't get the department heads together to determine your guilt.  They call the police.  

 

Why should colleges be any different?

This sounds good in practice but having been married to a lawyer for several years, I have come to understand only one thing about law:

It's incredibly complex and outside our ability as laymen to understand its nuances and those nuances are in place for very good reasons most of the time.

 

According to my wife, if the U of M is using either administrative or contract law to expel these students, it's probably well within their right to do so.

 

There are multiple courts and they often have overlapping jurisdiction. Just because the criminal courts failed to meet the threshold of an indictment does not exclude other, less rigorous, courts from pursuing the matter outside the criminal justice system.

 

As Craig pointed out, this could quite easily be a twist on the OJ case, though without the financial aspect of civil court. While the criminal courts didn't meet their (most) exacting measurements to proceed, other courts/agencies can step in and deliver verdicts using their own laws/rules.

[TheLeviathan]

I am not stating the colleges don't have this right as of now.  They do.  Hell, they've basically been mandated to do it.  I'm arguing that it shouldn't be that way.  They shouldn't have the right, it's a non-legal court for all intents and purposes.  And I'm opposed to all forms of non-legal quasi-courts for deciding if criminal action took place.

 

Civil cases still happen with lawyers present, sometimes juries, judges, and a host of other provisions that come with our legal system.  

 

This was a handful of people hired, on behalf of the university, to look out for the university on a matter they have been mandated to address, with minimal due process (if any at all).

 

Again, if your company suspects you of embezzling money or randomly murdering your co-workers, do they get the middle management team together to investigate?  Because that's what is happening here.

[biggentleben]

 

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.    

 

And that system hasn't been followed in this case, from all accounts, at the university level. These players were not given the proper University procedure, and it would not surprise me to find out that the University has to pay out a significant settlement to the players involved, especially if they are dismissed from the school.

[biggentleben]

 

The thing is, that's not how it works legally (if my wife is correct and, in fact, the U of M is granted rights under administrative law, something she did not have time to research this morning during our conversation).

 

They're separate forms of law. The severity of the situation, to my knowledge, has no bearing on the rights of either court to enact judgment, the same way it works in civil and criminal suits.

 

Two different courts, two different forms of law.

 

The U has a system for this, though. They are to go through a procedure where the student is reminded incessantly about how they have the right to have representation through student legal services or their own representation present for any part of any inquiry. That was not done in this case. They are using their student code to dismiss these students, yet they went outside of the procedures laid out in their own student code in order to do the dismissal. That's the crux of the issue.

 

I do not believe that Levi, Smerf, or anyone is condoning the behaviors whatsoever, but the U has a policy on how these things are supposed to happen. That policy has not been followed in this case by every report out there, and that is the entirety of the issue at hand.

[TheLeviathan]

Absolutely Ben.  The University owes their students the obligation of following their own code if they're going to enforce it against them.

 

My point is that, in the process of their investigation, they think a crime was committed (sexual assault in this case) they should refer that to the police.  Their findings should never indicate there was a criminal violation without the criminal system determining it.  

 

If they find there was a violation of their code - fine.  But, as you say, they better have followed their own procedures on this.  

[Mike Sixel]

did they lose the bowl game yet?