TheLeviathan

No, because you deemed the system unable to handle the problem even after that. Look, my employer doesn't need a policy about murder because the criminal justice system handles it. Colleges shouldn't need a "sexual assault" policy because they let the criminal justice system handle it. If, as you contended, the criminal justice system can't - then that is the source of the problem. That's what should be addressed. Individual institutions should not be enforcing criminal law through tribunals. They should address policy matters like harassment or poor conduct and turn criminal matters over to that system. That's why we have it.

Appears to be not enough then if it's still a problem.

I would argue the problem then is the "difficulties for authorities" and not a need for a second murder policy at your work. You're addressing hte wrong problem.

My employer makes policies about sexual harassment but not murder. Are you suggesting they should?

I don't disagree, I suggested some sort of combat against drinking might help, but I largely think the drinking and assaults would just move locales and not so much stop the behavior. Again I think more of a cultural/messaging tact is in order. I really like the "yes means yes" as a vehicle for education and messaging. Not so much as a vehicle for deciding sexual assault on a campus tribunal.

You don't think there is a difference between sexual assault and having a dry policy? Perhaps we've arrived at the crux of the disagreement.

Crimes are supposed to be difficult to prove. It's what our system is based on and I find that absolutely essential. The "how" part is where we can do some good though, I agree there. We can do more about how prosecutors, police officers, and judges treat the process. On this issue - If the school had punished them for lewd behavior and sexual harassment - I'm 100% on board. Leveling it up to sexual assault is where you lose me. This isn't the process to make that determination.

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to the U punishing these guys. I'm opposed to the process and that the process is being applied to something as serious as sexual assault. And part of my issues is that I would argue that they are "addressing the gray areas". A college tribunal is simply not the place to do that. I'm ok with sexual harassment being determined in this way, but not sexual assault. To me that's a criminal matter and should only be determined through the courts where the process protects all involved. (Though, I'd grant, there is definitely room for our judicial system to offer more to victims/accusers than is currently there)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

No, but I don't like the government (who puts money on the line) telling the schools to be tougher or else lose funding. That's creating a bad mix of motives. My caution to you is that you're also somewhat arguing the "we need to make sure people understand this isn't ok!", which implies that those doing these heinous things are just unaware that they aren't ok. That education or added punishments will deter them. I'd argue it's a lot like all criminal behavior, it has less to do with ignorance and more to do with defiance. This is a centuries old power dynamic we have to fix, but it starts with role modeling and the way we talk about the issue, not with the punishments we dole out. It's easy to hide behind the strategy of "no justice for the accused" because they are, after all, accused of something heinous. But I find that notion so damned important for society that any dent in that armor is something I'll always fight. So if you want a quick fix, here you go: ban all alcohol.

What's winning is our changed attitudes, not practices like this. We should continue to say the right things and change the mindset of young men. But what about the young men, as in the link above, that were expelled from their school, sued the universities, and are winning? Judges that are grilling the universities for their complete lack of basic common sense and due process? I posted about a feminist law professor who feels this is a travesty of justice in the name of the right thing. Look, I'm all about making the world safer for women. College campuses especially. I too work with kids every day and try to instill a sense of value for one another. But kneejerk, do something!, type approaches (especially when they undercut basic values of justice we have) are incredibly dangerous. Is it really so hard to think of laws that have been passed, with good intentions, that wanted to fix something now, that undermined basic beliefs we have about justice - that have totally backfired? Mandatory sentences comes to mind. We know added punishment is a poor deterrent. That's all this really is.

Nothing about what you said is crazy. The line of reasoning and conclusion you draw SEEM reasonable. I get the allure. Except we know the idea of "punish someone harshly to make others think twice" is generally a failed strategy. It just plain doesn't work. So while I appreciate and agree with your sentiment, I'm going to be the nagging voice of reason for doing something that will actually work rather than something that makes us feel good about ourselves because we're horrified by what is happening. Drugs, guns, etc. are similar issues. Punishing offenders rarely stops the next one from offending and usually comes with a host of unintended, crappy side effects. The problem, like so many serious issues, is that the real answers are hard and they take a long time to implement and see success. But we should want to get it right even if it takes time, not just feel good about ourselves that we did "something" and we did it "now".

That winning the prospect list doesn't do much for brightening the Twins rotation for awhile. I get your intention, it just seems a bit forced.

Even tempered enthusiasm might be a reach. I hope all of these guys are good players and contributors, but we may be waiting awhile before we can even legitimately be enthused.

I feel like asking Nick if he hurt himself reaching during this article....

I agree 100% with your goal. I strongly disagree this is the way to do so.

We had this discussion the last time this issue came up, but since when did the "tough on crime" methodology ever work? Since when did "scare them out of doing it" ever work? We'll be compromising on very valuable principles for a strategy with a terrible rate of efficacy.