Betsy DeVos to rescind Title IX sexual assault guidelines

Betsy DeVos, the Education Secretary, announced on September 7th that her department would review the Title IX sexual assault guidelines set in place by the Obama administration.

The administration created the guidelines following the campus rape hysteria drummed up by feminists. Feminist cited a study that claimed 1 in 5 women in college experience sexual violence. Later studies showed that the rate was grossly inflated and place the actual rate at about 1 in 52.

The major issue with the guidelines is that it requires colleges to lower the standard of proof in sexual assault cases. I highlighted this in a post from 2014. The standard was lower to a preponderance of evidence, which is the same standard used in civil court. This standard only requires a more likely than not finding in order to rule in favor of the complainant. One can see the immediate problem when applying this to a criminal offense. It is entirely possible for an innocent person to appear guilty based on limited or circumstantial evidence.

However, the new guidelines make matters much worse. As I noted in another post, accused students are not afforded council, not allowed to the see the evidence against them, not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, not allowed to present witnesses, and often are not informed of the complaints until the process is well underway. This forces the accused to prove their innocence, something that is a clear violation of constitutional law. Continue reading

Advertisements

Stop excusing women who lie about rape

Whenever a false rape allegation case makes the news, a number of people rush to defend the women (and occasionally men) who lied about the assault. These people will quote statistics about the “rarity” of false allegations, mention the difficulty of reporting sex offenses, and repeatedly remind others that some false accusers suffer from mental issues.

These people do this to obscure a basic truth about false allegations: they are incredibly believable.

Let us take the recent case of Jemma Beale. Beale, who is a lesbian, claimed that 15 different men sexually assaulted or raped her over the course of three years. She made numerous complaints to the polices, often giving names of the men she accused: Continue reading

Bulletin Board v306

Addressing the Lack of Research on Male Childhood Sexual Abuse — On Thursday July 20, fans across the world mourned the loss of Chester Bennington, the lead vocalist for the world-renowned band, Linkin Park. Bennington’s suicide by hanging at the age of 41 stunned fans, but it also brought to light a rarely discussed topic: male childhood sexual abuse. One in six boys are sexually abused before the age of 16—yet the issue remains underreported, undertreated, and highly stigmatized.

Court: Juvenile sex crimes can be basis of civil commitment — Civil commitment of offenders who have been designated as sexually violent predators can be indefinitely extended for those whose crimes occurred when they were juveniles, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday.

Fear of being called racist ‘stopping people from raising child abuse concerns’ — Potential cases of child abuse are not being raised because people fear being labelled racist, a Labour frontbencher has argued. There is a need to acknowledge that the “majority of perpetrators have been British-Pakistani” in the towns and cities where grooming gangs have targeted girls, Sarah Champion has said. Continue reading

Bulletin Board v305

American childhood sexual abuse survivor holds free public seminars in Auckland — A sexual childhood abuse survivor hopes that sharing his story will help change the mindset of other sexually abused Kiwi males. Greg Holtmeyer, 51, of Missouri in the United States, is holding a closed group and a public seminar on male sexual abuse at Auckland’s Unitec in Mt Albert from May 29 to 30. New Zealand Police Data shows 624 cases of male sexual assault and related offences were reported last year.

John Robson: Why are there almost no shelters for male victims? And why is asking that question so controversial? — Do you believe that men need help today? If so, we should do lunch. Specifically, this Sunday I’ll be speaking at the opening of the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) Ottawa Centre for Men and Families, “Ottawa’s first multi-service hub for the health and well-being of boys, men, fathers and families.” It’s May 28, at Biagio’s Italian Kitchen on Richmond Rd. at 2:00 and I hope you’ll contribute and, if in the area, attend, because surely such a thing is desirable.

Knox County woman sentenced to 24 years in prison for abuse of stepsons — She tortured them, beat them, handcuffed them, starved them and even tried to drown them, but Jessica Cox’s stepsons gave her forgiveness and thanks on Friday. “Thank you, Jessica,” Austin McIntosh, now 20, told his stepmother as she faced sentencing in Knox County Criminal Court Friday for the months-long abuse she carried out against him and his younger brother, Justin McIntosh. “Without you, I would not be the person I am today.” Continue reading

Britain to implement pre-trial testimony for rape cases

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The above is the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. It exists to protect those accused of crimes from being forced to prove their innocence. It is the cornerstone of US law. No one can be compelled to testify against himself. No one can be compelled to testify in his defense. No one can be charged for the same crime twice.

This is followed by the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Again, this is a fundamental part of the US legal process. No one can be held for long periods of time while awaiting trial (although this is violated frequently with high-profile, juvenile, and murder cases). No one can be prosecuted without being informed of the charges. Most importantly, no one can be tried without knowing who accused him and having the chance to question the accuser.

The right to cross-examination is important because it allows the defendant to challenge the accuser’s credibility directly. The legal definition explains the logic behind this:

[a] court practice, the part of a case, whether civil or criminal, where evidence is elicited from the other side’s witness. Thus, the defence will cross-examine the investigating police officers after the prosecutor has conducted the examination in chief It serves two functions:

(1) to test the veracity of the witness and the accuracy of the evidence;
(2) to obtain evidence on points on which he has not been questioned in chief and which may support the cross-examiner’s case. Failure to cross-examine on any matter generally implies acceptance of evidence on that point.

That is the purpose of the cross-examination. So when I see an effort in Britain to get rid due process and cross-examination in rape cases, I am reminded why the colonists decided to go their own way. Continue reading

College rape culture and the death of due process

Christina Hoff Sommers interviewed Stuart Taylor. Taylor authored the book The Campus Rape Frenzy, which details the feminist claim of a “rape epidemic” on college campuses and their attempt to roll back due process for students accused of rape.

Taylor highlights in the interview the myriad ways in which the due process of students are violated in an attempt to peddle the feminist agenda. He highlights that these new “listen and believe” rules do not apply to male victims. A male student claiming rape have little chance of his claim being taken seriously. If the both parties are intoxicated and the male claims rape, Taylor suggests that this would be taken as a malicious counter claim and dismissed.

More worrisome is the presumption of guilt. Accused students are not afforded council, not allowed to the see the evidence against them, not allowed to cross examine witnesses, not allowed to present witnesses, and often are not informed of the complaints until the process is well underway. This forces the accused to prove their innocence, something that is a clear violation of constitutional law. Continue reading

Two men ruled to be rapists despite never facing trial

Few things are as frightening as the lack of due process. The idea that someone could be held responsible for an act they may not have done without any means of defending themselves brings up thoughts of the medieval Inquisition. One would think that as a society we would be past the point of denying someone a trial or any means of defending themselves. Yet a UK judge recently ruled that two men accused of rape are “rapists” despite neither men facing any charges or trial:

A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 damages despite never facing a criminal trial.

Denise Clair, who was left “devastated” by a Crown decision not to prosecute, sued striker David Goodwillie.

She also sued Goodwillie’s then Dundee United colleague David Robertson.

She claimed they raped her at a flat in Armadale, in West Lothian, after a night out in Bathgate in January 2011.

It was the first civil rape case of its kind in Scotland.

The first question this raises is why the Crown chose not to prosecute. Rape cases are often difficult to prosecute due to lack of evidence or the accuser’s lack of credibility or the accused possessing an alibi. There are a number of other reasons that go into that decision. That the case was not prosecuted is not evidence of misconduct or disbelief. It may simply be a situation in there is no way to put on a winning case.

According to the article: Continue reading