Rape in general, and rape on college campuses in particular, is a topic I’ve often addressed. For pertinent information, readers might do well to review these articles from the last two years:
My particular interest in the topic stems from my police experiences, where as a detective, I specialized in stalking and related crimes, including rape. No, I was not a Neanderthal that thought all women liars who deserved to be raped. Nor did I blame women who had actually been raped. I really, really liked pursuing, catching and convicting rapists and stalkers.
Aside: It would be worth your time to visit an article by my favorite, and indispensable, Bookworm, titled: Yes, we can blame rape victims–under very specific circumstances. Her thesis is that women that allow themselves to become unconscious drunk bear responsibility for putting themselves in uniquely vulnerable positions; they do not bear responsibility for being raped. In this, she is absolutely right.
There are some Progressive “thinkers” that actually go so far as to suggest that a woman should be able to walk, nude, at closing time, in alleys behind sleazy bars, and be unscathed. They actually think that a reasonable proposition. Not only do they not understand–or choose to ignore–human nature, and the psychology of criminals, they obfuscate the real issues, issues of importance for all people, but particularly for women.
Why particularly women? Because they are generally smaller, weaker, far less aggressive, and much more likely to be targeted by criminals than men. Why should nude women avoid alleys behind sleazy bars? For the same reason any woman should avoid them, and any situation that exposes them to an unreasonable risk of danger. This doesn’t mean that people that attack them are justified–far from it–but it does mean they bear responsibility for making very bad choices, something from which none of us can escape in life. As for getting blind drunk…do I really need to speak to the idiocy–and danger–involved?
Take the link and see what Bookworm has to say. On to today’s lesson, reported by The Washington Examiner:
A Lynn University student is suing his school after he was suspended for one year for allegedly sexually assaulting a female student.
The suing student, identified in court documents as John Doe, attended a party, while a freshmen, where underage drinking was occurring. There he met a female student (who I’m not naming because she’s not being sued and I’m not naming the accused) and the two began talking. Doe’s lawsuit contends that she ‘showed no signs of being intoxicated.’
Around 8:30 p.m. that night, the two met in a dorm room and had sex. Again, Doe’s lawsuit claims she showed no signs of intoxication and was a willing participant in the activity. But the next day, she filed a rape complaint with campus security. Police noticed she did not use the word ‘rape’ when they interviewed her. After a more complete investigation, including campus surveillance videos, they not only determined the accusation to be ‘unfounded’ but also that the accuser did not seem at all intoxicated. They declined to bring charges.
And there it should have ended. Campus administrators and teachers not only had no experience or ability to investigate felonies, they have no need, or inclination, to operate under the rule of law. Their tribunals are all too often parallel to law under totalitarian dictatorships: verdict first, trial later.
That didn’t stop Lynn University from putting Doe through a disciplinary hearing in which he was not allowed an attorney, contrary to school policy. The accuser’s attorney (she was allowed one) was permitted to review the campus surveillance videos and have multiple private communications with campus investigators, the accuser’s mother and potential witnesses. The accuser’s attorney was also allowed to answer questions for her and intervene in the proceedings.
Doe’s mother, who acted as his adviser since he wasn’t allowed legal representation, was not allowed to speak.
In addition, Doe was not allowed to present questions for cross-examination. He had submitted 60 question in advance to be asked of his accuser and her witnesses, but the administrator running the hearing refused, saying she ‘already knew the answers.’ All questions directed at the accuser were prepared by her attorney, and her attorney was allowed to tell her how to answer.
The police officers who determined the accusation to be “unfounded” were not called to testify, and the physical evidence collected when the accuser made her report was not included. Even Doe’s closing statement was cut off just after he began reading it, whereas his accuser was allowed to read her statement in its entirety.
Anyone care to guess what happened? Doe was found to be a rapist and kicked out of school for one year. He is suing.
This case is all too common these days, and this kind of “justice” is a product of pressure by the Obama Administration. The problem is that there is no longer any distinction between rape rape, and rape. This is the difference between the rule of law and social justice.
Under the rule of law, anyone charged with a crime has significant protections and must be afforded due process. The state has the burden of proving every single element of every crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused must be allowed to confront witnesses against him, and has no obligation to testify. He is presumed innocent until proved guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is why many rape cases are never filed, and why some women honestly believe they were raped, but by law, were not. Any rape law is, of necessity, limited. Only certain actions are illegal. If those actions didn’t occur, or if they were done consensually, there is no rape, which is how it must be. A reasonable person of normal intelligence reading any law must be able to tell what is and is not unlawful. If they can’t, how can any of us avoid becoming felons?
That’s rape rape. The real thing, a criminal act that is provable in court. That’s why knowing how drunk everyone was, what sort of consent they gave, how they behaved before, during and afterward, is so important. Some people are just lousy witnesses. They’re not believable. Juries won’t like them or convict on their word. Such is the nature of humanity. Such is the glory of the rule of law.
Ah, but what do you do it you’re an oh-so-politically correct college administrator determined to always believe every “victim,” regardless of whether they’re actually victims of anything? What if you really believe that women on your very own campus have a 25% chance of being raped every minute of every day? Let’s put aside the fact that if that were true, any women would be insane to work or to set foot on a college campus. You know you can’t ever prove rape rape. You lack the knowledge, experience and ability, but you have something more important: you have progressive certainty. You’re certain your ideology is infallible. You cannot be wrong.
So to hell with the rule of law, and bring on social justice. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Meh. The police determine no rape took place? What do they know? They’re men, and all men are rapists. Why would you want a rapist to be able to mount a defense? Believe the victim! You know what the rapist is going to say anyway. He’s just going to blame the victim! Forget all those e-mails from the victim talking about how great the sex was and asking for more. She was in shock, suffering from trauma. How could she know what she was doing? Verdict first, trial later. That’s rape. That’s social justice.
Sane women know that men can actually be rather useful from time to time. Some women actually enjoy their company and are able to do so while somehow avoiding being raped. What happens when men want nothing to do with most women? What happens when 50% of any college’s potential student body chooses not to attend? Who is going to maintain those rape statistics then?
There are consequences for bad choices.