New Title IX guidelines formalized by Betsy DeVos.

[ralfy]

So if you show reports that were concluded false by police, and then I show reports where the police charged the victim with filing a false report and then they find evidence they were actually raped afterwards, what exactly does that accomplish?

Pictures in Accused Rapist's Camera Provide Chilling Evidence Against Him
Alleged rapist's photos clear woman who was charged with falsely reporting rape.

Pictures in Accused Rapist's Camera Provide Chilling Evidence Against Him

A Washington State woman who police charged with filing a false rape report has been vindicated by chilling photos of her ordeal found on an accused serial rapist's camera, law-enforcement officials say.

abcnews.go.com

Sara Reedy, the rape victim accused of lying and jailed by US police, wins $1.5m payout

Sara Reedy, the rape victim accused of lying and jailed by US police, wins $1.5m payout

Pittsburgh woman raped at gunpoint and charged with fabricating her story has won a settlement after a marathon legal battle, changing federal law along the way, reports Joanna Walters

www.theguardian.com

You mean these police? You do not think we should do better?
Police officers in the US were charged with more than 400 rapes over a 9-year period

Police officers in the US were charged with more than 400 rapes over a 9-year period

According to a university survey, police officers in the US were charged with forcible rape 405 times between 2005 and 2013. But many sexual assaults went unreported, experts say.

www.cnn.com

Where I live in Texas, when I was 15 and working at the local pizzaria, the owner had to get a restraining order against the local sheriff for grabbing underage girls and pulling them onto his lap and groping our breasts. The sheriff was not even allowed on the property due to his repeated sexual assaults. Then, later, the same sheriff had his department investigated by the feds for raping female prisoners and violently abusing others. Instead of removing him from office, they just let a rookie take the fall for lesser crimes and he remained in office. THAT sadly is only a few things that our local law enforcement here has done, I had provided a long list of these things years back on the escapist, we have had our DA locking people up illegally and taking their land, Judge murder the DA and his wife, the point is something has to change in the system for this to be safe for people to do. The reality is so screwed up you can't make this shat up. They just keep replacing one crook with another, then another and it never ends. How screwed up the the "law enforcement" is here is too much to even list tbh:

Rockwall, TX Jailers Indicted in Sex-For-Contraband Case | Prison Legal News

Ex-Rockwall district attorney Ray Sumrow paroled 20 months into 15-year sentence

See a man off to prison with a 15-year sentence, you expect him to stay gone awhile. Which is why some in Rockwall are surprised to hear that Ray Sumrow is...

www.dallasnews.com

Ex-judge sentenced to death in Texas revenge plot

Two prosecutors and the wife of one were killed in 2013.

www.usatoday.com

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

Notice how the DA who went to prison later was responsible for removing the previous criminal sheriff and installing the new criminal sheriff here and then covers for him later? That is how this has worked here longer than I have been alive and will likely still work when I leave this earth. It isn't like we haven't been trying to change these things, it is that we have been kept powerless to do so. In regions where "Good ol boys" still call the shots we have no options here. What are people supposed to do in the meantime, remain helpless? Go vigilante? Sadly, currently we are still being forced to work outside the system to be able to keep people safe because the people controlling system are just as dangerous as the person you are trying to be "saved" from. In this same town where the sheriff liked to grope underage girls, I was raped as a child. My best friend was raped. I saw a girl being gang raped in the parkinglot of my school by members of the football team after a football game and people just walking by ignoring it like it is normal and not doing anything about it. My sister was raped, although not in this town, my cousin was also raped, even my grandmother was raped. This is what it is really like to grow up in many regions of the US. Girls are just supposed to expect this to happen because nothing is ever going to be done to change it and people just throw their hands up and say " it will have to do". ? I am not willing to accept that.

The studies you presented showed that it's only the police that can conclude whether or not a report is false. That proves my point.

What you shared above are examples of hasty generalization and should be dismissed, unless you have studies show that the majority of personnel in the judicial and law enforcement system are corrupt.

 

[ralfy]

Then I'm a little confused as to what you're arguing.

The only people who can conclude whether or not reports are false and investigate those that aren't are criminal investigators. If it so happens that designated coordinators and committee members are criminal investigators and recognized by the state, then there should be no problem.

 

[ralfy]

As far as I can tell, your argument is that many false claims happen. Like possibly up to 8%. But that means what exactly, to you?

Yes, there will be false claims. Nothing you can do to stop that. You can mitigate that, and that's what Betty De Vos claims she is doing. I would dispute that the changes wouldn't really change the false claims level that much but makes it way easier not to be tried for rape.

The point is that the claims were proven to be false by the police. That's the same police that can also investigate non-false claims.

 

[ralfy]

It sounds as if you're using 2 different standards here.

A rapist is only a rapist if convicted in court. (as you've argued)
Therefore, a false report can only be considered such if the person who reported is convicted in court.

That's the same standard: both are determined by the judicial system, which includes criminal investigators, etc.

 

[ralfy]

As far as I can tell, your argument is that many false claims happen. Like possibly up to 8%. But that means what exactly, to you?

Yes, there will be false claims. Nothing you can do to stop that. You can mitigate that, and that's what Betty De Vos claims she is doing. I would dispute that the changes wouldn't really change the false claims level that much but makes it way easier not to be tried for rape.

My argument is that there's a possibility of false claims. Only the police can conclude whether or not a report is false, and the reports that show that there are few few claims proves that.

That's also the same police that investigates non-false claims which may lead to trials.

 

[Trunkage]

My argument is that there's a possibility of false claims. Only the police can conclude whether or not a report is false, and the reports that show that there are few few claims proves that.

That's also the same police that investigates non-false claims which may lead to trials.

I would say justice system, not police specifically but yes, all true.

Was there anyone in the thread who disagreed with you?

Edit:

The studies you presented showed that it's only the police that can conclude whether or not a report is false. That proves my point.

What you shared above are examples of hasty generalization and should be dismissed, unless you have studies show that the majority of personnel in the judicial and law enforcement system are corrupt.

So, since not all law enforcement is corrupt, lil devils cant point to the times they are corrupt? Is it bad to point out that some false claims are in themselves false? Also, the studies show that most rape cases are real and some sort of punishment set. Since it's a majority, we can ignore all the false claims?

 

[Buyetyen]

Funny how Betsy DeVoss doesn't trust colleges to educate young people in a proper America First way, but she does trust them to be experts at investigating alleged criminal activity on campus. Damnedest thing.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Oh what a surprise. An administration and court of rapists and abusers decides to make the law easier on rapists and abusers.

 

[ralfy]

I would say justice system, not police specifically but yes, all true.

Was there anyone in the thread who disagreed with you?

Edit:
So, since not all law enforcement is corrupt, lil devils cant point to the times they are corrupt? Is it bad to point out that some false claims are in themselves false? Also, the studies show that most rape cases are real and some sort of punishment set. Since it's a majority, we can ignore all the false claims?

One can, and in the same way show cases when committees have also been corrupt, but what's the point in doing so? The premise is that only experts can say whether or not a report is false and how to investigate it properly if it isn't.

 

[Avnger]

One can, and in the same way show cases when committees have also been corrupt, but what's the point in doing so? The premise is that only experts can say whether or not a report is false and how to investigate it properly if it isn't.

"Experts"? What "experts"? Police departments that regularly treat victims as responsible for the crimes committed against them or outright ignore their testimony due to bias? DAs who don't take up cases despite evidence because rape and sexual assault are notoriously hard to prosecute (and therefore affect an attorney's conviction rates)?

 

[Silvanus]

The only people who can conclude whether or not reports are false and investigate those that aren't are criminal investigators. If it so happens that designated coordinators and committee members are criminal investigators and recognized by the state, then there should be no problem.

How d'you account for the discrepancy indicated in the same study, between the rate of false accusations found by law enforcement agencies and the rate found by the researchers?

 

[ralfy]

"Experts"? What "experts"? Police departments that regularly treat victims as responsible for the crimes committed against them or outright ignore their testimony due to bias? DAs who don't take up cases despite evidence because rape and sexual assault are notoriously hard to prosecute (and therefore affect an attorney's conviction rates)?

Criminal investigators, medical doctors, etc.

 

[ralfy]

How d'you account for the discrepancy indicated in the same study, between the rate of false accusations found by law enforcement agencies and the rate found by the researchers?

From what I read, the researchers based the percentages on conclusions made by police detectives.

 

[Agema]

From what I read, the researchers based the percentages on conclusions made by police detectives.

Researchers have varying ways of assessing police conclusions. Many will flatly state that police conclusions should not be considered a final word.

Police usually have criteria for what a false report is, and these can often vary by jurisdiction. For instance, a simple one might be that the alleged victim retracts the claim: but we know that victims retract claims even when the crime was real. (Reasons like they are coerced, or otherwise think the attention of an investigation is more trouble or problematic than its worth.) False accusations might be that the police don't find sufficient other evidence to support the claim, but again that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. Similarly we all know that some cases where the police don't recognise a case as false it may well be: up to rare worst case scenarios where the innocent are found guilty.

 

[Silvanus]

From what I read, the researchers based the percentages on conclusions made by police detectives.

The article states that they came to their own conclusions on 5 out of 6 studies covered by the analysis, and in several cases came to significantly different conclusions from the law enforcement agencies. One instance had the law enforcement agency coming to a number of 8%, and the researchers coming to a number of ~2%.

 

[Schadrach]

I think in most cases they should be suspended with pay until the investigation or hearing is resolved. Of course exact action taken should be determined on a case by case basis of what the actual accusation was, evidence presented and require a thorough investigation to include the possibility of other victims, but if there is a possibility of assault or sexual assault, due to the risks involved, they cannot afford to allow access to more victims while they investigate. They could be terminated immediately however, if the victim walked in with a video or other evidence that would warrant that action. If they find conclusive evidence they were not responsible, full reinstatement and even compensation could be considered. I would not say required compensation, because there are always going to be grey areas, for example, they only did one thing that was questionable or said something unprofessional but it turns out didn't do the other worse thing, they would still receive a reprimand and it would remain on their file, but not necessarily cost them their job and would not receive compensation because they were still partially responsible for unprofessional behavior. Everything isn't necessarily black and white, and there does not necessarily need to be intent for something to still be wrong. It is like bad jokes. Some are just bad jokes, unprofessional yes, and can be taken in different ways, others are just crude and vulgar and could still lead to termination. For example, if a professor is joking about a students breasts or genitals, that very well could lead to them being terminated and replaced with someone who understands how to conduct themselves in a professional manner.

To reiterate, it is your position that if a faculty member is accused of misconduct, they should be suspended with pay until any investigation or hearing is resolved? To be reinstated and possible compensated if found not responsible (unless of course it turns out they said something offensive but not actually in violation of what they were accused of)? So, the obvious question here is how do you avoid the suspension having enduring effects on their reputation or future career, as presumably both word gets around and the suspension will be part of their employee file?

...and if we're talking about a student, as opposed to faculty (since this is by far the most common case)?

Yes, there will be false claims. Nothing you can do to stop that. You can mitigate that, and that's what Betty De Vos claims she is doing. I would dispute that the changes wouldn't really change the false claims level that much but makes it way easier not to be tried for rape.

How so? Care to point to specifics?

Funny how Betsy DeVoss doesn't trust colleges to educate young people in a proper America First way, but she does trust them to be experts at investigating alleged criminal activity on campus. Damnedest thing.

Not a creation of DeVos, Title IX has applied to sexual harassment assault since at least the 80s. The changes DeVos made are largely about ensuring a level of due process for the accused, as the Obama-era guidance on the topic was...very slanted.

 

[Buyetyen]

Not a creation of DeVos, Title IX has applied to sexual harassment assault since at least the 80s. The changes DeVos made are largely about ensuring a level of due process for the accused, as the Obama-era guidance on the topic was...very slanted.

This in no way addresses or rebuts what I said.

 

[Schadrach]

This in no way addresses or rebuts what I said.

OK, what were you trying to get at? I broadly disagree with most of her positions on education (which aren't the topic of the thread anyways) but they are more or less literally part of her job as Secretary of Education. She doesn't have to "trust them to be experts at investigating alleged criminal activity on campus", the courts have already mandated that they must be exactly that and to fail to fill that role is sex discrimination.

What she has done is issue guidance about what that should look like, which compared to previous guidance has more to say about the neutrality of fact finders, publishing training materials to the public, not punishing the accused before responsibility is determined and due process for the accused. I'd actually argue that's the opposite of trusting "them to be experts at investigating alleged criminal activity on campus", but rather assuming they are not very good at it and setting rules that are hopefully more fair than the ones Ole Miss was using when they were sued, or many of the other colleges sued over their procedures while operating under "Dear Colleague" Obama-era Title IX guidance.

 

[Buyetyen]

OK, what were you trying to get at? I broadly disagree with most of her positions on education (which aren't the topic of the thread anyways) but they are more or less literally part of her job as Secretary of Education. She doesn't have to "trust them to be experts at investigating alleged criminal activity on campus", the courts have already mandated that they must be exactly that and to fail to fill that role is sex discrimination.

What she has done is issue guidance about what that should look like, which compared to previous guidance has more to say about the neutrality of fact finders, publishing training materials to the public, not punishing the accused before responsibility is determined and due process for the accused. I'd actually argue that's the opposite of trusting "them to be experts at investigating alleged criminal activity on campus", but rather assuming they are not very good at it and setting rules that are hopefully more fair than the ones Ole Miss was using when they were sued, or many of the other colleges sued over their procedures while operating under "Dear Colleague" Obama-era Title IX guidance.

I was trying to be polite before, but bluntly I do not wish to have this conversation with you. I am not diplomatic enough to change your mind, and your arguments are the same ones that failed to persuade me in the past. Let's save ourselves the time.

 

[ralfy]

Researchers have varying ways of assessing police conclusions. Many will flatly state that police conclusions should not be considered a final word.

Police usually have criteria for what a false report is, and these can often vary by jurisdiction. For instance, a simple one might be that the alleged victim retracts the claim: but we know that victims retract claims even when the crime was real. (Reasons like they are coerced, or otherwise think the attention of an investigation is more trouble or problematic than its worth.) False accusations might be that the police don't find sufficient other evidence to support the claim, but again that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. Similarly we all know that some cases where the police don't recognise a case as false it may well be: up to rare worst case scenarios where the innocent are found guilty.

My point is that there are different ways of assessing conclusions made by the police. Rather, police were needed to make such conclusions.

If there are questions about such conclusions, then they are raised by other experts, which also proves my point.