why do colleges prosecute rape

[Deleted]

Why do colleges and universities prosecute and not police?  When did things change to it happening this way?  Aren't police and attorneys trained to deal with this and are school administrators trained to deal with this?  It looks like a travesty waiting to happen for all parties.

University officials interviewed the alleged attacker, talked to witnesses and reviewed surveillance video, according to Tubbs. But she said she was told a week before the hearing that she would have to prosecute the alleged attacker herself. Tubbs had to create exhibits, write an opening statement and pursue witness testimony, preparation that she said took 60 hours.

"I would say the hardest part was hearing his voice because it's the voice I hear in my flashbacks," said Tubbs, who was separated from her alleged attacker by a paper screen during the five-hour disciplinary hearing last May. She said there were no police or security officers present, adding to her anxiety. "One of my biggest concerns ... was that he would get aggressive and retaliate," she said. She also was forbidden to bring her therapist to the hearing.

reason.com/blog/2015/02/25/college-rape-trials-are-unfair-to-men-an

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

I assume this is an internal (University) hearing.

I don't think that criminal charges can come of it - that would have to be done in an actual court of law, I believe.

Reminds me of Patch Adams - when the Univerity of Virginia brought him up on charges (internally), of practicing medicine without a license (before he'd graduated and become a full-fledged Doctor of Medicine).

The movie (based on his university years) does the internal court scene where he's brought up before a committee (the Dean and other members of the University Board).





en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_Adams

[Deleted]

Exactly. What the Universities do is in addition to any legal prosecution of the case by legal authorities. It's not in lieu of government prosecution, it's in parallel to it (if it even happens).

Say, for example, there's not enough evidence for a legal trial that could result in imprisonment... there could be enough to satisfy the University's criteria to get the attacker kicked off campus by the University.

[Deleted]

In many cases the accused is not allowed to cross examine witnesses.  In the case I cited, the rape victim had to question the person she accused herself.  There are terrible practices on both sides in many cases.

Are judges taught how to deal with questions on rape in law school?  I would think  many college administrators are just winging it and don't know anything more then the typical person.

[EVT1]

Mar 16, 2015 18:33:14 GMT -5 @hickle said:

In many cases the accused is not allowed to cross examine witnesses.  In the case I cited, the rape victim had to question the person she accused herself.  There are terrible practices on both sides in many cases.

Are judges taught how to deal with questions on rape in law school?  I would think  many college administrators are just winging it and don't know anything more then the typical person.

Just the law of evidence- but that covers it. 

[Deleted]

If the penalty for rape in a college hearing is expulsion, should the college have the same rules of evidence as regular courts of law, in your opinion? Is it fair to the accused to not be able to cross examine the accuser?

[Deleted]

Mar 17, 2015 19:34:43 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

If the penalty for rape in a college hearing is expulsion, should the college have the same rules of evidence as regular courts of law, in your opinion? Is it fair to the accused to not be able to cross examine the accuser?

Colleges shouldn't be in the business of running court rooms period.  With the one exception of mock courts in law schools and the like.  If they choose to go down that road, yes the accuser should have the right to cross examine, call witnesses, and everything else.

Should the accuser be able to sue the college for damages if found guilty and not given the rights you said?  With the internet, getting expelled for rape will follow him his entire life, yet he was not allowed a proper defense.

[mmhmm]

Another thing to be considered would be the purported victim's choice in the matter of where the case is presented. If the victim chooses to allow the case to be heard by the university, that's his/her decision. Personally, I'd take it to the police and a true court of law.

[Deleted]

Mar 16, 2015 18:08:07 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Exactly. What the Universities do is in addition to any legal prosecution of the case by legal authorities. It's not in lieu of government prosecution, it's in parallel to it (if it even happens).

Say, for example, there's not enough evidence for a legal trial that could result in imprisonment... there could be enough to satisfy the University's criteria to get the attacker kicked off campus by the University.

Do you think that is fair? Getting kicked out of college for rape could follow a man for life.  What level of needed evidence would you expect if you were falsely accused?

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2015 17:51:29 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Mar 16, 2015 18:08:07 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Exactly. What the Universities do is in addition to any legal prosecution of the case by legal authorities. It's not in lieu of government prosecution, it's in parallel to it (if it even happens).

Say, for example, there's not enough evidence for a legal trial that could result in imprisonment... there could be enough to satisfy the University's criteria to get the attacker kicked off campus by the University.

Do you think that is fair? Getting kicked out of college for rape could follow a man for life.  What level of needed evidence would you expect if you were falsely accused?

Maybe the rapist should have considered that before he committed rape.

AS far as the last sentence/question: The level I would expect is "proof". NOT "she said"... but physical proof. "Chain of custody" issues could stop a legal prosecution of rape. Illegal search and the inevitable "fruit of a poisonous tree" could stop a legal prosecution. There are many ways that it could still legitimately be rape and not be governmentally prosecutable... The University is free to accept proofs that the court can't. But it still needs to be actual proof.

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2015 18:46:53 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

AS far as the last sentence/question: The level I would expect is "proof". NOT "she said"... but physical proof. "Chain of custody" issues could stop a legal prosecution of rape. Illegal search and the inevitable "fruit of a poisonous tree" could stop a legal prosecution. There are many ways that it could still legitimately be rape and not be governmentally prosecutable... The University is free to accept proofs that the court can't. But it still needs to be actual proof.

Wouldn't actual proof and legal proof be the same thing? If there are chain of custody issues and whatnot that would prevent an actual court from hearing the case they should also prevent the university from bringing a case. The alleged rapist is innocent unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.

No. Not even remotely the same thing.

Example: Illegal search. Let's say that investigators (untrained rent-a-cops or campus security) found "roofies" and a used condom (with DNA of the victim on the outside) in the suspect's room, but didn't get permission for a search from the occupant of the room, nor did they get a warrant first. Unusable in court... but could be acceptable by the University's standards of evidence though.

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2015 19:07:44 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Mar 18, 2015 18:58:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

No. Not even remotely the same thing.

Example: Illegal search. Let's say that investigators (untrained rent-a-cops or campus security) found "roofies" and a used condom (with DNA of the victim on the outside) in the suspect's room, but didn't get permission for a search from the occupant of the room, nor did they get a warrant first. Unusable in court... but could be acceptable by the University's standards of evidence though.

In that case, you're right, but it also illustrates why poorly trained security guards shouldn't be investigating serious crimes, and should instead turn it over to actual law enforcement professionals.

In a perfect world, that would be how it is... this ain't a perfect world though.