Heads Roll at Baylor University Over Sexual-Assault Reports

[SandMax]

"Not guilty" means innocent in legal system. There is a law, that person cannot be charged with the same crime he was found not guilty of.

[Surfd]

See here is your problem - Your innocence, is not related to the nature of reality.
Its related to the Courts decision.

No, it isnt. Innocence has NOTHING to do with it.

The court proves one of two things: Could we Prove the Accused Guilty. Could we not prove him guilty. The court has NOTHING to do with Proving or Disproving Innocence. The opposite of "Proven Guilty" is "Not Proven Guilty". It is not "Proven Innocent". Innocence never enters the equation anywhere.

Not being proven guilty does not make you innocent, it simply makes you Not Proven Guilty.

[Deleted]

No, it isnt. Innocence has NOTHING to do with it.
The court proves one of two things: Could we Prove the Accused Guilty. Could we not prove him guilty. The court has NOTHING to do with Proving or Disproving Innocence. The opposite of "Proven Guilty" is "Not Proven Guilty". It is not "Proven Innocent". Innocence never enters the equation anywhere.

Not being proven guilty does not make you innocent, it simply makes you Not Proven Guilty.

Its almost like i have had this conversation before...

Exactly. People are conflating legal / social presumption with objective classification, and then chastising people for making use of the former.

It's painfully dishonest at this point.

Pick one.
Is innocence objective classification, or legal and social implications?
Because the simple matter is - A person found not guilty is legally innocent.
Regardless of actual reality -

This bit just requires extra attention.

The court proves one of two things: Could we Prove the Accused Guilty. Could we not prove him guilty.

No the court tries one thing - is there enough evidence to substantiate guilt?

[Pangean]

The bit that requires the colleges to not put undue burdens on anyone for their sex?
Hint, having kangaroo courts that presume guilt for one gender counts - I see no reason to think their system was any worse than the mandated system - Its all the same perverse incentives for implicated parties - The colleges are fundamentally incapable of being impartial.

Lol what I actually said before your edit job.

"Er... Title IX is the law they are talking about. You know the one that says there has to be a fair process to deal with these issues. Sort of the opposite of an individual making that decision. Which of course is what the snippet of the report said that you cribbed from to make your nonsense point. "

Now a fair process can hardly be a kangaroo court now can it? Which is why you edited that part out of my comments. While I appreciate your desire to label all hearings as being corrupt based on nothing but your desire for it to be so, you should probably avoid carrying out that campaign using petty dishonesty like this.

That you think the Baylor "system" where women were actually sexually assaulted as a function of it or their cases actually ignored or actively suppressed as a function of it "was no worse" than your perceived claims of all hearings as being Kangaroo courts or having a gender bias, demonstrates a moral depravity few exhibit here. Grats on that.

The existence of the Baylor case demonstrates the need of the current law. It is a simple fact that all too many similar situations caused the law to come into being in the first place.

I further note that for you this appears to be gender issue. This might come as a surprise to you that these hearings also deal with men being the accusers as well as women being the accused? Is it a Kangaroo court then as well? Is it gender bias then as well? Or does that little theory melt away in the real world?

I appreciate that you expect folks will simply accept your broad paintbrush claims that all the schools cannot be impartial because you utter it, but that is not how the real world works. Its simply you projecting your bias onto them and hardly constitutes proof of your claims. In fact I even question if you have ever read the actual process a school follows in these cases before claiming bias or an inability to be impartial.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It's just not relevant to anything outside of the courts. The only thing that maxim fundamentally means is that 1> your guilt has to be established by the prosecutor, and 2> you can't be convicted and sentenced without that trial where they do so. The alternative is a society where you're convicted when the State arrests you, and you have to file a court case to prove your innocence.

It doesn't have any applicability outside of the court system, and at no point are these men being presumed guilty. It's a complete nonsequitur that has no relevance whatsoever to what we're discussing. It's so misleading a way to frame this that it's borderline dishonest. If you get kicked out of university because they think you raped a girl, then you're getting kicked out because they have determined you are guilty. Your innocence was "presumed", until they determined you were likely guilty, and that's when you were expelled.

So not only is it irrelevant, it's also fundamentally not true, since in any rational sense, innocence was presumed. The concept does not mean you need to wait for criminal convictions before you can take administrative action. That's a huge misinterpretation of the idea.

Well, this is wholly false. Its still VERY relevant, whether you like it or not. Its ALWAYS a relevant idea to live by. Its relevant to more than just the court system.

They've found you guilty? How exactly? Wait.. Wasn't their a case like this? You know, when the University acted on JUST the act of an accusation? That isn't justice. Its wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

If her story makes more sense than his does, that's all they need. Again; the standard of evidence is "yeah, it's better than a 50% chance he did this".

You'd need more evidence for a criminal case, but these aren't criminal cases.

Well, fuck. Lets just get rid of juries and judges and things then. Because, you know.. her story "made more sense."

[Deleted]

1> Campus police are often part of the actual police.
2> Because often, an accusation doesn't carry enough merit to be worth a criminal trial, but is grounds enough for adminstrative action. Same basic reason you can be fired for leering at coworkers and making salacious comments, even if none of that's explicitly illegal.

In this side of the world if you take "administrative action" without solid proof it's called mobbing.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

and this is all null and void when a school like Baylor doesnt even bother with a process. The process failed, as it was completely ignored in favor of "football = win at all costs"

Seriously, get back to Baylor.

And they should be punished for that. They are an exception, not a rule.

[Deleted]

He deserved to lose his job, and honestly that type of negligence deserves being banned from coaching in the NCAA ever again. The kid should have been removed from the team and all team activities until proven innocent.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Isn't that the opposite of justice?

[SandMax]

Schools should not do investigations on criminal matters, thats when they should leave it to the police. Also any reason that would lead to permanent separation from school would need to be held up to standards of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" because the stakes are so high.

[Endus]

Well, fuck. Lets just get rid of juries and judges and things then. Because, you know.. her story "made more sense."

You realize that by "they", I meant "the administration of the college", right? I was in no way suggesting any kind of change to the criminal justice system. I was talking about the lesser standard of evidence we expect outside of that criminal justice system. Both in the civil courts, and in cases like these school hearings.

We're not talking about criminal convictions, here. We're talking about being kicked out of university. That's it.

- - - Updated - - -

Schools should not do investigations on criminal matters, thats when they should leave it to the police. Also any reason that would lead to permanent separation from school would need to be held up to standards of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" because the stakes are so high.

No schools are doing investigations into criminal matters. They aren't responsible for the actions of the justice system.

That doesn't mean they aren't able to make administrative decisions about whether a student can carry on with them. And the standards of evidence have nothing to do with the "stakes". If I file a civil lawsuit for copyright infringement and get awarded a multi-million-dollar settlement that bankrupts the accused, that's on the same "preponderance of the evidence" standard we're talking about here. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is unique to criminal courts, and there's no reason to seek its application outside of that.

[Endus]

"binary state" is wrong.. there is more than 1 type of charge for a crime some lesser some harsher

guess what the harsher ones require more evidence

This is simply not true. Criminal court convictions all require the same standard of evidence. Sure, you need different evidence to justify a charge of murder, over manslaughter; you'd need to establish intent, but the standard of evidence is still the same.

And regardless, the criminal court system never determines whether you are innocent or not. Not under any conditions, ever. All it will determine is that the court was unable to establish your guilt.

[SandMax]

You realize that by "they", I meant "the administration of the college", right? I was in no way suggesting any kind of change to the criminal justice system. I was talking about the lesser standard of evidence we expect outside of that criminal justice system. Both in the civil courts, and in cases like these school hearings.

We're not talking about criminal convictions, here. We're talking about being kicked out of university. That's it.

- - - Updated - - -



No schools are doing investigations into criminal matters. They aren't responsible for the actions of the justice system.

That doesn't mean they aren't able to make administrative decisions about whether a student can carry on with them. And the standards of evidence have nothing to do with the "stakes". If I file a civil lawsuit for copyright infringement and get awarded a multi-million-dollar settlement that bankrupts the accused, that's on the same "preponderance of the evidence" standard we're talking about here. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is unique to criminal courts, and there's no reason to seek its application outside of that.

Point is, that schools should leave the investigation entirely for appropiate agencies when its criminal case. Also it has everything to do with "stakes" what is viewed as sufficient evidence. We require less evidence for lesser offenses, there isnt great amount of evidence and Matlock trial when two guys had a fight outside bar, but when someone is killed we suddenly demand alot more proof from the prosecutor.

[Endus]

Point is, that schools should leave the investigation entirely for appropiate agencies when its criminal case.

No argument that supports this has been presented. In many cases, there isn't enough evidence for criminal charges. That doesn't mean there isn't enough evidence to warrant expulsion.

[SandMax]

No argument that supports this has been presented. In many cases, there isn't enough evidence for criminal charges. That doesn't mean there isn't enough evidence to warrant expulsion.

If they expel someone for something that is criminal, they better have watertight case for that otherwise its defaming if it doesnt hold up in court. Even in work, they cant say someone was fired because of "stealing", unless they have concluding evidence. They can fire someone if there are trust issues, but official reason for firing cant be "stealing" unless they can prove it in court.

Another reason is, that excommunicating from college has such a major impact on someones career prospects if he cant get an education at all let alone huge debt for nothing. Firing from college should require extremely serious offenses, and extremely serious offenses require extremely serious evidence.

[Endus]

If they expel someone for something that is criminal, they better have watertight case for that otherwise its defaming if it doesnt hold up in court.

No, they do not need to meet the same standards as a criminal conviction. That's just objectively untrue.

Another reason is, that excommunicating from college has such a major impact on someones career prospects if he cant get an education at all let alone huge debt for nothing. Firing from college should require extremely serious offenses, and extremely serious offenses require extremely serious evidence.

You've gotten exactly what you paid for, with your college education, up to the time you got expelled. You aren't owed the chance to graduate. Not when you break the rules of conduct for the college.

[SandMax]

No, they do not need to meet the same standards as a criminal conviction. That's just objectively untrue.



You've gotten exactly what you paid for, with your college education, up to the time you got expelled. You aren't owed the chance to graduate. Not when you break the rules of conduct for the college.

Youre just stating the status quo, but nothing to back up why it should be the way it is.

[Endus]

Youre just stating the status quo, but nothing to back up why it should be the way it is.

Because colleges should be free to make administrative decisions about their students. You're trying to prevent them from being able to do so.

[SandMax]

Because colleges should be free to make administrative decisions about their students. You're trying to prevent them from being able to do so.

Colleges hold a great national responsibility, they should be regulated more in that regard and not let them do their own cult investigations and defame people for crimes that require great evidence. The job employers cant do that either, if thats your argument.

[Endus]

Colleges hold a great national responsibility, they should be regulated more in that regard and not let them do their own cult investigations and defame people for crimes that require great evidence. The job employers cant do that either, if thats your argument.

And now you're stating things that are blatantly false.

If you think an employer can't fire you because you raped another employee, you're nuts. Any kind of sexual harassment is sufficient for firing. That can be anything as simple as asking a girl out a couple times, or even once if you're her superior.

That's the same kind of thing we're talking about. How does HR decide that the sexual harassment happened? They "investigate", in the same sense that the colleges do.

[SandMax]

And now you're stating things that are blatantly false.

If you think an employer can't fire you because you raped another employee, you're nuts. Any kind of sexual harassment is sufficient for firing. That can be anything as simple as asking a girl out a couple times, or even once if you're her superior.

That's the same kind of thing we're talking about.

No, read the law. They cant say the person commited to such crime unless they have concluding evidence, since then employee could sue them for defaming. Employee can be fired though anyway, but they cant say that this was the exact reason.