Columbia University Student Sues After False Rape Claim

[Jaxi]

dumb question by why do we have university deal with rape accusations at all? if someone claims they get raped at wallmart its not wallmart that investigates and prosecutes.

Because of Title IX.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

[Deleted]

No it doesn't. An accusation which cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt is not the same as an accusation found to be false. Due to the nature of the crime there are very often no other witnesses. It's incredibly hard to prove rape. That doesn't actually mean the accuser is lying.

If I understood the case correctly, the university offered and encouraged her to use their facilities to shame an innocent. Considering that your life could be very much destroyed by such an allegation, I think he has every right to sue.

[drwelfare]

She's a massive narcissist and found a way to get attention all the time while also having people believe she's a brave, oppressed hero.

she is still free on the streets to do it againand , to train any children she has or is around to do the same

[Canpinter]

Because of Title IX.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

but how dose that translate to "colleges must investigate crimes and give out punishment in addition to actual police investigations"

[Beery Swine]

its like modern art, its not supposed to mean anything or have any actual connection to the topic

lol, made me think of this

[Spectral]

Is this thread also going to be filled with people who think that if there isn't enough evidence for a conviction then automatically the girl is lying and it is a false accusation? Already happened a few times but this thread is young

Middle ground has no place in gen-OT

The Daily Beast has a decent summary of the guy's side of this story. If she was deeply traumatized by a brutal rape, it's pretty bizarre that this and similar other exchanges that the accused has electronic evidence of happened:

On Aug. 29, two days after the alleged rape, Nungesser messaged Sulkowicz on Facebook to say, “Small shindig in our room tonight—bring cool freshmen.” Her response:

lol yusss

Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz

because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr

On Sept. 9, on a morning before an ADP meeting, it was Sulkowicz who initiated the Facebook contact, asking Nungesser if he wanted to “hang out a little bit” before or after the meeting and concluding with:

whatever I want to see yoyououoyou

respond—I’ll get the message on ma phone

I'm happy to take a middle ground approach when it seems reasonable, but in this case, it looks like a pretty clearcut case of someone that way after the fact talked themselves into the idea that something terrible happened.

[Kurgosh]

dumb question by why do we have university deal with rape accusations at all? if someone claims they get raped at wallmart its not wallmart that investigates and prosecutes.

Wallmart isn't a community of tens of thousands of people who live and work in the same area, with food, shopping, housing, entertainment, etc. Large universities are basically cities.

[Jaxi]

but how dose that translate to "colleges must investigate crimes and give out punishment in addition to actual police investigations"

What do you mean by dish out punishment?

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/lis...01104_pg2.html

That's from the Department of Education itself. Might give you a better idea.

[AeneasBK]

I'm happy to take a middle ground approach when it seems reasonable, but in this case, it looks like a pretty clearcut case of someone that way after the fact talked themselves into the idea that something terrible happened.

Yeah fair cop, I'm not passing judgement on this case (its not the first time this has come up here); more challenging the idea that if there isn't enough evidence to take a case to court then that some how 'proves' the accuseds innocence, and makes the accuser a liar.

[Deleted]

If I understood the case correctly, the university offered and encouraged her to use their facilities to shame an innocent. Considering that your life could be very much destroyed by such an allegation, I think he has every right to sue.

I was just speaking in general, not about the specific case, about which I do not know enough to comment.

[purebalance]

A entity that's even worse with dealing with rape than the local authorities?

That's quite the accomplishment.

While we're on the topic of false rape accusations:

but but but but false rape is soooooooooo rare and yet it's becoming proven more and more now.

[Cyberowl]

Is this thread also going to be filled with people who think that if there isn't enough evidence for a conviction then automatically the girl is lying and it is a false accusation? Already happened a few times but this thread is young

Middle ground has no place in gen-OT

Don't know why you bring that up, the threads I followed weren't like that. The general consensus was rather to consider a separate case if evidence can be found that she lied.

[Xargoth6634]

Girl should be going to a criminal court with felony charges on her, not facing a suit

Yep, I agree. The guy is entitled to compensation from being smeared though, both from her and the school/professor.

[AeneasBK]

Don't know why you bring that up, the threads I followed weren't like that. The general consensus was rather to consider a separate case if evidence can be found that she lied.

Nor do I really, should just leave people to their opinions Tired, mostly, I suspect

[tehealadin]

Yeah fair cop, I'm not passing judgement on this case (its not the first time this has come up here); more challenging the idea that if there isn't enough evidence to take a case to court then that some how 'proves' the accuseds innocence, and makes the accuser a liar.

It is an interesting problem, especially in crimes like this where evidence isn't always plentiful and can often boil down to his word versus hers.

It is totally within the bounds of possibility, and I have no doubt that it has happened on a disgusting number of occasions where a guilty person has walked due to a lack of evidence and the victim is made out to be a liar.

On the other hand, absence of evidence is not evidence of guilt either. I think people need to hold back and notice that there is a distinction between making a claim that didn't have enough evidence for it to stand up in court, and making a false claim, knowing well that it is false. Sometimes people get confused over the two. If you cannot prove something happened, it didn't mean you set out from the start knowing that it didn't in order to deceive.

Best compromise I can think of, if there is no evidence for the rape, then the accused should be deemed innocent, just as if there is no evidence that the accuser set out knowingly to create a false claim, they should be deemed innocent of that crime too. I know it isn't perfect, but with so many unknowns, it seems the fairest to me.

[pateuvasiliu]

No it doesn't. An accusation which cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt is not the same as an accusation found to be false. Due to the nature of the crime there are very often no other witnesses. It's incredibly hard to prove rape. That doesn't actually mean the accuser is lying.

And yet despite the accusation not being proven correct the accused's life is already stained because of the type of society the US is. He'll be seen as a monster even if not convicted.

Why shouldn't he get money out of it? Whether guilty or not in reality the guy's life is being degraded by that accusation. There should be compensation.

[AeneasBK]

It is an interesting problem, especially in crimes like this where evidence isn't always plentiful and can often boil down to his word versus hers.

It is totally within the bounds of possibility, and I have no doubt that it has happened on a disgusting number of occasions where a guilty person has walked due to a lack of evidence and the victim is made out to be a liar.

On the other hand, absence of evidence is not evidence of guilt either. I think people need to hold back and notice that there is a distinction between making a claim that didn't have enough evidence for it to stand up in court, and making a false claim, knowing well that it is false. Sometimes people get confused over the two. If you cannot prove something happened, it didn't mean you set out from the start knowing that it didn't in order to deceive.

Best compromise I can think of, if there is no evidence for the rape, then the accused should be deemed innocent, just as if there is no evidence that the accuser set out knowingly to create a false claim, they should be deemed innocent of that crime too. I know it isn't perfect, but with so many unknowns, it seems the fairest to me.

Keeping people involved in such (read: any) cases anonymous and making it an offense to publish their identity would be a start? Or am I failing to see pitfall with that idea. Certainly I remember a serial killer case in the UK about 7/8 years back where the TV news were plastering some guys face and name all over their screens and aerial shots of his house and where he worked; only for him to turn out to be innocent; kinda felt he got a bit shafted in that one...

On the other hand, bringing the case to the public eye gives the accused the chance to defend themselves within the same medium; albeit public bias is still very heavily favouring one side in a lot of cases like this. But without the publicity nobody would have been asking for his side of the story.

[Iphie]

Keeping people involved in such (read: any) cases anonymous and making it an offense to publish their identity would be a start? Or am I failing to see pitfall with that idea. Certainly I remember a serial killer case in the UK about 7/8 years back where the TV news were plastering some guys face and name all over their screens and aerial shots of his house and where he worked; only for him to turn out to be innocent; kinda felt he got a bit shafted in that one...

On the other hand, bringing the case to the public eye gives the accused the chance to defend themselves within the same medium; albeit public bias is still very heavily favouring one side in a lot of cases like this. But without the publicity nobody would have been asking for his side of the story.

Why would we need his side of the story? the People and the media have already found him guilty.

But seriously, keeping their names out of the media would be a start, I don't know how it's done in other countries but back home names of suspects aren't spelled out completely we tend to use First name: last name Initial format, so for example: Jan S. if the suspect is called Jan Steen. Only when the first name with the initial would give away the whole name we'd use double initials but that's very rare. For example in a case where we'd look at say: Margaret T. we'd likely see M.T. used.

This may have changed in the last years though.

[Deleted]

And yet despite the accusation not being proven correct the accused's life is already stained because of the type of society the US is. He'll be seen as a monster even if not convicted.

Why shouldn't he get money out of it? Whether guilty or not in reality the guy's life is being degraded by that accusation. There should be compensation.

If it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accusation is false, then yes he has every right to sue so far as I'm concerned. But until such a time I do not think that should be allowed because that sets a precedent for actual rapists to sue their own victims if the victims do not have enough proof. Which due to the nature of the crime they will almost certainly not have. That in turn dissuades people from reporting rapes and allows even more rapists to get off scott free.

[I Push Buttons]

Yeah fair cop, I'm not passing judgement on this case (its not the first time this has come up here); more challenging the idea that if there isn't enough evidence to take a case to court then that some how 'proves' the accuseds innocence, and makes the accuser a liar.

Would you rather we have a system of guilty until proven innocent and allow people to be tried and convicted on the word of one person and nothing more?