Page 1 of 1
Posted on September 15 at 5:34 p.m.
The problem with campus kangaroo courts getting involved in these things at all is twofold.
First, they are heavily biased towards a finding of guilt. Representation by counsel is extremely limited. No rules of evidence as in a traditional courtroom. No subpoena power to bring in witnesses. No right to confront one's accuser. It boils down to he-said-she-said with a strong bias toward she-said. So for the guy accused of rape when it is really a case of regret or drunken mistaken identity, you're guilty until proven innocent.
Second, they trivialize rape to the point of being a campus infraction like littering or throwing spitballs in class. Because these aren't real trials, their punishment is essentially limited to expulsion at the very worst. Rapists belong in prison, not just suspended from class. By using these so-called "trials" instead of going to the police, rape victims send a message to potential rapists that the worst they're going to get is kicked out of school.
This isn't the message that should be sent to the community. If horny young males get the idea that pushing the limit of consent gets you ten years in an orange jumpsuit, things are going to change in a hurry. As it now stands, victims who choose the kangaroo court instead of the police send the message that violent sexual assault is in the same category as getting caught with crib notes on a midterm.
Abolish these ridiculous "committee" trials for real crimes. Use them for campus infractions. Let law enforcement deal with felonies.
As for the victim in this case, if you want real law enforcement, call the real cops.
On Crime on Campus
Posted on December 9 at 2:07 p.m.
Re Beachgirl's comment -
It's very typical for employment applications to ask about criminal convictions, and lying on the application is almost always grounds for termination.
On DUI Hit-and-Run Suspect Raymond Morua Has Criminal Record
Posted on December 9 at 1:55 p.m.
And let's not forget that Lois Capps' husband was seriously injured by a drunk driver. You would think that a simple background check for that kind of thing would be in order.
Posted on October 4 at 4:33 p.m.
National Forest land doesn't "belong to the public" in the way that you think. There is no guarantee that the USDA would ever allow public access or release any water. They could close access, turn it into a "Fee area" or do whatever they choose with no public input.
The Land Trust should do what their mission statement says, preserve the resources for the enjoyment of present and future generations, and do it under local control.
Instead, they intend to permanently hand it over to a Federal bureaucracy with no guarantee of ANY access or preservation or release of water and no local control.
In many of their other projects to date the Land Trust has done very well in ensuring preservation and local control. This is not in character nor is it in keeping with the charter of the Land Trust.
On Hot Springs Plan Remains Stalled