Page 2 of 58
Posted on May 20 at 8:17 a.m.
nomore, you are the one who is blindfolded, earplugged, in straightjacket, and dosed with milligrams of LSD and thrown in a vat of chocolate pudding.
`Unregulated' is friggin BS. What the h*** are you talking about. UC's discipline system is 147 years old with reams of precedent, documentation, procedures, etc. You don't survive that many years of lawsuits from people whose degrees are compromised without a very developed and bulletproof system. Go learn something before you spout your nonsense.
You utterly miss the fact, documented endlessly by people including Jon Krakauer: our judicial system puts rape victims on trial by its ethical mis-design. Your are defending really creepy and oily attorneys, who have no oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and who shamelessly attack rape victims for having invited violent assaults.
If you were attacked by a drunken friend (while you yourself were drunk) with a power drill to the head, would you expect to be accused of inviting the attack by drinking? Get a clue, cletus.
Just because you see people like yourself everywhere (that is, morons) doesn't mean you are right.
On Students Stage Sit-In at Cheadle Hall
Posted on May 20 at 7:09 a.m.
It is not `my way or the highway', which are not my words, but your fantasy life.
Blind blaming the victim for an act of violence by another is the problem, and our judicial system has failed miserably at solving the problem. I'm open to any solution, and I'm trying to advance any solution by pointing out: in the US system judges and attorneys are free to misrepresent and use half-truths to attack rape victims on the stand. Make everyone in the courtroom subject to the whole truth and nothing but the truth. A good step.
Posted on May 20 at 5:42 a.m.
Horsemushrooms. I'm not against due process. I'm against putting rape victims on trial in the station house and in the courtroom after they are rape, which is the current policy.
You are not paying attention clausen. At least at UC, students agree to the internal judicial process when they enroll. When they sue the always lose, because they agree to the process of their own free will.
I guess you want students to be able to say, `gosh, sure, I agreed, but that was then, and this is now. I agreed to pay $ for tuition too, but now I've changed my mind, can I have my money back?'
You are in favor of total personal irresponsibility, billclausen. And UCSB always encourages victims to go to the police, but that is actually not UCSB's call, it is the victims. But you better believe the police at UCSB reach out to victims. What rank trash you have posted about murder at grammar schools: too many kids already are dying in violent incidents at grammar schools and you joke about it.
If you didn't notice, UC's process is swaddled in secrecy due to federal regulations known as FERPA. What defamation is there if there is absolutely no publicity by federal law? Additionally, UCSB's process is ponderous and orderly, driven by a long rulebook, not like the random blasts of your disorganized mind.
It is clear that JarvisJarvis blames all rapes on the victim, and is in fact in favor of rape. That is disgusting.
Realitycheck has missed the point: rape victims who due that are hit on by the police investigators, the prosecutors, and then put on trial by the cesspool of attorneys and judges in our courts, who never swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In fact defense attorneys swear to use half truth and innuendo to trash rape victims if they ever appear on the stand.
UCSB has a code of conduct and thank goodness it does, enforced by a committee with far higher ethical standards than the trash who prosecute and try rape cases in our judicial system.
Posted on May 19 at 10:36 a.m.
`Drug Related' doesn't necessarily mean the two UCSB students were doing anything illegal. The might have been doing something illegal, or, they might not have been. I doubt the district attorney would fail to charge them if there is good evidence that the students were breaking the law.
A little more blurry is what might happen if the DA needed testimony from the two UCSB students to convict the two others. The UCSB students might be in some sort of plea deal, to help convict the two others.
In any case, I'm not comfortable calling for their charging since everyone outside of law enforcement is ignorant of the hard facts.
On Suspects in Isla Vista Shooting Charged
Posted on May 18 at 12:19 p.m.
`consistent with truth,' which is all attorneys and judges must adhere to, is much weaker than what witnesses must adhere to, which is `the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.
It bogles the mind that anyone could say those are the `exact same thing'.
Anyone who has been a juror knows that all sorts of partial truths are exploited by attorneys.
Attorneys are bound by an oath, but when you look it up, it is far, far weaker than the one witnesses are bound by.
Garfield must be writing your replies, scan. You are not respecting the actual facts and oaths.
Posted on May 18 at 10:39 a.m.
Then why are you always referencing Garfield the Cat as a source in most of your other posts?
Wow, you are defending the honor of attorneys. You might be one of the 1% in the US who would be so brave. Send Genis to you!
Here is a quote from the attorney's oath in California, which never says `tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.:'
``To advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is charged.''
See... an attorney can accuse a rape victim of being a nymphomaniac or a slut or a liar if that attorney feels that justice requires it.
More of the disgusting attorney's oath in California, which does not require standards as high as witnesses must follow, is at:https://www.calbarxap.com/application...
The courts are a cesspool. I've been on juries and experienced it. That is why all normal people have a very low opinion of the entire law profession.
Posted on May 18 at 9:33 a.m.
``Pardall - All attorneys and judges are sworn to uphold the law and represent themselves and their clients to the highest ethical standard the day they become attorneys and/or judges.''
Not at all... only witnesses are sworn in at trials. Since judges and attorneys are *not* sworn in at each trial, you are simply wrong. They make no promise to speak only the truth and the whole truth.
Attorneys and judges used all sorts of misrepresentations and innuendo in the trials that I've sat on juries for. Many more are documented in books, most recently in Missoula by Krakauer.
Use of falsehoods to trick witnesses is considered acceptable and ethical practice in the courtroom and in the police investigation room. Sometimes criminals are rightly caught but sometimes unsophisticated honest people are ensnared. In fact, ensnarement by misrepresentation is viewed as clever and ethical, `the best possible defense' or prosecution.
In rape trials there is no bottom to the ethical cesspool of our courts; read Krakauer.
In one jury discussion for one civil trial I was on we were so disgusted that we did everything we could to punish both sides, which was, admittedly not much, but within the letter of the documentation and instructions. The judge came and spoke to us and said he didn't like our result because you're supposed to declare a winner and we wanted to declare two losers, unanimously. He got mad and yelled at the jury, and when he left, we voted unanimously to change nothing and piss him off.
Posted on May 18 at 7:46 a.m.
``The topic is still the fact that its wrong to railroad someone who hasn't been proven guilty.''
That is your topic, not the topic of the article; the topic of the article is that it is wrong to let rapists go free, and UCSB should seek to improve the rate of punishment of true rapists, and the nature of that punishment.
``Since you didn't listen to what I had said, why should I waste my time trying to convince you?''
Huh? Of course I listen. You present no evidence that there is a McCarthy-like epidemic of false rape accusations. I agree that there are some false accusations and even false convictions (like Frimpong). But I don't think the rate of such occurrences is higher than false accusations in other violent crime.
But I do clearly believe that the rate of conviction of true rapists is lower than conviction rates in other violent crimes. Read about all the Missoula cases. There, unless a victim's case was absolutely platinum-plated, the rapists skated.
One bit of progress: start believing the truth, which is that women want to get raped as much as men want a power drill drilled into their skull, which is, not at all. No-one would for a second accuse a man of inviting a power drill in the skull due to drunkenness or going into somebody's apartment, if a sicko attacked with a power drill. Ditto for rape.
Posted on May 18 at 12:10 a.m.
I don't accept any claim of parallelism between McCarthy, Salem, and the current treatment of rape suspects. I agree that the current judicial system is miserably failing at convicting those who are rapists.
I don't think there is any evidence of an epidemic of convictions based on `he/she raped me'. There is an epidemic of no convictions because women who accuse rape are exceptionally assumed to have somehow been responsible, unlike other victims of violence.
On the `conviction' issue... define `conviction'... any time a school or potential employer asks for a copy of Melgoza's rapist's transcript, they will get a cover letter saying UCSB's judicial system convicted him of rape. He can kiss goodbye to graduate school and good jobs.
Melgoza's rapist accepted UCSB's judicial system when he agreed to enroll at UCSB, a binding contract, don't tell me BS about his constitutional rights, he agreed to UCSB's judicial system when he enrolled. And UCSB's system is not railroading in any way, only ridiculously ignorant folks who have not studied the system would say that. It is a hearing that is superior in many aspects, in particular the standards of honesty of *all* involved, not just the person testifying, to the SB County courts.
Posted on May 17 at 9:31 p.m.
And where is there *any* evidence that there is an epidemic of *false* rape convictions, analogous to McCarthy, Salem Witch, huh?
Rolling Stone made absurd allegations, and will likely pay a lot for them. Duke paid out $60 million to 3 men who were falsely accused. I don't think Eric Frimpong was guilty, and that is a local tragedy.
But there is a difference between mass, prejudicial `mob' actions like McCarthy & Salem Witch and the pitter patter of wrong convictions. Wrong convictions happen all the time, and there is no evidence I"ve seen that the rate of false convictions and accusations in rape cases are any higher than elsewhere in American jurisprudence. All false convictions are awful, and in some US States those wrongly convicted get a pittance, like $100 a year (or less) for their time in jail. Yes that should be fixed, but as I've said, no evidence at all that false accusations and convictions are worse in rape cases.
But there is ample evidence that real rape victims are treated like s*** by the criminal justice system. Suppose you get drunk and a nut takes an else electric drill and drills into your skull. The driller's guilt or innocence won't depend much on the drinking. Ditto... if you are a male heterosexual and get drunk with a male friend, and he anally rapes you, you will get a presumption of innocence.
Not so with a female. And that is bullsh**t.
And there is ample evidence of mass delusion in the treating of rape victims. Read about the Missoula cases. An absolutely perfect case is necessary for a conviction. Any flaw an unscrupulous defense lawyers do the McCarthy/Witch Trial trick against the victim. And that is the problem.