Rape

College Rape Trials Are Unfair to Men and Women. Here's Why.

University officials expected a student with no legal background or training in court customs to play prosecutor at a trial.

|

Sarah Tubbs
lohud.com

I frequently deride the campus sexual assault adjudication process for abridging the due process rights of accused male students. But it's worth keeping in mind that colleges' extrajudicial rape trials are also frequently unfair to the accusers as well.

Take, for example, this story out of Stony Brook University in New York. A female student, 22-year-old Sarah Tubbs, accused a fellow student of rape and trusted in the college to do something about it. But there was no prosecutor at her trial, no attorneys, and no police. She was barred from even bringing along her therapist. Instead, Tubbs was obligated to personally cross-examine the man she had accused of rape.

Think about that for a minute. University officials expected a student with no legal background or training in court customs to play prosecutor at a trial—the outcome of which would seriously impact two people's lives. According to lohud.com:

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.

I often complain that university administrators are ill-equipped to participate in these matters, but they're legal experts compared to random college students. It's insane that a college would host such a farcical proceeding at all, let alone decide to expel (or not expel) a student based on the outcome.

Tubbs' first instinct, by the way, was a much better one: She informed the campus police two days after her alleged attack. She agreed to take a rape examination, waited the stipulated period of two weeks, and then filed a formal complaint. The officer with whom she spoke told her the case was too weak, however, and advised her not to press the matter further. This persuaded Tubbs to seek university sanctions against her alleged rapist instead.

He was found innocent by Stony Brook; now she is suing the school for making her prosecute her own rape case. According to an interview with lohud.com, what she really wants is for Stony Brook to revise its policies so that victims of rape can obtain justice.

But Tubbs' experience shows precisely why it's impossible for university tribunals to arrive at just verdicts, no matter how thoroughly their policies are revised. Advocates should give up on that front; their efforts would be much better spent reforming the criminal justice system to make it more accommodating to rape victims—so that the next Tubbs is not turned away by police and shown through a door that leads only to undue misery.

Related: "The Other Side Speaks: Defending the Accused at Campus Rape Trials." 

Advertisement

NEXT: Export-Import Bank Data Returns, With Important Info Still Missing

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The officer with whom she spoke told her the case was too weak, however, and advised her not to press the matter further. This persuaded Stubbs to seek university sanctions against her alleged rapist instead.

    Something seems amiss here. Police not prosecutors told her the legal case was a nonstarter? From her account of apparent initial drunken consent, I would probably agree, but shouldn’t it be a district attorney to make that determination?

    1. The officer told her she could consult with the District Attorney’s Office, but said that prosecutors would likely have the same opinion, so she declined, she said.

      Never mind.

      1. That’ll teach you to trust that a Reason writer isn’t misrepresenting the source of their article to bolster their position.

        1. Your new name is even more retarded than your last few, Tulpa.

          1. Don’t have the style, do ya chickenshit.

      2. This is what happens when you’re desperate to be FIRST!

    2. So s.o.p. police laziness created this mess.

      Color me unsurprised.

      1. According to the article, this would have been almost impossible to prosecute.

        Tubbs says that she was drinking at a party and went to the guy’s room planning to have sex, but then she changed her mind. The article says that she attempted to physically resist, but was pretty drunk and blacked out for periods. It doesn’t say whether she orally revoked consent.

        Under those circumstances, with evidence that she planned to have sex and her word against his that she revoked consent, pretty much the only way to get a resonable doubt conviction would be for the guy to admit it or to demonstrate that she was so drunk that he shouldn’t have relied on her initial consent.

        (Not excusing anything – if the guy ignored a revocation or took advantage of a drunk partner, he deserves jail, but there’s just no way to convict, or even to know for sure).

        1. there’s just no way to convict, or even to know for sure

          I don’t know that this is true, we aren’t given the full interview to consider. People self-implicate all the time.

          The key question to her would be:

          You say you changed your mind, how did you communicate the change?

          The officer with whom she spoke told her she didn’t have a viable case, the lawsuit says, “because she did not scream ‘No,’ or violently fight back.

          When I read this the subtext is the cop is giving examples of how she could have expressed her change of mind, not that she must have done one of these two specific things. So what did she do? Since she doesn’t say I think it’s reasonable to suspect the question was asked and the answer didn’t support a rape charge.

          As usual though the campus process sucks.

          1. That’s fair – I guess the officer swhould have interviewed the suspect to see what he had to say. (Although maybe he or she did).

  2. Dumb. My cross-examination of my rapist would basically be “fuck you you piece of shit! I’m going to kill you the first chance I get!” Not very informative of the facts.

    1. WHEN STEVE SMITH RAPES FLORIDA MAN, CROSS EXAMINATION WILL CONSIST OF SECOND RAPE.

      ALONG WITH UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS.

      AND ANYONE ELSE ENROLLED AT UNIVERSITY.

  3. Please, can we not adopt the Slatepitchy “Something is wrong. Here’s why.” headline format?

    It is too reminiscent of the whole “People don’t do what we know is best for them. But you, as a Progressive reader of our site, are smarter than that. So let us tell you why you are right and they are wrong” ethos.

    It is so redundant, and really does only serve to cater to the reader’s need to feel that they are being let in on a secret that only Top Men (or Top Women, or Top Trans*&!) can possibly understand.

    “College Rape trials are unfair to men and women”. That is a headline. Reading that headline, I presume that the article it introduces will discuss why the headline is true. The rest is redundant.

    1. 10 Reasons College Rape Trials are Unfair!

      Avoid Unfair College Rape Trials, Using This One Weird Trick!

      College Rape Trials Hate This!

      1. She Prosecuted Her Own Rape Trial, You Won’t Believe What Happens Next!

        1. “Prosecution is hard”

          ~~ Barbie

        2. The moment when a rape victim prosecuted her own attacker!

      2. 101 Hot Sex Tips Your Rapist Would Love!

        …I’m not doing this right, am I?

  4. Title IX shouldn’t have been used to begin with to force campuses to deal with rape allegations administratively as part of their “anti discrimination” requirements. A system designed to punish plagiarizers isn’t designed to carefully weigh subjective evidence of criminal intent.

    1. College campuses shouldn’t be “prosecuting” anything. They should be contacting police. If the DA decides there’s a case, the student should be suspended pending outcome. Employers fire employees for getting arrested, much less going to trial for it, so there’s plenty of precedent for that.

      But college administrators aren’t attorneys, aren’t judges, and aren’t police. They don’t have the AUTHORITY to prosecute anything. The closest to “prosecutor” any of them gets is the prosciutto on their avocado toast at the local bistro. If the court finds the student guilty, THEN expel them because they’re a convicted criminal. But until then, they have presumed innocence.

  5. their efforts would be much better spent reforming the criminal justice system to make it more accommodating to rape victims

    O Rly? Isn’t that exactly what they’re trying to do with the university rape handling? Because the criminal justice system has a preponderance of evidence and innocent until guilty standard (that is arguably weak) that they don’t like?

    The criminal justice system can only be so “accommodating” to any kind of victim before it starts to infringe on the rights of the accused. Which is exactly what the rape obsessives hate and are trying to change by moving the venue to the university. So your statement here makes no sense.

    1. Well, I don’t know what Robby had in mind, but there is a backlog of thousands of rape kits across the country right now. Seems there is room for improvement there.

      I agree with you, in general though.

      1. Not just the backlog of rape kits but the incompetence of the justice system in general.

      2. Sounds like an entrepreneurial opportunity.

      3. The criminal justice system is fucked, but instead of wanting to try and fix it, these people want to actually dismantle some of its remaining good protections. That’s my point. Nothing they want to do (and are trying to do in university environments) is in any way an improvement on what we have now. It would just make it worse.

        1. This x1000.

          This should make one suspect that their goals are not what they say they are.

      4. The rape kit backlog is 100% because of police laziness. Go to Harvey, IL and see for yourself. Shitholes like that are reason there is a back log – they just don’t give a fuck.

        1. Nothing of value to seize. Not worth the effort. Now, if these women had accused someone of selling dope…

      5. there is a backlog of thousands of rape kits across the country right now.

        Perhaps, just perhaps, if the focus were “real crime” as opposed to the current focus…

      6. ….but there is a backlog of thousands of rape kits across the country right now. Seems there is room for improvement there.

        Not that I’m against more efficient use of rape kits, but in cases like this, or a lot of the cases being pushed, what would they prove? Both parties agree that sex took place. Both parties agree that there wasn’t an active struggle.

    2. “Because the criminal justice system has a preponderance of evidence and innocent until guilty standard (that is arguably weak) that they don’t like?”

      Beyond a reasonable doubt standard that they really hate – they want to impose the lesser “preponderance” standard. Of course they do hate the presumption of innocence too.

      1. *is what they really hate*

        EDIT BUTTON!!!!!

      2. What they really want is the same results the child support system produces – MORE MONEY. They couldn’t five a flying fuck abut justice.

      3. The presumption of innocence exists because we believe most people, most of the time, are innocent. In a world where it was believed most people committed crimes most of the time, you’d have a presumption of guilt. These people believe rape is a fairly common thing, so to them it’s reasonable to not have so strong a presumption of innocence?& also therefore that rape is not so serious as to require criminal prosecution. After all, you couldn’t have, like, a third of all men in the world be in jail, could you? So given their assumptions, this is a reasonable way of proceeding.

        1. this is an interesting take. But it is fundamentally untrue. The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with the prevalence of criminal activity. We require the prosecution to prove guilt, rather than requiring the defendant to prove his innocence, because this is the only just way to proceed.

          If we were to require every defendant to prove that charges were not true, we would all have to have documentation for every moment of our lives and every action we take. This is obviously infeasible. In many cases there is no way to prove a negative.

    3. It makes sense. It is just wrong.

  6. ” Advocates should give up on that front; their efforts would be much better spent reforming the criminal justice system to make it more accommodating to rape victims?so that the next Stubbs is not turned away by police and shown through a door that leads only to undue misery.”

    While reforms along these lines clearly need to happen we also need to adjust womens expectations on exactly what qualifies as a legal rape and what kind of evidence is required to secure a conviction.

    And I don’t mean implying that the way she was dressed implied consent but rather a requirement on her part (assuming no incapacitate or threat of force preventing it) to clearly and unambiguously communicate her lack of consent to the assailant. Also intoxication only counts if there is a sufficient difference between the two’s level of intoxication or it can be shown that the accused gave her an intoxicant without her knowledge.

  7. But Stubbs’ experience shows precisely why it’s impossible for university tribunals to arrive at just verdicts, no matter how thoroughly their policies are revised. Advocates should give up on that front; their efforts would be much better spent reforming the criminal justice system to make it more accommodating to rape victims?so that the next Stubbs is not turned away by police and shown through a door that leads only to undue misery.

    I’m of a torn mind here. I don’t know the specifics of Tubbs’s/Stubbs’s (you refer to her by both of those names at various points in the article, btw), and I also don’t know what actions the police actually took to investigate her complaint, but to what extent should police officers be obligated to investigate a case that in their professional opinion is too weak to make anything of?

    On the one hand, telling the police they must treat all accusations of crimes this serious with equal severity and explore them to their fullest extent, but then you run the risk of the police acting as enforcers for anyone with an ax to grind, no matter how scurrilous their claims (and I’ll repeat that I have no knowledge or opinion on the veracity of Tubbs’s accusation).

    On the other hand, if the police have discretion to decide what cases should be pursued, then the cases that are pursued will almost certainly be decided by the prejudices of the police themselves, and all of the attendant inevitable abuses of power.

    1. It’s Tubbs; thanks for the correction.

    2. …but to what extent should police officers be obligated to investigate a case that in their professional opinion is too weak to make anything of?

      Ultimately it should be up to the prosecutor. The officer in this case did actually suggest that the woman talk to the prosecutor, but she chose to go to the University instead.

      Prosecutors then have to balance pleasing their electorate (if they have one) against pissing off judges.

      One thing I wonder about is the possibility of pursuing a civil case. Then she wouldn’t have to worry about a prosecutors opinion, right?

  8. You can’t be deprived of property without due process of law. Federal courts have found things like a property interest in government benefits one is otherwise eligible to receive. Therefore depriving someone of a benefit they’re receiving can’t be done without some process.

    If these processes are inadequate to meet such a bar should we also afford those who have other government benefits such as welfare more process too?

    1. If you don’t kick anyone out unless they are convicted, you don’t need any due process. The courts do it for you.

      1. But organizations kick people out all the time regardless of actual conviction. Look at the NFL for example.

        1. There’s a lot of stuff that’s explicitly contractual with NFL players.

          I’m not sure any of this stuff would be analogized with NFL behavior guidelines.

          1. Most colleges have student codes of conduct and descriptions of possible responses and procedures for violation widely disseminated.

  9. So if I’m playing golf by myself, and I claim I was hit by a guy in a golf cart at the 13th hole, I can demand that the golf course set up a court, complete with professional attorneys prosecuting the case?

    1. Yes, if the sentence is that you can no longer golf here. And all dues payed are forfeit. Sure.

      And if you want to keep golfing there, you’ll participate in the fight.

      Otherwise, walk away, call the whole thing a mulligan and get a real golf game elsewhere.

      1. There’s a good analogy there. Let’s say there’s a public golf course and club you can join with certain benefits. Another member accuses you of hitting golf balls at them and their cart. The managers want to decide if you did and is so which privileges to deprive, including expulsion. How much due process are you owed?

        1. The option that remains is that you, the club member can sue the shit out of them for any damages due to their kangaroo court.

          Your lawsuit may not be successful, but it’s an option.

          At this point, the only way out of this mess is for these accused men to just start suing the colleges back to blighty, see what shakes out.

          1. At this point, the only way out of this mess is for these accused men to just start suing the colleges back to blighty, see what shakes out.

            Some are suing and winning.

          2. In fact somebody said that the catch 22 that colleges face with respect to Title IX these days is who they’re going to get sued by.

          3. Yes, of course if contracts have been violated.

            1. Yes, of course if contracts have been violated.

              Sounds like it’s time for the “public accommodation” concept to whirl around on progressives.

            2. No, Bobo. Contracts don’t need to have been violated for Title IX to apply.

      2. dues *paid*.

        What the hell is wrong with me… besides the oblivious.

    2. Is a feminist at all involved? Because one thing feminists and a anti feminists can agree on is applying special rules when they’re involved

    3. So if I make a bad analogy, can I pretend I’m not being passive-aggressive?

  10. OT: Seattle City Council goes full retard, declares busy city street a “park”, tickets drivers for driving on it.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/se…..ing-ducks/

    1. “People driving this route are sitting ducks,” the bicyclist said. “It’s predatory ticketing.”

      Shame on the ST for cherry-picking the only cyclist in this city who has a reasonable opinion on this, to mask the fact that the other 99% of them are probably overjoyed at the police needlessly hassling those monsters who actually drive cars.

      1. I was a bit surprised at that.

        If you read the article, the city has once again endangered bicyclists by creating a situation where motorists are forced to turn across the bike lane.

        The more ‘bike friendly’ this city gets, the more dangerous it becomes to bike in it.

        1. Well geez, how about the intersection at Howell and 9th where motorists have to either enter the bus lane right in front of a bus stop or make an illegal lane change in the intersection to get into the lane for I-5 south?

          I swear, I feel like this city was designed by drunken Irishmen sometimes.

          1. motorists have to either enter the bus lane right in front of a bus stop or make an illegal lane change in the intersection to get into the lane

            West Seattle, rinse, repeat.

          2. Not only are you redundant, but you’re repeating yourself as well.

          3. +1 Jesse Ventura rant

      2. There’s also a bar owner who sounds downright libertarian, complaining about how the city does whatever it can to take money from residents. Those 2 reminded me that not all Seattlers are idiots.

        And this situation is ridiculous on every level. They want some car traffic, but not too much. But they let a bus drive through every couple minutes? That doesn’t demolish the mood?

        1. When they started that fucking construction, I was going to Acquabar (it’s on Bell between..3rd and 4th?) happy hour a lot, and my friend knew the owner, and he was super pissed about it. It had fucked his business pretty good. He was very cynical and anti-government about it too.

    2. The fact they allow the buses to continue to use it says much. How much effing traffic could there be when there’s only one lane?

      1. I can’t speak for that stretch of road, but I can speak for my neighborhood, which suffered the wrath of a semi-retarded howler monkey with a can of traffic paint who went apeshit painting super-special bike and bus-only lanes. This turned every street in The Junction from a two-laner into single lane streets, with bus-only lanes taking the rightmost lane.

        The only way to take a right turn in my neighborhood is to dart into the bus lane at the last second (because more than about 100′ before the turn it’s BUS-ONLY) with every half block marked ‘right turn only, except for buses’.

        This has the effect of backing up twice as much traffic at lights with the same light timing, meaning there’s half as much traffic getting through the intersection, and twice as many cars idling at lights– in the greenest city in ‘murrica. It also has the secondary effect of forcing something like 7 lane changes in a stretch of street maybe, 1000’ long.

        Marinate on that.

        1. Dude, what about the bike lane bullshit on 2nd Ave between Virginia and about Madison? That stretch is ALWAYS fucked now. Always. I used to be able to fly down 2nd if 99 was fucked, and now it’s always jammed there. It’s fucking insane.

          1. Don’t have any idea of the city in which you live, but you can be assured that this commerce-choking traffic idea will be followed in short order by sob stories about falling tax revenue.

      2. It used to be two lanes and one way. Now it’s one and it has this weird zigzag shape and people walk across it willy nilly so it’s actually way worse than before they changed it. That’s one reason I stopped using it; I can get down Lenora WAY faster than Bell now, whereas Bell used to be faster. It’s unbelievably stupid, you have to see it first hand.

    3. It’s a TAX!!!

    4. Thank Jeebus I stopped using Bell after they made that fucking retarded “woonerf” bullshit and moved over to using Lenora. Now I’ll completely stay the fuck away from it at all costs. God damn I’d love to punch whichever politician’s idea that was.

      1. This goes back to my question about how two people with the exact same kind of crazy end up married.

        Someone raised this batshit idea up the flagpole, and everyone saluted.

        “Yeah, yeah, excellent idea, Bob, excellent idea…”

        *hands clapping around boardroom table*

      2. They’re building woonerfs in South Lake Union too now.

        1. So they’re strangling south lake union in the crib… excellent.

        2. Dude there are trolley tracks down streets like Terry. And you can’t drive through SLU on a weekday now without waiting for an eternity at every stop sign as herds of nerds from Amazon walk endlessly in front of you as you hope there will maybe be a lull long enough to get through.

          I worked in the new SLU for two years, as a lot of the new buildings were going up. It’s getting super retarded, going from a deserted wasteland to Paul Allen’s real estate machine.

    5. BTW, there really needs to be a Seattle Reason meetup sometime. I could really use some time off not having to state at hipsters all day for sanity’s sake.

      1. *stare

      2. There certainly are enough of us, it seems.

    6. There are so many more reasonable ways to do this. You could make it exclusively a pedestrian mall during certain hours or permanently, with cones or barriers making it obvious; take NYC’s Central Park roads for example. You could have movable bollards that buses & emergency vehicles can signal to open. You could have a rule with clear signage at the entrance, “no thru traffic”, like Chicago’s alleys, where it’s not “1 block only”, it’s “less than the full block only”. You could reduce the lanes for vehicles, and maintain separation; I looked at their parks dept.’s overhead photos, and those scenes looked like they were designed to mangle pedestrians.

      1. Read thru the comments in the Seattle paper’s site. Probably the most shocking was learning that pedestrians still aren’t allowed to cross in the middle of the affected blocks! They ticket it as jaywalking!! So what was the point?

        From other comments, I gather that residents of those blocks had actually wanted the bus traffic off that street. Instead, restrictions were applied to all vehicles except buses!

        Like that line in the movie Back to School: “Hold some of my calls.”

        1. They’re not going to hinder the King’s traffic and commerce, just yours.

  11. “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.

    So she’s demanding that the accused be either not present for his trial, or perhaps just bound and gagged and not permitted to say anything in his defense. Right, Robby, we totally need to be accommodating of dolts like this.

    1. No, she’s not saying that at all.

  12. College Rape Trials Are Unfair to Men and Women.

    I don’t think fairness is the idea.

  13. There’s certainly a lot to complain about in terms of how criminal justice is being handled in the United States (and the West in general). But replacing that with a system managed by university administration that doesn’t understand or is unwilling to provide the basic elements of legitimate court is insane.

    1. The university doesn’t jail you they just stop associating with you.

      1. Wow, it’s almost like I’m aware of that distinction, but still recognize that their ‘trials’ are a farce.

        1. Then why the talk of the crj system and ‘replacing’ it?

          1. Because that’s the specific reason cited by these ‘trials’ supporters, that they are needed when the legal system fails to prosecute?

  14. Warty made that girl cry.

  15. College Rape Trials Are Unfair to Men and Women.

    True. But more lucrative than the prior system.

  16. “it’s impossible for university tribunals to arrive at just verdicts, no matter how thoroughly their policies are revised. ”

    What’s the big deal? Even if they’re expelled we all know college degrees are worthless!

    /Scott Walker supporter

    1. Bo, speaking as someone who has valued your intellectual contributions to some past discussions, can you please stop this? What do you hope to gain by mendaciously misrepresenting other people’s views in this fashion? If you have a substantive point to make, can you not find a less antagonizing way of expressing it?

      I know from your posting history around here that you are indeed a reasonable person, when you choose to be. And I’ll say there has been a lot of needlessly harsh invective thrown your way over fairly trivial breaches of what passes around here for decorum. But blatantly acting like the troll others accuse you of being is only going to make the atmosphere more caustic and more hostile, something I would dearly like to see less of.

      1. Reward good behavior with a response, ignore bad behavior. I remember posting a similar comment 3 or 4 months ago, and getting zero sentience in the reply. Bo thrives on pointless conflict, and would lose all his jollies if he quit being mendacious and inflammatory.

    2. Why do people call me a pedantic cunt and don’t want to talk to me when I constantly whine about arguments from a week ago?

      /Bo

      1. It’s a condition. You have to be more sympathetic rather than feeding it.

        http://www.betterhealth.vic.go…..and_adults

  17. I thought we were teaching men not to rape. Have we stopped doing that? I think that would solve everything.

  18. “Tubbs’ first instinct, by the way, was a much better one: She informed the campus police two days after her alleged attack”

    “Tubbs alleges she was sexually assaulted early on Jan. 26, 2014, after a campus party where she played drinking games. She accompanied her alleged attacker to his dorm room intending to have sex, the lawsuit says, but changed her mind. Tubbs tried to physically resist, she claims, and blacked out at points from intoxication. She claims the alleged assailant forced her to perform oral sex, penetrated her with his fingers and attempted vaginal intercourse.”

    Jesus. First before the attack: play drinking games, get drunk, go with a (presumably also drunk) man to his room, agree to sex … and then after the alleged attack, wait two days to report it, to make it as hard as possible to get definitive physical evidence.

    I don’t know if this girl was raped or not, but I do know that we have to stop teaching girls that it’s OK to be criminally negligent with their own bodies and the reporting of crimes.

  19. The way I’m reading this she chose to pursue the course that had her provide her own legal representation. She had other options that she could have selected that would have allowed her to hire an attorney, expert witnesses, etc.

  20. Presumably, colleges can get process cleared up eventually – I imagine a consistent set of rules, probably promulgated by the department of ed, like the Criminal and Civil Rules that apply in Court, but probably more victim-friendly and less accused-friendly.

    This particular case is a mess. According the the article’s summary of her complaint, Tubbs was drinking at a party and went to the accused’s room planning to have sex, then changed her mind. The article says that she tried to resist but was too drunk to do much, and isn’t clear on whether she told the guy that she changed her mind, but I assume the Complaint probably says that she did.

    Under the circumstances, there isn’t much room for cross examination. The school can convict the guy if they assume that statistically, “he said/she said” cases break on the side of the complainant, or if they find that she was too drunk to ever consent. Otherwise, it basically comes down to weighing two conflicting stories, which is tough.

    1. The school can convict the guy if they assume that statistically, “he said/she said” cases break on the side of the complainant,

      Which would make the whole farce totally unnecessary, as every single case would go against the accused, so why waste time with a trial?

  21. Was the dude’s name Crockett?

    …I’m probably going to hell for that…

  22. Why should SUNY Stony Brook have someone prosecute the case at all? Why don’t they just have someone find out what happened? If there were a dispute over something that took place in our house, or your place of business, or involving people in your club, wouldn’t you just use whatever means you thought best to get at the truth? Why would you play some game aping the legal system to do something you wanted to find out for yourself?

  23. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,,,,,,,,,
    http://www.work-mill.com

  24. University officials expected a student with no legal background or training in court customs to play prosecutor at a trial?the outcome of which would seriously impact two people’s lives.

    Tell me how the outcome of this trial, one way or the other, “seriously impacts” the (alleged) rape victim’s life?

    Make sure to include some indication of why you think the impact of this trial is roughly the same (apparently, equally serious) for both parties.

    their efforts would be much better spent reforming the criminal justice system to make it more accommodating to rape victims?so that the next Tubbs is not turned away by police and shown through a door that leads only to undue misery.

    WTF? How is this not more of the special pleading for rape victims that led us to this point in the first place? You seem to be assuming that she had a strong criminal case and was turned away, but I don’t think that’s true at all. She had a weak-ass case, so weak even a college tribunal (and we all know how impartial those are) couldn’t bring itself to punish the guy.

  25. I just got paid usd6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over usd 9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,,,,,,
    http://www.work-mill.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.