Rape

Mandatory Minimums for Campus Rape Could Come to California

Bill would require schools to impose a minimum two year suspension on students found guilty of sexual assault.

|

lewisha1990/Flickr

In California, a new bill would require colleges and universities to impose a mandatory minimum sentence for campus sexual assault: two years school suspension. The rule would apply to both public and private colleges that rely on state funds for student financial aid, the same way California's affirmative consent measure operates.

Since the affirmative consent law—proscribing a "yes means yes" sexual consent standard—was enacted last year, school systems and states across the country have adopted or considered a similar standard. In an era of heightened awareness/paranoia about campus rape, Williams' new mandatory minimum measure should find lots of allies. But is it wise? Even some in the sexual assault advocacy community seem skeptical. Elizabeth Woodson is Stanford student body president, co-chair of the school's sexual assault task force, and pushing for Stanford to expel any student found guilty of sexual assault. And yet, notes HuffPost

Woodson is excited the legislature is paying attention to the issue, but said she can appreciate the importance of allowing each university to have autonomy over its policies. To that end, Woodson could not say whether it's better for sanctioning standards to be set by the schools or the legislature. She also noted there's little data on whether prescribing more strict punishments will increase or decrease the number of rape victims reporting assaults.

A two-year school suspension does sound like light punishment for sexual assault. But that largely depends on how you define sexual assault. Under California law, it's a failure to obtain ongoing, enthusiastic, affirmative consent at each stage of a sexual encounter. The severity of transgressions legally deemed sexual assault vary widely, making the discretion of people investigating each individual case quite important. Williams' bill would take that discretion away, imposing suspension even in cases where circumstances might not warrant it.

It also furthers the baffling idea that campus assault victims should go to their R.A.s rather than police. But while getting sexual predators off campus is all well and good, shouldn't we care about people they could victimize off campus too?

Williams proposal seems well-intentioned but misguided, its priorities and incentives skewed. These are exactly the kind of conditions that gave birth to the mandatory minimimum prison sentence movement. In the 1980s and 1990s, state and federal legislators started rapidly escalating the criminal penalties for various drug offenses, and one of their favorite way to do this was through mandatory minimums, legal requirements that take sentencing discretion away from from judges in favor of an inflexible, statutorily parametered punishment for anyone convicted of a particular crime. Recently, criminal justice reformers in both major parties have been keen on scaling back these mandatory minimums, which have largely driven up prison populations without driving down drug use. But even as mandatory minimums for (at least some) drug penalties are on the way out, lawmakers and activists continue advocating statutory sentencing enhancements for sex-related crimes.

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.

92 responses to “Mandatory Minimums for Campus Rape Could Come to California

  1. But Tony was saying Liberals don’t support mandatory minimum sentences.

    Williams proposal seems well-intentioned but misguided,

    No, it is not well intentioned. What possible “good intentions” could this have? The intentions behind this are anything but good and entirely malevolent.

    1. Since when has Tony here been right.

      1. He never says a single truthful word. Everything he says is a complete lie and the exact opposite of the truth.

        1. It is rather amusing how wrong he is on just about everything, given he is fully capable and articulate individual.

    2. Progressives have historically opposed mandatory minimums because they’ve historically been linked to the Drug War.

      Now that mandatory minimums are a tool to hurl men into jail for unreasonable sentences, they support them. Whether or not progressives support mandatory minimums depends entirely on who is being punished.

      1. Ah – should have read the fucking thing, given that this is about mandatory minimum suspensions so no one is going to jail.

        The overall point still stands though, and I don’t think progs would be particularly upset about mandatory minimum prison sentences for sexual assault either.

        1. should have read the fucking thing, given that this is about mandatory minimum suspensions so no one is going to jail.

          Yet.

        2. ” no one is going to jail.”
          Give it time. Some European countries already are (if they haven’t already) outlawed “sexual harassment” and made it punishable by prison time, and efforts are underway to do so in the US; and given the definition of harassment is even more fluid that their definition of assault, soon it will basically be purely a matter of discretion; if you want that guy in jail, you can put him in jail.

    3. John, when it comes to ‘mandatory minimums’ both conservatives and liberal suck state cock – as long as it’s their project.

      Thankfully, the Supreme Court of Canada just stopped the Tories for their MM for gun possession.

      http://ottawacitizen.com/news/…..s-offences

      1. Judges behaving reasonably?

        Canada, leading the way!

        1. I was floored. The lawyers argued you don’t improve society by handing out heavy jail sentences – something to that effect. It was SOOOOO refreshing to hear.

    4. Not to mention the mandatory minimums digression wasn’t really germane to a conversation about sentencing enhancements for felonies involving guns, something inarguably celebrated by the left.

  2. How is it the higher education bubble has not burst yet?

    1. A degree has become a de facto permit required to apply for jobs.

      1. Considering that they couldn’t even use a test for goddamn firefighters because it resulted in “racially disparate outcomes” it is little wonder that credentialism is so rampant. If anyone can be sued for the slightest appearance of discrimination, and the people who will adjudicate those suits are cargo cultists of the highest order, then this is what you get.

        1. Fireman to another fireman:

          “Come on Joe. Climb the ladder and save that lady!”

          “I can’t! I’m afraid of heights!”

          1. Joking aside, blatant failure of performance is usually sufficient grounds for termination. Which is why documentation gets obfuscated and responsibilities get diffused. If you can’t prove anything concrete, then it doesn’t matter what actually happened.

  3. Mandatory Minimums for Campus Rape Could Come to California

    Now I have to rape a minimum number of women?

    1. Eat some avocado, you’ll have plenty of energy.

    2. You need to pull your weight Drake. The male population is getting older so we need to step up our game.

      1. Cut Drake some slack, his mouth was just assaulted by Madonna’s leathery old tongue

      2. We need to establish some ground rules – no groin kicks, no face scratching, not too much fighting or else I’m calling the whole thing off. I have better things to do.

        1. Your’re eliminating the best parts. Clearly an amateur.

        2. Read that as ‘not too much fingering’.

          As you were.

    3. No, I think they just mean campus-wide. Like, you need to have 1 rape per 5 female students or your rape culture is under-performing, that sort of thing.

  4. The optimist in me reads this and instantly thinks that there’s no way this is Constitutional or could stand up on appeal.

    Right?

    How can the state mandate a penalty for what is essentially criminal conduct without also mandating the accused be given his right to due process? The state can’t outsource this to a tribunal run by education majors.

    1. They owe the student due process. The amount of due process is directly related to the severity of the punishment at stake. All this law would do is subject the taxpayers of California to being on the hook for paying monetary judgments to the people screwed under this law.

      1. It seems so obviously a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments that I can’t believe even CA lawmakers would be so arrogant to think this is going to hold up.

        Kicking someone out of school and barring them from returning for two years is depriving them of their life, liberty, and property without due process. We know there are schools where the accused cannot confront his accuser and is not guaranteed a right to counsel, not to mention the burden of proof being lower and the onus basically on him (or her, I suppose) to prove their innocence.

        1. I think it’s time Americans consider going to conservative institutions? I would think they’re sheltered from the creeping retardation?

          1. Hmm, more of a different retardation, really.

        2. Remind me again why everyone puts up with all of the bullshit for the weather?

          Seriously, CA is fucking gorgeous, but it’s been utterly ruined by the statists.

          1. Ask Playa, Sevo, Jesse and Los Doyers.

            1. Those assholes? They know as much as John Snow.

          2. California is like a hot crazy chick. *looks around nervously* some of us are willing to put up with a lot.

            Though Speaking for myself, in the end there is a limit.

        3. All the other Title IX shit seems to be holding up.

    2. ^This. I can’t see this as anything but an extrajudicial tribunal. I know, I know, legality, schmegality, but… seems a bit blatant, even for Cali.

    3. Constitutionality has ceased to have any relevance with regard to government action quite some time ago.

  5. So we have hate crime specification to “protect” our “non-priviledged” class. Now manditory minimums to “protect” our “privileged” class. Equality under the law. But won’t someone think of the middle class?

    1. Middle-class? In this case would that be the majority of people, who wouldn’t try to turn a drunken regret into a felony accusation?

      Also, affirmative consent laws seem like they’d be ignored by everyone except the few people who are looking to ruin the lives of an enemy.

  6. So, I’m confused. Is rape a felony assault type problem, or an administrative discipline type problem? Because if we insist on treating it like an administrative discipline type problem then we’re really demeaning and dismissing the victims of rape.

    1. I feel triggered

    2. They are doing what they can until justice is done and things like eyerape and mentionrape make their way into law.

      1. Don’t forget — I am not making this up — “provocative eating”.

        1. I always eat my tacos vertically

          1. RACIST!

        2. I want to say [citation needed] but I am sort of afraid.

    3. This is what I keep coming back to. I mean, would anyone consider a two-year suspension to be an appropriate penalty for being guilty of murder? Or car theft?

    4. These laws aren’t for real victims of rape. They go (or should go) to the police. These laws are for situation where there wouldn’t be enough evidence for a guilty verdict (likely because the defendant didn’t commit the crime), but feminists still want to use it as an opportunity to expel men from campus.

  7. Bill would require schools to impose a minimum two year suspension on students found guilty of sexual assault.

    Found guilty of sexual assault… in a court of law?

    1. If she said you did it then you did it. Why make it more complicated?

    2. No. In an extrajudicial tribunal that doesn’t even pay lip service to due process.

  8. how you define sexual assault. Under California law, it’s a failure to obtain ongoing, enthusiastic, affirmative consent at each stage of a sexual encounter.

    Emphasis added. Like “Yes, *yes*, YES!!”?

    FFS, this is getting ridic silly.

        1. That’s art:)

          1. My friends saw him shortly after Caddyshack came out at a club in Minneapolis (The Cabooze). I was unable to attend, but they told me at one point, they had to step out of the main room because their faces were in unbearable pain due to laughing so hard.

            1. Rodney is one of THE all time greats.

    1. I know it has been said before but I am truly impressed that feminists have been able to accomplish what so cons never could, stopping horny college kids from humping like rabbits.

      1. I do not know about stopping it, but they seem to have gotten a sizable number of young people in favor of criminalizing it.

        1. I know that sex is very individualistic, but I struggle to believe that there are many people who could remain turned on while their partner asks permission for everything single thing they do. My vagina would dry up faster than the San Joaquin Delta. At the minimum this is going to create a toxic atmosphere of incredible distrust and fear between the sexes.

          1. State control of reproduction.

            It’s not like arranged marriages are something new.

          2. I imagine that the trick is that no one really does that. Enforcement of “affirmative consent” will be rare enough that I doubt it will change behavior much at all.

            They have been telling college students that drunk sex is rape for a generation. That didn’t seem to stop people going to parties and hooking up. I very much doubt this will either. There will just be a handful of people who get fucked over every year.

            1. Exactly. This is a rule designed to make everybody guilty, so that selective enforcement can be brought to bear on Bad People.

            2. No one likely ever will change behavior. But I think that’s the point. They don’t want men to stop sleeping with women, they want men to feel like they’re rapists because they slept with women, and they want the women to be pissed off and bitter about it; you know, so they’re ready for Hillary.

              A hostage taker doesn’t like having a gun because he wants to shoot you; he likes having a gun because he wants you to know that he can shoot you any time he wants; that’s what laws like this are, a weapon to be used at one’d discretion, and the knowledge that you can use it gives you power over those you can use it against, regardless of whether you ever actually use it at all.

              1. That analogy is perfect!

                The only flaw I see with your post is trying to imagine just how bitter and pissed off I would have to be to be ‘ready for Hillary’.

            3. will be rare enough that I doubt it will change behavior much at all.

              I suspect it will turn what used to be casual encounters into a roulette wheel of dire consequences. This is enabling borderline personality people everywhere to turn what was previously a set of annoying personality traits into dangerously empowered predators who can reap huge amounts of attention and seriously ruin other people’s lives.

              Years ago, Jackie would have just been an annoying bitch that smart boys would have ignored. Now she’s a household name and laid waste to the reputations of many people, including the journalistic integrity of a magazine reporter.

              Of course in the latter case, that’s ederly’s own fault, but hopefully she’s learned an important lesson about being manipulated by sick, serial attention-getters.

      2. They’ve stopped nothing, merely set up a system for selectively and capriciously punishing men. Which was the point from the beginning.

  9. Do private colleges receive student finsncisl directly or is it going through the student? If it is the latter, that should not be the camel’s nose under the tent, as the aid is the student’s money.

  10. “Found Guilty” by whom?
    .
    The kangaroos?

  11. I’ll support mandatory lifetime suspensions for sexual assault provided they’re found guilty in a criminal court and not merely expelled by the university at the behest of a jilted lover.

  12. In California, a new bill would require colleges and universities to impose a mandatory minimum sentence for campus sexual assault: two years school suspension.

    “rape” “sexual assault”

    In the purview of the anal retentive consent mania, these terms have become meaningless.

    1. Warty can rape you with his eyes.

      1. So you’re saying he’s cockeyed, then?

  13. Williams proposal seems well-intentioned but misguided

    Those are the bestiest kind of laws.

    1. “For three minutes during our tryst I felt agreeable but not what I’d call enthusiastic about what he was doing with his tongue. Everything else was fine, but two years seems like an suitable tradeoff for those three minutes.”

  14. I’m starting to realize the U.S. Constitution was mostly an accident.

    1. It wasn’t an accident. It was a mistake.

      -lefty civics professors, probably

      1. No, it was no mistake. It was a deliberately crafted device to ensconce cis white male privilege and to marginalize the disempowered while disempowering the marginalized.

  15. The fucking war of the red cups. Woodson pretends to be sex-positive but she fucking over-simplifies the sexual looseness of drunken socializing as an environment where decisions can be made with mathematical precision and where women are to be treated as distinct from men because of their organic vulnerabilities. Capitulation under the influence is a female thing and as such she is rendered victim automatically in the party environment which makes determining assault or misconduct remarkably tricky no matter what Woodson blithely claims otherwise. The result? The state is creating a legalized method for male auto-removal on college campuses with this mandatory minimum tripe.

    The rape hysteria has unhinged the power of the sexually offended, guilty, or slighted and is offering the Triggered creative options for reprisal against misconduct which cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    1. Excellent. See my comment above about the Rise of the Borderline Personality.

  16. …shouldn’t we care about people they could victimize off campus too?

    Don’t be absurd. If they were real women, they would be at college, taking classes in women’s studies so they could understand how oppressed they really are in being allowed to study for advanced degrees.

    Besides, only the “victim” matters and her “healing.” It’s patriarchal and sexist to suggest that the holy and sainted victim has any duty to others to get a rapist off the streets.

  17. So, is it safe to say now that it is no longer in doubt that mainstream feminists want men out of the universities. Under affirmative consent, all sexual interaction can be construed as sexual assault by both parties, and since we know that only means men, taken together with this law, means every man on campus who isn’t completely sexually inactive is now eligible to be suspended for two years; and soon I’m sure they’ll change it to expulsion.

    All they need to do is start convincing women to report all their ex-boyfriends or hook ups for having so much as touched them and they can start railroading men off campus wholesale.

    And the in a few years that insipid twat Maureen Dowd can come out with a new book about how stupid men are for not getting degrees in the same proportion as women.

    1. Her book will also lament how boring men have become because they are in constant fear of raping someone.

    2. It appears my choice to not attend university was decades before its time.

  18. When laws like this have succeeded in producing a generation of Eunuchs, women will get bored. Then what?

    1. I don’t know if they’ll do that.

      The more likely scenario is that in defining everything as “rape”, rape will cease to be a particularly terrible accusation, especially in the minds of men, who (with the expansive definition favored by campus feminists) will come to see it mainly as some bullshit women use to fuck with them and their friends.

      Actual rape will still feel just as bad for women, however, making it a useful tool for control. Some men will use it in this fashion, and there won’t be any way for women to explain why it’s so bad because “feminists” functionally removed the word for true rape from the language by watering it down so much. Since they would need buy-in from men to actually stop it, and lack the language necessary to communicate their problem, it will result in a gradual return of old-school patriarchy; reversion back to the 50’s, if not to Saudi Arabia.

      1. Alternatively, everyone realizes how retarded feminists are and stops paying attention to them and shit goes back to normal.

  19. Just wait till your mere attendance or presence outrages and ‘triggers’ someone. Then they will kick you out.

  20. Even without the article’s concluding sentence, many can tell you that the war on drugs has been replaced with the war on sex.

    This is what I want to know: in this statement, “Bill would require schools to impose a minimum two year suspension on students found guilty of sexual assault,” is “guilty of sexual assault” guilty as in a finding in a court of law following an arrest, a charge, and a conviction or plea agreement, or is it guilty as in something handled strictly on campus? If the former, in some of the cases the guilty person will be in prison for a period of time, and suspension from college will be somewhat less important in his overall scheme of things. If the later, which I fear, this is shaping up to be an even greater travesty of justice than mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

  21. idiots!!! Rape is rape, and is a serious crime. Schools do not have legal authority to be holding trials OR executing any form of punishment. That is the place of the criminal court system.

  22. Further, how does one define ‘convicted’? In a court of law or by a university kangaroo court?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.