Sex

Campus Rape Trial Violated Rights of Accused Male Student, Judge Rules

Score one for due process

|

UCSD
Coolcaesar / Wikimedia Commons

A male student accused of sexual assault and suspended from the University of California at San Diego was subjected to a manifestly unfair adjudication process, a superior court judge ruled on Friday.

The decision supports the assertions of John Doe, who said he was not allowed to cross-examine his accuser and had his punishment increased by the university after he appealed the results of its farcical extrajudicial court.

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:

This case, Doe v. Regents of the University of California, San Diego, was filed after the university found the petitioner, pseudonymously known as John Doe, responsible for sexual assault after a hearing in December of 2014. Doe was initially suspended for one quarter, subjected to a permanent no-contact order with the complainant, ordered to attend a two-hour sex offense/sexual harassment training, and required to submit to a counseling assessment. Without any explanation, on appeal, his penalty was increased to a suspension for a full year, which required him to reapply to be readmitted. In addition, he was placed on non-academic probation and ordered to attend ethics workshops.

The court ordered UCSD to set aside its factual findings and sanctions because the procedures UCSD used in Doe's case violated his due process rights in several significant respects.

It's easy to see that Doe's due process rights were indeed violated in several key ways. He was not allowed to challenge his accuser, Jane Roe, during the hearing. Nor was he given access to a report on the accusation that had been prepared by the university's Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination. And when Doe declined to answer certain questions about the alleged assault—pursuant to his Fifth Amendment rights—the panel counted this as evidence of his guilt.

Later, Dean of Student Affairs Mallory Dean arbitrarily increased Doe's term of suspension from a quarter to an entire year. In his decision to overturn the university's findings, San Diego Superior Court Judge Joel Pressman wrote:

Nowhere in Dean Mallory's email to [Doe] does she indicate the reasoning behind the increased sanctions," Pressman wrote. "… It appears the increased sanctions are punitive towards [Doe] for appealing the decision of the panel."

The incident in question concerned a series of sexual encounters between Doe and Roe. According to The Washington Post:

John Doe and Jane Roe — students of the University of California at San Diego referred to in court documents by these pseudonyms — had a number of sexual encounters in early 2014 when they were both undergraduates. Some were consensual; some allegedly were not. In June, Roe complained about Doe to the university, alleging assault as well as retaliation. Doe was found responsible by the university for digitally penetrating Roe the day after they had allegedly had sex for the first time.

While Pressman noted that Roe's credibility wasn't the issue here, he was nevertheless skeptical that she would later consent to sex with Doe just hours after he had allegedly raped her. He speculated that Roe's regrets about having engaged in an ongoing sexual relationship with Doe, in violation of her Mormon faith, might have played a role in her decision to accuse him.

But whether or not Doe assaulted Roe, everyone is entitled to a fair trial—even accused college rapists. Doe was clearly denied an adjudication process that comports with accepted due process requirements. It's unclear if Pressman's decision will have any broader implications—and UCSD could still appeal his decision—but the outcome is certainly a welcome one for supporters of basic fairness in campus rape disputes.

Advertisement

NEXT: What the 1970 Baseball All-Star Game Can Teach Us About Media Literacy

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. So – rape culture wins again.

    *sighs*

  2. Doe was found responsible by the university for digitally penetrating Roe the day after they had allegedly had sex for the first time.

    Who hasn’t done that?

    1. He stuck his finger in her ear canal?

      1. +1 wet willy

      2. Who doesn’t like a little getting a little aural sex?

    2. You mean he was putting numbers in her body? The monster!

      1. He created an animated GIF.

      2. Yes, bit for bit.

      3. And here I was thinking the guy just hacked her computer.

      4. Was that done in binary or hexadecimal? Or did he settle for plain old decimal? It could have been octal. Kinky.

    3. digital penetration = fingerbang?

      I, for one, welcome our shitty cyberpunk future.

      1. digital penetration = fingerbang?

        yes

    4. Digital penetration is superior to analog penetration.

  3. Dude process is inherently sexist and has no place in social justice.

    1. Paging Dr. Freud…or was “dude process” intentional?

      1. Intentional, of course. So is drone process.

    2. Shriek was right, you ARE just a John sockpuppet!

      1. Did he say that? He is an idiot, even for a faked-up troll-sock.

  4. Male judge. Figures. Frickin’ patriarchy protects its own.

    *sarcasm*

  5. John Doe and Jane Roe ? students of the University of California at San Diego referred to in court documents by these pseudonyms ? had a number of sexual encounters in early 2014 when they were both undergraduates. Some were consensual; some allegedly were not. In June, Roe complained about Doe to the university, alleging assault as well as retaliation. Doe was found responsible by the university for digitally penetrating Roe the day after they had allegedly had sex for the first time.

    So, to put this on a timeline:

    (1) They fuck.
    (2) The next day, he rapes her.
    (3) They keep fucking for awhile after that.

    Sorry, gang, but if you claim somebody raped you, I can’t square that with you continuing to fuck them, consensually, afterwards.

    1. (2) The next day, he rapes her.

      Digital penetration

      1. It could mean that Jane Roe happened to go through a TSA checkpoint that John Doe was working.

        In that case I hope he gets the chair.

        1. Amen!

      2. Digital penetration can be rape. Just because a lot these bitches are counting “I said ‘stop’ and he did” or “I rode him like it was the Kentucky Derby but he forgot to obtain my written consent ahead of time” as rape doesn’t mean rape can’t happen. I know its easy to get jaded, but you’ll only give them ammo to convert new followers if you don’t separate their idiocy from the real crime.

        1. Digital penetration can be rape.

          Sexual assault yes, rape no.

          1. Sexual assault yes maybe, rape no.

            FIFY

          2. Well, that totally changes the analysis.

            So, to put this on a timeline:

            (1) They fuck.
            (2) The next day, he sexually assaults her.
            (3) They keep fucking for awhile after that.

            Sorry, gang, but if you claim somebody sexually assaulted you, I can’t square that with you continuing to fuck them, consensually, afterwards.

          3. Alright, we’ve got a definition problem here. Do you define the following as rape or sexual assault (Assume objections are made to the act in each instance, and that they are ignored):

            1.) Being tied down and fisted against your will.
            2.) Being repeatedly penetrated with an object like a broom handle against your will.
            3.) Same as two except with an obviously sexual object like a dildo.
            4.) Being forced to perform oral sex on a man.
            5.) Being forced to perform oral sex on a woman.
            6.) Having oral sex forcibly performed on you.
            7.) Being forced into penis in vagina sex as the male party (you can imagine she has a gun if it makes the scenario easier).

            1. 7.) Being forced into penis in vagina sex as the male party (you can imagine she has a gun if it makes the scenario easier).

              Actually, it makes it harder.

              1. “The spirit is scared and the flesh is floppy and underengorged.”

              2. Then imagine something else. The point is if whatever the commenter considers normal vanilla no question about it rape is still rape with the genders switched.

                1. Not if they fuck afterwards.

              3. *narrows gaze*

              4. if she has a gun that makes it harder? forget Viagra!

              5. Really? A gun makes it harder? That’s an odd fetish you have… oh wait.

            2. The biggest problem is activist who want to eliminate bad behavior by equating all bad behavior with the worst possible behavior.

              All rape is sexual assault; not all sexual assault is rape. And typing that doesn’t mean that sexual assault isn’t a serious crime.

              1. Never said sexual assault wasn’t bad. Said we obviously have different definitions going on, and the first rule of any discussion is define your terms.

                1. the first rule of any discussion is define your terms.

                  Unless there’s evidence an actual crime happened, rape vs. assault is moot.

                  Once a crime has happened, the definition is kinda superfluous relative to the execution of justice.

                  And what kinnath said. I was fingered! =/= I was raped!

                2. I generally thought the conventional definition of rape meant forced anal or vaginal sex. For egalitarian purposes, this would mean if either gender forces the other gender to have sex, anally or vaginally.

                  Other things would constitute sexual assault. Mind you, though rape may generally be worse than sexual assault, it is not necessarily so. There are certain kinds of sexual assault involving certain inanimate objects that I imagine most people would find more heinous than forced sex.

                  This is contrasted with the feminist definition of rape, which I’m pretty sure includes sticking your finger in a woman’s mouth. But still somehow excludes a woman forcing a man to have sex with her, as it were.

            3. Alright, we’ve got a definition problem here.

              No, you’ve got a due process problem.

            4. 1.) illegal detention / sexual assault.
              2.) sexual assault.
              3.) sexual assault.
              4.) Sodomy.
              5.) Sodomy.
              6.) Sodomy.
              7.) rape / assault with a deadly weapon or possibly terroristic threats.

    2. I dunno RC, maybe he didn’t wash his hands after using the bathroom.

      1. Or untrimmed fingernails. That can be quite unpleasant.

        1. Says You!

    3. You missed:

      (4) Doe impregnates Roe with fetus Wade
      (5) Roe aborts fetus Wade in a war called Roe v Wade

  6. This process baffles me. When one of these college guys gets expelled for mere accusations, one of two situations results: either an innocent man is punished for no reason, or an actual rapist gets away with his crime and is free to continue raping elsewhere. Seriously, who is this system intended to benefit?

    1. The school and the accuser.

      The school can avoid liability for attacks because the system, if nothing else, will railroad out the violent rapists along with the innocent.

      For accusers, it’s a great deal to get rid of unwanted boys.

      1. So, it doesn’t matter if actual rapists go free since he’ll be preying on non-college girls? How does that help anyone but the rapist?

        1. The rapist did get kicked out of school; presumably he didn’t want that.

          1. No, an alleged rapist did. And if he’s actually guilty, I’m sure he’d prefer being expelled to being imprisoned. Again, this system punishes the innocent and gives actual sexual predators a pass. The result is the polar opposite of what the SJWs claim to want–to identify and punish rapists. I can’t fathom anyone supporting these kangaroo courts, but apparently people do.

            1. You do realize that I’m explaining who benefits from the policy, not tallying up all the costs and impacts, right?

              The guys who benefit are the school and the accusers.

              The guys who are harmed are the accused (whether innocent or guilty) who get expelled from the school they wish to attend.

              I doubt a bona fide rapist who would have been kicked out of school *and* been acquitted in a criminal trial is left significantly better off; the pool of rape victims may be different between the no-due-process and the due-process options, but he is just as likely to be caught when he rapes again as he would if he solely faced criminal prosecution.

              1. but he is just as likely to be caught when he rapes again as he would if he solely faced criminal prosecution.

                That’s my point, actual rapists are let off with a slap on the wrist and are free to rape again and victimize other women. I’d prefer they be prosecuted and put away so no one else gets assaulted. I guess Only College Rapes Matter…

            2. Let’s be real — cases are sent to the police when there is any actual evidence. These kangaroo courts are to punish the man when it is nothing more than a “he said she said” situation. Detectives ask questions and investigate circumstances, and the rape fairy tails these young woman are telling can’t stand up to that kind of scrutiny.

              1. And with all the fake accusations being exposed, I’m sure the police pursue these investigations with extreme skepticism.

                1. Maybe, maybe not. I would say some police are skeptical, others are crusaders.

              2. Crazyfingers commenting on a story about digital penetration. I smell a plant!

            3. You’re assuming that there is an actual rapist. In most of these false accusation cases, there is no rapist, so no one gets away with anything.

              Ironically, I think feminists know that rape is rare enough on college campuses that it is highly unlikely that they will actually get ‘the wrong guy’ and let the ‘right’ one go. That’s why they don’t want to turn sex crimes over to the police: because in most cases that wouldn’t go to the police, it’s because no actual crime was committed, The college courts are effectively a form of extrajudicial punishment. It’s an opportunity to punish men for things that aren’t actually illegal and shouldn’t be, or for things that may be illegal but for which there isn’t sufficient evidence they are guilty.

        2. SJWs love it. Rape is good for their business, which is why they’re always looking to increase, rather than decrease, rape.

    2. The victimhood industry.

    3. Womyn.

    4. Thank you, Antilles. This is exactly what I don’t get about the process as well.

      Trivializing a violent crime, rape, by meting out school suspension as punishment is baffling, but the budding Jack the Ripper gets to continue his favorite pass time!

      Expelling a young man from college on trumped up charges is just a correct response to teh patriarchy, though. I wonder if there is a correlation between this sort of treatment of young men and the documented disinterest in marriage now in vogue?

  7. Huh, maybe this start turning the tide on campus hysterics. If we’re lucky in twenty years time we’ll look back on this decade the same way we did the satanistic daycares.

    1. I really miss the Satanic Daycares. They were so very good at training top-notch monocle polishers.

        1. My only problem with Satanists was the lice.

    2. Optimistic, but I doubt it. More likely we’ll look back on pre-rape hysteria times the way we will forever fondly reminisce about pre-9/11 air travel. But there’s no going back 🙁

  8. “Dean of Student Affairs Mallory Dean”–Really??

    But then in the court ruling: “Nowhere in Dean Mallory’s email…”

    So is it Dean Mallory? Dean Dean? Mallory Dean?

    Or shoud I just stick to Bitch, Queen of the Woodchipper Excrement?

    1. Dean Martin or Dean Smith would also work

      1. Dean Wormer? (Sexual innuendo intentional)

  9. Doe was found responsible by the university for digitally penetrating Roe the day after they had allegedly had sex for the first time.

    Doe is Cartman!

  10. Due Process or “Dude Process”? amirite?!

    1. I made that joke and people asked whether it was accidental. Humor is dying in America.

      1. sorry about that. I scanned for due, not dude… Humor is dead. I’m helping craft the job description for my replacement and i’m working HARD to get them to put a sense of humor in the required traits.

        1. There’s also lewd process.

          1. Or for evaluating accusations of race-based discrimination: hue process.

        2. Well I know the process can be difficult but keep a stiff upper lip

  11. Seldom asked is the question of why the hell are universities administering criminal justice? If a Wal-Mart employee accuses another employee of rape, is this criminal justice matter handled by the shift supervisor?

    1. ^^THIS!!

    2. I ask it every time.

    3. maybe it should be.

    4. Because the Universities imagine that they are something other than (and more important than) one more business. They think of themselves are Arbiters of Social Justice. AND they think that their fashion-driven notions of justice will stand up over time better than the tradition of English Common Law.

      The problem being that too many college campuses have filled up with political activist hobbyists, and that scholarship can go hang.

      The Justice system in the United States is far from perfect, but THESE idiots make it look positively Solomonic.

    5. they’re being forced by the Obama Regime to increase the expulsions of males.

    6. Why are universities administering criminal justice?

      Simple. They aren’t hampered by these goofy rights given to the accused. In the actual justice system, there is a chance that the accused will be found innocent. Colleges don’t have to worry about that. They severely limit the accused’s ability to defend himself and then they find him guilty. Then they don’t have have to worry about the bad press associated with an accused rapist being found innocent.

      The actual guilt of the accused is irrelevant in this PR war.

    7. It’s the “shaft” supervisor.

  12. Just playing Devil’s Advocate:
    I do understand that this is a public university, which does muddy the waters. However, due process is for criminal proceedings. This was not a criminal trial. The University system did not put Doe in jail, nor try to fine him. Further, the 5th Amendment only protects individuals from government coercion. Your boss can ask you any question he wants regarding improper behavior at work. He can’t force you to say anything, but he can fire you.

    Understand, I fucking hate this bullshit just as much as anyone. But, wanted to throw this out there for discussion and clarity.

    1. What, you don’t think tuition paid for an education not received doesn’t amount to a fine?

      1. Fair point if he is kicked out during the semester he already paid for. However, suspending him for subsequent semesters he hasn’t already paid for wouldn’t count.

        1. Depends on what the charter/handbook says.

          I’m sure there’s some shit in there about equality and respecting free speech.

          You don’t take public money and then just exclude people because you feel like it.

          1. Not so sure a handbook is a legal contract. Courts are probably divided on the issue, depending on what is convenient for their argument on any given day.

            1. I’m sure it does come down to a judge, but if the handbook isn’t a contract, what’s the point? You’d just make up rules and have written policy that would deceive… everybody.

              Unless your employee handbook specifically states that it is not a legally binding contract, it’s considered to be part of the employment agreement.

        2. However, suspending him for subsequent semesters he hasn’t already paid for wouldn’t count.

          Not so sure about that. As a currently enrolled student, he has more of a claim on enrollment in future semesters than someone not enrolled.

          In fact, that’s why they retaliated against his appeal by extending his suspension.

    2. Your boss at work isn’t mandated to apply a Title IX justice regime on a preponderance of evidence standard however.

      1. ^^^^ This

        The university is enforcing a federal law and using guidelines provided by the fedgov.

        Even if you ignore the fact that the school is a state actor itself, it’s acting as the (enthusiastic) puppet of another one.

      2. Not yet anyway.

        1. It’s on Hillary’s todo list I’m sure.

          1. Did you mean “doodoo?”

    3. By your argument, any government agency can do pretty much anything it wants to you so long as they are not imposing a jail sentence or a monetary fine.

      1. Except lay you off in order to cut their budget. That’s a ‘humanitarian crisis’, as the Greek fiasco has taught us.

    4. 1.) Public Universities have to respect constitutional rights of students in a way private don’t.
      2.) These proceedings are being mandated by the federal government. The fed requiring someone else to violate your constitutional rights is the same as doing it themselves.

      1. I so agree with you that since this is a public university, there are issues that are not present with a private university. But suppose Hillsdale (I know, this is ridiculous, but stay with me) instituted the same policy. We couldn’t really talk about violation of due process or 5th Amendment?

        Again does a person have a constitutional right to go to college?

        Of course, the problem, as usual, is the fedgov being involved in the first place.

        1. Hillsdale can choose to flip a coin every week and kick you out based on that. At least they should be allowed to.

          1. Should they also be able to kick you out because you’re black? Or have a stricter set of rules for blacks than whites? Perhaps they should have that right, but that’s never going to happen. But that’s more or less the case regarding rape cases and gender. The way I see it, ant-discrimination laws are there to stay, so we may as well at least make them apply them consistently. Of course that’s probably a pipe-dream to.

      2. Aren’t all private universities that accept federal grant money being forced to apply the Title IX standards as well?

        1. I believe so, but of course Hillsdale takes zero gov’t money.

    5. But haven’t the Proggies been saying that a college education is a right? Just like getting a gay wedding cake? And if a Christian bakery isn’t allowed to turn away gay customers, then why can a private college (that benefits from public infrastructure) turn away a paying customer (the accused student) and deny him his inalienable right to an education?

      1. Stop giving them ideas already!

      2. If he is a hetero white male he has no rights because slavery or genocide or something.

    6. I appreciate all your comments. I am most definitely NOT arguing against what the judge did. Nor do I in any way support these college kangaroo courts.

      1. Oh, but who am I supposed to heap all my disdain on until Tony shows up. It builds up over the course of the day since I’m not allowed to shout at my co-workers.

    7. It’s a taking, and you absolutely have due process rights for anything involving life, liberty, or property. They aren’t executing or imprisoning him, but they are taking away something he’s paid for (and has a legal right to), and, most importantly, they’re government.

      1. As I mentioned above, I agree that if he is kicked out mid-semester, yes it could be construed as a taking, especially since they are a public university.
        However, couldn’t this also be simply considered as violating school policy? And as such, they can kick him out. What if he was accused of cheating? Is the preponderance of evidence enough to be suspended or kicked out? Why would this be any different?

        1. Actually, it should be the same–because it is, in the end, the government doing the taking. However, one of the differences here is that there is a criminal justice system and civil courts to handle such things. One arm of the government is circumventing the systems that other arms operate, the latter with all (well, that’s overstating it) of the proper due process built in.

          Really, where we went wrong was letting government do anything beyond governing. It has no business being involved in education, business, etc.

          1. “Really, where we went wrong was letting government do anything beyond governing. It has no business being involved in education, business, etc.”

            On this we completely agree!

    8. No, due process applies to much more than just criminal proceedings. See Matthews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976).

    9. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, in relevant part that, “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

      This applies to the federal government

      The Fourteenth Amendment states, in relevant part that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

      This applies to the states.

      Conclusion: due process is required whenever the state or federal government is attempting to deprive you of life, liberty or property in any form, not just criminal trials.

      1. I guess the question would be, is an education technically property? I can imagine it could be. What’s an analogous case where a person purchases a service (or access to a good or service?) which can legally be taken away such as if the buyer commits a crime, but otherwise constitutes a civil violation?

  13. had a number of sexual encounters in early 2014 when they were both undergraduates. Some were consensual; some allegedly were not. In June, Roe complained about Doe…

    Let me guess. Doe dumped Roe around the end of the semester in May. Her revenge was swift and brutal.

  14. While Pressman noted that Roe’s credibility wasn’t the issue here, he was nevertheless skeptical that she would later consent to sex with Doe just hours after he had allegedly raped her.

    Um, okay.

    1. While Pressman noted that Roe’s credibility wasn’t the issue here,

      OK, technically, maybe not, in a case about the process the university imposed.

      However, the point of that process is to try to get at the truth, which means, evaluating the accusers credibility.

      1. However, the point of that process is to try to get at the truth

        You,don’t really believe that, do,you?

        1. Get at the truth to claw its eyes out.

        2. Due process? Fair hearings? Confronting accusers and witnesses?

          Sure.

          Kangaroo courts? Not so much.

  15. Dean Dean?

  16. My first attempted H&R link: Dear colleague letter

    1. Dear Secretary wierd name,

      Please read the Constitution then condense your inane ramblings into 1 coherent page.

      1. I think Orwell already condensed it for them – “Some animals (ones who make rape accusations) are more equal than others.”

        Or maybe:

        Vagina good!

        Penis Bad!

  17. “.. and had his punishment increased by the university after he appealed the results of its farcical extrajudicial court.”

    Talk about your kangaroo court. “What? How dare you appeal!”

  18. This is speculation on my part, but is is possible that these campus “courts” reflect the way the progs want the *real* courts to work?

    1. And to put on my tinfoil hat for a moment, could it be that they’re testing out their concepts of abbreviated, biased trials on the campuses before trying to bring them into the real-world courts?

      1. I don’t think they are testing anything.

        I think they want to strangle all forms of due process in the bathtub and are whenever they get their mitts on one, they immediately wrap their fingers around its throat and push it under the water.

        1. I don’t think they are testing anything.

          Yup. Less of a test, more of what would later be identified as “The First Phase”.

    2. No question about it, my Ukrainian Catholic friend.

      1. Wait, where did that come from?

        1. I mean, I’m an out and proud member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, but I don’t see the relevance to campus “courts.”

          1. WATCH MORE SIMPSONS NOOB!

            1. Wait…

              “Is there a chance this track would bend?” “Not on your life, my Hindu friend.”

              Did I get it?

              1. But “Ukrainian Catholic” doesn’t scan.

                1. And I don’t think I’ll watch *more* Simpson’s unless, by some miracle, they get good again.

                2. Well, you have to fit a square peg in a round hole from time to time.

                  1. That *would* be a sexual assault!

  19. the judge should have just said “Bros Before Hos” and slammed down the gavel…then walked out of the courtroom.

    1. Meh, he should have said, “Never stick it in crazy – and Mormon? are you fucking nuts?….”… given the guy an administrative warning (immediate suspension on further complaint), and told the kids to learn from their mistakes and grow the fuck up.

    2. If only we had the patriarchy the feminists twisted minds imagine we do! That would be the life.

      Once I learned how great males have it in China, I had a sadz for myself.

      I’m pretty sure the U.S. has to at least be in the top 10 places to be a woman but if you read jezebel you’d think we were Saudi Arabia.

      1. “Once I learned how great males have it in China”

        I thought there weren’t enough women in China?

        1. Only if you’re a peasant in the countryside. If you’re middle income or higher there’s plenty.

    3. When Donald Mountain Dew Trump is president, his judges will do just that!

  20. The worst thing about this is that, when the backlash comes (not if), actual instances of sexual assault will be doubted.

    For the record (because this one REALLY annoys me): you are not raped if you have sex with a random person after spending a night drinking at the bars. That’s call making a stupid decision when drunk and regretting it the next morning.

  21. “Nowhere in Dean Mallory’s email to [Doe] does she indicate the reasoning behind the increased sanctions”

    I would have thought that was obvious.

    BFYTW.

    Basically, the guy refused to bend over and take it like a man, so they increased his punishment.

    You WILL Respect My AUTHORITAH!

    9 times out of 10, that’s what it’s about. Submit, and they go easy on you. Try to assert your rights, and they’ll fuck you with a rusty pipe.

    It’s all about power.

    1. That’s actually backwards from the criminal justice system: admit you did the crime and they hammer you into oblivion, but if you deny it until the end you create reasonable doubt and get a lighter sentence, or plea deal. Seems like there must be a saner middle ground…

  22. Doe was found responsible by the university for digitally penetrating Roe

    Is that where you send someone an unsolicited dick pic?

    1. It’s when you ssh in by guessing the password. Not nice.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.