Minnesota football team ends boycott over sexual assault case
Minnesota's university football team have reversed a pledge to boycott games over the suspension of 10 players over an alleged sexual assault.
The team had threatened not to play until the school authorities gave "satisfactory answers".
The university earlier suspended the 10 players without providing any reasons, following an internal inquiry. ( Read more... )
The team had threatened not to play until the school authorities gave "satisfactory answers".
The university earlier suspended the 10 players without providing any reasons, following an internal inquiry. ( Read more... )
They don't decide whether they go to jail (criminal) or even have to pay money to the victim (civil). They decide what punishments in school such as suspensions or expulsion they should or should not get. They're deciding whether there was a violation of the school's code of conduct, not whether there was a crime. The courts cannot decide this, they have no jurisdiction over it. Even if a court were to find all of them guilty, they could not force the school to expel any of them. In other words, this hearing would happen whether or not there was a criminal investigation and could still happen even if a prosecutor decline to prosecute. Which is good thing.
The problem is that schools have no obligation to report incidences of crime on campuses, but that's irrelevant as to whether there should be a hearing on the accused's status at the school.
EDT: Honestly, I'm surprised the victim wasn't ~encouraged to drop it. Frankly, this is amazing that it's happening at all, and the school should be give a "minimum obligation to address bullshit at your school" badge. And hopefully, somebody got these idiots together on sexual assault and why they willingness to boycott something like due process is shitty, dumb ass mfs.
Reply
schools have no obligation to report incidences of crime on campuses
this I do have a problem with and honestly not reporting it should make them accessory after the fact or something if there was a crime.
And hopefully, somebody got these idiots together on sexual assault and why they willingness to boycott something like due process is shitty, dumb ass mfs.
I'm annoyed the courts aren't trying it because now we'll never know what really happened. Most of the schools hearing will be sealed, as they often are, and no matter how it turns out there will be finger pointing with no public evidence. Just annoying.
Reply
But.
People who want sexual assaults reported to the police very clearly either do not know or are not thinking of the effect this will have on the victim. Suffice it to say that the criminal justice system can be extremely traumatic to victims, just in the investigation phase, let alone the trial phase, and that should not be sprung on them (because once it is sprung the victim has no control) because a college doesn't want to get cited.
Which is to say, although it is infuriating how self-serving school can be when safeguarding their reputation as "safe", this isn't a situation in which it is solely ethical to ignore the desire and wants of the victim, and I don't think anyone's desire to know what's going on should necessarily trump a victim's desire for an option less harmful to them.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm honestly not sure why but I just don't like the idea of a private group investing a crime of this type.
Reply
Who do you think both gets the evidence for a grand jury and presents it, frames it, to a grand jury? Do you really think DA's don't get the result they were going to advise anyway from a grand jury, which DAs mostly use to cover their asses? Do you think they're public (they are not)? I think you need more information about how the justice system actually works, because that's not even going into logistical problems (i.e. people do not want to miss their salary for months).
Anyway, maybe it would help if you didn't think of it as whether they were investigating a crime? Because they're not. If sexual assault wasn't a crime, and frankly certain assaults aren't, they'd still have to decide whether the action violated their code of conduct. And I don't get how this is, evidence wise, different than them investigating fights, also crimes. Especially since they didn't use to investigate and the person who would have to drop out of school would be the victim. Like, I'm really victim-focused so your perspective is odd to me.
Reply
If sexual assault wasn't a crime, and frankly certain assaults aren't, they'd still have to decide whether the action violated their code of conduct.
But sexual assault is a crime so even if they aren't a criminal court they are still looking into a crime. And for things that aren't crimes I don't mind.
And I don't get how this is, evidence wise, different than them investigating fights, also crimes.
And if charges are pressed it should be the police and courts investigating not the school. If no charges are pressed it's not a crime (not all fights are)
Reply
You could have done a quick wiki to see that wasn't the case, lmao. Grand juries are secret, literally only the witnesses are allowed to speak up. And no, there are rarely any laws or rules about information (some state requires actually exculpatory info, but not all, and the prosecution doesn't have to present what it didn't look for), except that it doesn't follow the rules of evidence and none of the witnesses have a right to a lawyer, lmao. Like, again, it's probably a good idea to do some research before you speak so confidently.
But sexual assault is a crime so even if they aren't a criminal court they are still looking into a crime. And for things that aren't crimes I don't mind.
So if in 1989 a woman was raped by her husband, you'd be okay with the college deciding whether he should continue to go to the school, but if it was a stranger, that woman is out of luck getting her rapist off campus? Ngl, that's a despicable distinction to me. Does this go for any private institution? You don't think people should get their job to investigate whether they should fire another employee who's stalking them either?
If no charges are pressed it's not a crime (not all fights are)
This is nonsense. But to engage, are you saying that if charges are pressed, but say the dude pleads out with probation, the victim shouldn't have any recourse in getting her rapist off-campus? He should be able to legally harass her because the school shouldn't do anything?
Reply
not once the case is over and they are released, then like any jury they are free to speak. and yes I did research which is why I like them making the choice far more than the DA making all on their own. At no point did I say it was perfect because nothing is but a group of people talking it is better and I stand by it.
You don't think people should get their job to investigate whether they should fire another employee who's stalking them either?
I'm honestly not sure what you are asking here but stalking is a crime.
but say the dude pleads out with probation
Then dude pleaded to a crime and if the school feels the crime was enough to have dude removed I'm cool with that because they aren't investing, someone else did that, the school is responding to results.
He should be able to legally harass her because the school shouldn't do anything?
If the rapist is harassing someone there are legal actions that person can take because as far am I'm aware in the US true harassment isn't legal. Stalking and Menacing can also be used if those laws are broken. Once more it's not the school that decides if the acts were done, only what to do once the public decided the act was done.
Reply
So receipts: what told you otherwise? Because you are literally wrong.
Yes, stalking is a crime. So what you're saying is that a victim cannot ask their employee to investigate whether another employee is stalking them while on the job without going to the police? An employer shouldn't be able to do anything about their employee's behavior without police approval? They can see the behavior, but until the police say "wow that's a crime" they can't do anything about it?
I see you didn't answer my question about marital rape, which wasn't a crime everywhere before 1990, versus stranger rape. That didn't escape my notice. Are you going to address it or nah? What philosophical virtue is there for the school to be able to address one but not the other?
Then dude pleaded to a crime and if the school feels the crime was enough to have dude removed I'm cool with that because they aren't investing, someone else did that, the school is responding to results.
Nope, pleas do not require investigations at all. In fact the DA can have only the barest of probable cause, like the arrest complaint itself and ~convince a person to plea, including btw threatening a family member. So, on the flip side of the original hypothetical, it's okay with you if the school takes that pressured plea as a reason to kick the dude out and shouldn't do any investigation or have any hearing themselves? They should take the word of the justice system you just yourself said was flawed and untrustworthy?
I said legally harass because, as I said before, not all colloquial definitions actions which cause harm are illegal, and that includes harassment. Those crimes all require either contact and/or the threat of physical harm, so just showing up near someone at public events wouldn't apply. So you're saying that if the no charge is made (which doesn't always happen because something isn't a crime, which is what you ludicrously said above, but sometimes because the standard of proof to cross isn't worth taxpayer money), the victim has to deal with her rapist showing up wherever she's at. You're cool with that abuse, because the police didn't do anything?
Reply
So every time I read an article or book or watch a new interview of a jurier they are breaking the law? Something really needs to be done about that then. Then I will admit I was wrong about that. 12 people making a decision rather than 1 is still better.
Given that 1990 was over 25 years ago I choose to ignore it because it doesn't matter. I'll deal with that the law is or should be, not what was it and never should have been.
So, on the flip side of the original hypothetical, it's okay with you if the school takes that pressured plea as a reason to kick the dude out and shouldn't do any investigation or have any hearing themselves?
If they plead guilty to rape than yes. The school can assume they did it as the person said they did.
They should take the word of the justice system you just yourself said was flawed and untrustworthy?
I did say flawed but I never said untrustworthy. I trust the system just fine. I would trust it more if it made some changes yes but I find it works far more often than it doesn't so it is reliably now.
but sometimes because the standard of proof to cross isn't worth taxpayer money investigating and dealing with a crime is always worth the money to me, this is one of the things I'd like to see changed.
the victim has to deal with her rapist showing up wherever she's at. You're cool with that abuse, because the police didn't do anything?
The problem I have with this statement is even if the student is removed from the school they can still cross paths other places so if there is not pattern, and no contact then I say it's life, it happens. I know you won't agree with it but if there is no crime (and if there is a crime the police and courts should deal with it no matter the cost) there should be no limits on anyone's rights.
Reply
Petit juries (trial 6-12 people) and grand juries (indictment usually 16-23 people) are two different things. The ones with books and interviews are from petit (trial) juries, who can say whatever afterwards. Also, I find it kinda shitty that you tried to clown me that you had done research. Yes you are wrong, and no it's not okay to try to keep the high ground with bullshit. Wrong and strong folks, i swear to god.
never should have been.
That is my point. It does matter because plenty of laws exist now with that same problem. And there are still actions of rape that aren't on the book. You're refusal to deal with the hypothetical is unreasonable. But if it helps...substitute marital rape with rape because of fraud (i.e. you pretend to be the victim's SO in the dark to sleep with them), which is not illegal now, in everywhere but CA. Can you answer that? Again, what the is philosophical virtue of being able to handle rape because of fraud but not stranger rape?
I never said untrustworthy.
You said you wouldn't trust a DA to decide the grounds for indictment. Since that's the system, that's you saying the system is untrustworthy.
investigating and dealing with a crime is always worth the money to me, this is one of the things I'd like to see changed.
There isn't enough money or resources for that. You couldn't get it changed unless a)conscripted people into both the police force and DA and public defenders and b) shuttled all tax money to the justice department. You are the one who said you wanted to deal with that the law isand yet you consistently refuse to. Anyway, are you white and in America? Because lol at the justice system "working reliably." when you a) don't seem to know shit about it besides what you see on tv which means your judgment on reliability has no valid evidentiary basis and b) there is plenty of evidence that it is not working reliably if you would like do actual research.
if there is no crime (and if there is a crime the police and courts should deal with it no matter the cost) there should be no limits on anyone's rights.
I mean yeah, I have a problem because your reasoning isn't logically consistent at best, even without the utter callousness to victims coupled with little accurate knowledge of what you're talking about:
If you don't believe rights should be abrogated, then there's no problem, because higher education at a specific institution is not a right. You should have no problem with a university investigation because they aren't taking away anything the accused has a right to.
However, you said you don't care if they investigate things that aren't crimes, which suggest that you concede that universities have a right to determine appropriate behavior on campus, which suggest that you don't in fact believe that education at a specific institution is a right, because otherwise you'd have said that universities can only kick people out if they've committed a crime. And again, you could not possibly tell me one philosophical reason for universities to treat crime and not-crime different when the potential outcome, expulsion, is the same, regardless of whether you believe higher education at a specific place is a right or not. If they can expel someone for something that doesn't rise to the level of crime, it's patently ridiculous to suggest that something more serious of out of their hands.
You're not using any logic. Therein lies my problem.
Reply
Can you answer that? Again, what the is philosophical virtue of being able to handle rape because of fraud but not stranger rape?
Okay here is an answers. No the schools shouldn't be dealing with it because it should be a crime, that isn't not is what needs to change.
As for trust I went back and looked at my statement and I can see how you took it to mean I don't trust them at all, when I said 'the DA not so much' I meant that it leaves room for doubt and questions. Sorry for not being more clear.
I believe more money should be put into the system yes, better pay and cleaning up pointless lesser laws will go a long way to dealing with problem the justice system and yes there are thousands of times it fails, but there are also thousands more times it doesn't so I believe it works more than it doesn't. And yes I am white and in the US. I also never claimed to be a legal expert. This whole conversation started because I stated I didn't like something, that was it.
Education beyond k-12 isn't a right, the right go do to any public, or open to the public, location is. And I never said Schools can't remove someone for committing a crime (as private organization they can remove anyone they like as long as they aren't breaking discrimination or similar laws), just that they shouldn't be deciding if the crime happened (which should be the domain of the courts), those are two very different things.
If they can expel someone for something that doesn't rise to the level of crime, it's patently ridiculous to suggest that something more serious of out of their hands.
It's not out of there hands to expel them and I didn't believe I never say it was, it's out of their hands to decide if the crime happened. Once the crime has been confirmed to have happened by the courts they can act as they see fit but it's not on them to confirm it happened.
Reply
The problem is that I'm extremely skeptical your reasoning is backed up with anything evidentiary. But since that's the case, and since even taking you at your word would not clear up the logical inconsistencies in your position, that's neither here nor there.
that isn't not is what needs to change
Okay, but frankly you have to deal with the now. The now is that it isn't a crime. The now is that that might not change for years. So now what is the philosophical virtue of treating them differently?
I meant that it leaves room for doubt and questions.
You were clear, it's just that the implication of your words, both here and in your previous comments is that the current system is untrustworthy (not trustworthy enough to replace with a completely different system means not trustworthy).
yes I am white and in the US.
Okay, this is where I gently says that your privilege may be blinding you to the systemic faults of the system and I greatly encourage you to broaden your understanding. If you want something specific on the racial inequities then I suggest starting with The New Jim Crow, it's a good primer. But there is no balance with the system between what it gets right and wrong. It mirrors the problems of society's oppression and simply cannot be said to "work more than it doesn't," without suggesting the oppression it manifests is justified. And no offense, but this isn't about being a legal expert. It's about being receptive when someone tells you have holes of knowledge which is reflected in your reasoning.
the right go do to any public, or open to the public, location is
Nope that's not a right either. And even if it was, what you're saying is that private colleges should have more control than public ones. Again, what is the philosophical virtue of treating those places differently, especially when your note implicated private groups in your disapprobation also, which suggests that you don't want them treated differently?
it's out of their hands to decide if the crime happened
They're not deciding whether a crime (i.e. rape) happened. They're deciding whether a violation of the code of conduct (i.e gross disrespect) happened. Because they are not defining their code violations necessarily as the definition of the state's criminal code, you can't even say that the code violation which involve things that could be crime are them deciding crimes. Is there a reason you can't see the difference?
Reply
I need evidence to show why I think 12 people from the general public are less likely to decline to prosecute someone (or a team of someone) than a single DA who has to worry about keeping his job? I have no idea what evidence I'd show.
The now is that that might not change for years. So now what is the philosophical virtue of treating them differently? and what I want (courts dealing with it and not schools) isn't now either so if one is changes the other would need to change too. I see no problem with thinking both need to change.
You were clear, it's just that the implication of your words, both here and in your previous comments is that the current system is untrustworthy (not trustworthy enough to replace with a completely different system means not trustworthy).
I guess I'm giving the wrong implications. It's not a completely different system I want. A grand jury are already a part of the system, I just want them used more to improve the system.
Okay, this is where I gently says that your privilege may be blinding you to the systemic faults of the system and I greatly encourage you to broaden your understanding.
I'm not blind to it's faults. I know the system has problems but I also believe that most (but not all) of the problems are down to the people in the system and not the system itself.
It's about being receptive when someone tells you have holes of knowledge which is reflected in your reasoning.
Which is the point of conversation and discussion, to both clarify and learn.
And even if it was, what you're saying is that private colleges should have more control than public ones. Again, what is the philosophical virtue of treating those places differently, especially when your note implicated private groups in your disapprobation also, which suggests that you don't want them treated differently?
I do believe that we have the right to go and be in any open public place. I don't think anyone but the police and courts should be investing crimes.
A private collage is a fully private organization, of course they have more control over themselves than a government supported/owned one. Public control always comes with more rules.
Is there a reason you can't see the difference?
They call it a different thing but are they or are they not trying to determine if person a raped person b? If they are, I don't care if they call it something different it's still a crime they're looking into. If they are in fact looking for something else altogether then okay they can investigate.
So, what it is they are actually trying to find out because I was under the impression it's whether or not the players had sex with a fellow students without her consent which is a crime to my knowledge.
Reply
Leave a comment