Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try thinking about it this way. What if someone accused you of a horrific crime which you did not commit? However, your name is plastered all over the media linking you to this terrible crime. However, charges are never pressed so you have no opportunity to defend yourself nor clear your name publicly from these charges.

That would completely suck. Your life is ruined. You've done nothing wrong and you have no way to change the outcome.

Try thinking about it this way: why are you identifying more with the possible rapist than with the possible rape victim? What are the consequences of assuming that rape charges are false?

Clearly, you don't have a son. No one here is "identifying more with the possible rapist than with the possible rape victim". Everyone wants to ses a rapist behind bars and to paint it otherwise is irresponsible and insulting. But if the standard can't simply be to point a finger and say "he did it," arrest him. There has got to be some kind of evidence. Whether it's the men in question admitting what they did, or actual physical evidence - which of course, there is none of since Jackie didn't go to the hospital. That's why it's so incredibly important for rape victims to report immediately.

You know what's a really good way to encourage rape victims to report immediately? Let them know that people will take their stories seriously.

You know what's a really good way to discourage rape victims from reporting immediately (or ever)? Tell them, "Well, we'll need a whole lot more evidence besides just your word for it before we believe that you're telling the truth."

Yes, everybody wants to see a rapist behind bars -- if the rapist was a stranger who used physical force on a woman who was sober, chaste, and in a respectable place where she was supposed to be. Any other kinds of rapists? Well, what was she wearing? Was she drunk? What was she doing there? Maybe she's a prostitute. Maybe she regrets it and is crying rape. What did she expect when she went there and did that?

so her allegations should be good enough then? No due process, no innocent until proven guilty?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for a court of law. Due process is for a court of law. We are not talking about whether or not these UVa frat brothers would be convicted, if they were charged. We are talking about whether, when a woman says that somebody raped her, our inclination is to believe her, or to assume that she is lying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a false analogy. If your bicycle was stolen, it's not the stealing of the bicycle but the person who stole it that I would "keep an open mind about". You couldn't simply point to some random person and say that's the person who stole the bicycle, unless there was clear evidence to support that accusation. If a woman is raped, her entire body is evidence against the person who raped her. That is, if this evidence is collected soon enough and the victim chooses to press charges.

No, the only thing her entire body is evidence of is that there was sexual contact. What are you going to do about a case where Person A had sexual contact with Person B, and Person A says that Person B consented, and Person B says that Person B did not consent?

You want women to report rape. But you also want women to have to prove their accusations of rape, before you will believe them. You can have one or the other; you can't have both. Which is more important to you?

You can believe them - in fact I bet many investigators initially do. Then the evidence comes out and sometimes it doesn’t support the allegations. So law enforcement has to be aware of that possibility as well. This is a serious crime with prison time -- see Mike Tyson. Did three years for rape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try thinking about it this way. What if someone accused you of a horrific crime which you did not commit? However, your name is plastered all over the media linking you to this terrible crime. However, charges are never pressed so you have no opportunity to defend yourself nor clear your name publicly from these charges.

That would completely suck. Your life is ruined. You've done nothing wrong and you have no way to change the outcome.

Try thinking about it this way: why are you identifying more with the possible rapist than with the possible rape victim? What are the consequences of assuming that rape charges are false?

Clearly, you don't have a son. No one here is "identifying more with the possible rapist than with the possible rape victim". Everyone wants to ses a rapist behind bars and to paint it otherwise is irresponsible and insulting. But if the standard can't simply be to point a finger and say "he did it," arrest him. There has got to be some kind of evidence. Whether it's the men in question admitting what they did, or actual physical evidence - which of course, there is none of since Jackie didn't go to the hospital. That's why it's so incredibly important for rape victims to report immediately.

You know what's a really good way to encourage rape victims to report immediately? Let them know that people will take their stories seriously.
You know what's a really good way to discourage rape victims from reporting immediately (or ever)? Tell them, "Well, we'll need a whole lot more evidence besides just your word for it before we believe that you're telling the truth."

Yes, everybody wants to see a rapist behind bars -- if the rapist was a stranger who used physical force on a woman who was sober, chaste, and in a respectable place where she was supposed to be. Any other kinds of rapists? Well, what was she wearing? Was she drunk? What was she doing there? Maybe she's a prostitute. Maybe she regrets it and is crying rape. What did she expect when she went there and did that?

Yes, of course. But more than that. Don't create or accept a culture of wealth and privilege and desperation to belong and social climb that is so important to the school that reporting is an acknowledgment that the dream, for you, is dead. At this point, I would simply say -- don't go to that school. If you live in DC, you can surely imagine the impact going against all that tradition and wealth and power and social status and belonging and air of privilege would have for a somewhat naïve girl from a rural town just arrived at school and not in the mix. It would be devastating. It reminds me of the book Prep by Curtis Sittenfield -- that was a great portrayal of how this would play out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try thinking about it this way. What if someone accused you of a horrific crime which you did not commit? However, your name is plastered all over the media linking you to this terrible crime. However, charges are never pressed so you have no opportunity to defend yourself nor clear your name publicly from these charges.

That would completely suck. Your life is ruined. You've done nothing wrong and you have no way to change the outcome.

Try thinking about it this way: why are you identifying more with the possible rapist than with the possible rape victim? What are the consequences of assuming that rape charges are false?

Clearly, you don't have a son. No one here is "identifying more with the possible rapist than with the possible rape victim". Everyone wants to ses a rapist behind bars and to paint it otherwise is irresponsible and insulting. But if the standard can't simply be to point a finger and say "he did it," arrest him. There has got to be some kind of evidence. Whether it's the men in question admitting what they did, or actual physical evidence - which of course, there is none of since Jackie didn't go to the hospital. That's why it's so incredibly important for rape victims to report immediately.

You know what's a really good way to encourage rape victims to report immediately? Let them know that people will take their stories seriously.

You know what's a really good way to discourage rape victims from reporting immediately (or ever)? Tell them, "Well, we'll need a whole lot more evidence besides just your word for it before we believe that you're telling the truth."

Yes, everybody wants to see a rapist behind bars -- if the rapist was a stranger who used physical force on a woman who was sober, chaste, and in a respectable place where she was supposed to be. Any other kinds of rapists? Well, what was she wearing? Was she drunk? What was she doing there? Maybe she's a prostitute. Maybe she regrets it and is crying rape. What did she expect when she went there and did that?

so her allegations should be good enough then? No due process, no innocent until proven guilty?

Anonymous wrote:

This is a false analogy. If your bicycle was stolen, it's not the stealing of the bicycle but the person who stole it that I would "keep an open mind about". You couldn't simply point to some random person and say that's the person who stole the bicycle, unless there was clear evidence to support that accusation. If a woman is raped, her entire body is evidence against the person who raped her. That is, if this evidence is collected soon enough and the victim chooses to press charges.

No, the only thing her entire body is evidence of is that there was sexual contact. What are you going to do about a case where Person A had sexual contact with Person B, and Person A says that Person B consented, and Person B says that Person B did not consent?

You want women to report rape. But you also want women to have to prove their accusations of rape, before you will believe them. You can have one or the other; you can't have both. Which is more important to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try thinking about it this way. What if someone accused you of a horrific crime which you did not commit? However, your name is plastered all over the media linking you to this terrible crime. However, charges are never pressed so you have no opportunity to defend yourself nor clear your name publicly from these charges.

That would completely suck. Your life is ruined. You've done nothing wrong and you have no way to change the outcome.

Try thinking about it this way: why are you identifying more with the possible rapist than with the possible rape victim? What are the consequences of assuming that rape charges are false?

Clearly, you don't have a son. No one here is "identifying more with the possible rapist than with the possible rape victim". Everyone wants to ses a rapist behind bars and to paint it otherwise is irresponsible and insulting. But if the standard can't simply be to point a finger and say "he did it," arrest him. There has got to be some kind of evidence. Whether it's the men in question admitting what they did, or actual physical evidence - which of course, there is none of since Jackie didn't go to the hospital. That's why it's so incredibly important for rape victims to report immediately.

You know what's a really good way to encourage rape victims to report immediately? Let them know that people will take their stories seriously.

You know what's a really good way to discourage rape victims from reporting immediately (or ever)? Tell them, "Well, we'll need a whole lot more evidence besides just your word for it before we believe that you're telling the truth."

Yes, everybody wants to see a rapist behind bars -- if the rapist was a stranger who used physical force on a woman who was sober, chaste, and in a respectable place where she was supposed to be. Any other kinds of rapists? Well, what was she wearing? Was she drunk? What was she doing there? Maybe she's a prostitute. Maybe she regrets it and is crying rape. What did she expect when she went there and did that?

I find the socioeconomic issues of this super interesting and horrible. I bet that girls from known wealthy families, who were known on campus, etc., are not often victims. The alleged rapist in the story clearly carefully selected and groomed his victim.

And yes, I believe the story. You are kidding yourself if you think the U would not have shut this down during the investigation by RS if they could have. They can't. It is obviously true. And its clearly part of this frat's culture, given that it occurred in the 80s, etc.

I am sure wealthy alumni continue to donate to the frat, knowing that stuff like this goes on. I hope they all get sued like crazy. It is reprehensible, born of a patriarchal and misogynistic world that old white people look back on fondly as the good old preppy days. Totally sick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why we're not rioting in the streets about this. Seriously. Enough is enough.

Because this whole story is made up and many of us are impartial enough to see it. Violence against women is abhorrent. So is patently lying to get attention. This story is ludicrously fictitious.

You cannot be this fucking disgusting and/or stupid?

I dunno. The Duke rape charges turned out to be completely fictitious.

Yes, it's true. Rarely, there are rape accusations that are false. (The Duke lacrosse team case, for example, which happened in 2006.) Should we therefore assume that all rape accusations are false, unless proven otherwise? And what about the many rapes that occur, but the rape victim never publicly accuses anybody?

So, by your "logic", we should assume that all rape accusations are true, regardless of evidence or lack thereof? In other words, "innocent until proven guilty" is meaningless and a simple accusation should suffice?

I happen to believe what happened in the RS article is true and absolutely disgusting. However, because there is no proof - yet - I am very hesitant to jump on the bandwagon. Yes, rape is a big problem, especially on college campuses. But there has to be a presumption of innocence until one is absolutely proven guilty. Otherwise, what's the point of our justice system?

There is a LEGAL presumption of innocence, in a court of law. But we are not a court of law. Do you hold this same standard of "innocent until proven guilty" in your mind for other kinds of cases? For example, suppose somebody stole my bicycle. Would you similarly argue that you will keep an open mind about my bicycle having been stolen until there is a trial, and somebody is convicted of stealing my bicycle? What if the police never figure out who stole my bicycle, or they figure it out but can't prove it? Does that mean that my bicycle wasn't stolen?

This is a false analogy. If your bicycle was stolen, it's not the stealing of the bicycle but the person who stole it that I would "keep an open mind about". You couldn't simply point to some random person and say that's the person who stole the bicycle, unless there was clear evidence to support that accusation. If a woman is raped, her entire body is evidence against the person who raped her. That is, if this evidence is collected soon enough and the victim chooses to press charges.

Anonymous wrote:It is in fact against the law to fail to report a felony, any felony, anywhere. Failure to report a felony is called "misprision" and it is a common law crime in Virginia and everywhere else, although it is rarely used. The most recent mention of it in a Virginia court case was in 2006 in relation to someone pleading the 5th, but is still good law. It is a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2500 fine.

From a legal blog:

Concealment in this case, does not mean actively hiding something. Instead, as is made clearer in the section on misprision of treason, this type of concealment is merely a failure to report as soon as possible.

This concealment becomes criminal if the party apprised of the [act] does not as soon as conveniently may be reveal it to some judge of assize or justice of the peace.

The way I read this is that everyone reading this thread who has not reported the [alleged] felony has engaged in the common law crime of misprision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll put you down in the "women should report rapes, but we should assume they're lying" camp.

please don’t. The presumption should not cut either way. Both sides should be treated fairly and respectfully until all the facts come out.

OK, I'll put you in the "women should report rapes, but we shouldn't believe them when they do" camp.

Is this your idea of "fair and respectful treatment"?

Woman, reporting rape to the police: X raped me.
Police: Prove it.

Also, do you think that this is a good way to get women to report their rapes? The number of women who don't report their rapes is far, far greater than the number of women who make a false accusation of rape.

seriously? Is this what they do? No attempt to gather physical evidence? No talking to witnesses? Seems like the Duke prosecutor really went overboard the other way.

No, this is not how an investigation is handled. PP just has an incredible bias and wants everyone to believe her. If a woman reports a rape right away, then physical evidence can be collected. If she chooses to wait, or not to report, then there is no evidence. Bypass campus police and call 911.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is in fact against the law to fail to report a felony, any felony, anywhere. Failure to report a felony is called "misprision" and it is a common law crime in Virginia and everywhere else, although it is rarely used. The most recent mention of it in a Virginia court case was in 2006 in relation to someone pleading the 5th, but is still good law. It is a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2500 fine.

From a legal blog:

Concealment in this case, does not mean actively hiding something. Instead, as is made clearer in the section on misprision of treason, this type of concealment is merely a failure to report as soon as possible.

This concealment becomes criminal if the party apprised of the [act] does not as soon as conveniently may be reveal it to some judge of assize or justice of the peace.

need a subject here - for whom to report? The victim, someone who “heard” about it? I read the RS article so am I now on the hook to report the felony?

Do you know the boys names? Did you delete texts from them? Remember the Boston bombers friend who saw it on the news and threw away a backpack of his.

Anonymous wrote:It is in fact against the law to fail to report a felony, any felony, anywhere. Failure to report a felony is called "misprision" and it is a common law crime in Virginia and everywhere else, although it is rarely used. The most recent mention of it in a Virginia court case was in 2006 in relation to someone pleading the 5th, but is still good law. It is a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2500 fine.

From a legal blog:

Concealment in this case, does not mean actively hiding something. Instead, as is made clearer in the section on misprision of treason, this type of concealment is merely a failure to report as soon as possible.

This concealment becomes criminal if the party apprised of the [act] does not as soon as conveniently may be reveal it to some judge of assize or justice of the peace.

need a subject here - for whom to report? The victim, someone who “heard” about it? I read the RS article so am I now on the hook to report the felony?

It is in fact against the law to fail to report a felony, any felony, anywhere. Failure to report a felony is called "misprision" and it is a common law crime in Virginia and everywhere else, although it is rarely used. The most recent mention of it in a Virginia court case was in 2006 in relation to someone pleading the 5th, but is still good law. It is a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2500 fine.

From a legal blog:

Concealment in this case, does not mean actively hiding something. Instead, as is made clearer in the section on misprision of treason, this type of concealment is merely a failure to report as soon as possible.

This concealment becomes criminal if the party apprised of the [act] does not as soon as conveniently may be reveal it to some judge of assize or justice of the peace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try thinking about it this way. What if someone accused you of a horrific crime which you did not commit? However, your name is plastered all over the media linking you to this terrible crime. However, charges are never pressed so you have no opportunity to defend yourself nor clear your name publicly from these charges.

That would completely suck. Your life is ruined. You've done nothing wrong and you have no way to change the outcome.

This did happen to an FCPS teacher in No. Virginia. Charged by a female student with sexual assault. He fought the charges, went to trial and he won. She was lying. But he lost his job, can’t get hired and owes the legal fees, which were substantial.

Yes, I remember this case and two other similar ones, both in Virginia. A male teacher accused of sexual fondling or assault by some girls who later recanted and admitted they lied and that they just didn't like the teacher. It must be frightening to be a male educator these days. Your life and reputation never recover from something as insidious as a false accusation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why we're not rioting in the streets about this. Seriously. Enough is enough.

Because this whole story is made up and many of us are impartial enough to see it. Violence against women is abhorrent. So is patently lying to get attention. This story is ludicrously fictitious.

You cannot be this fucking disgusting and/or stupid?

I dunno. The Duke rape charges turned out to be completely fictitious.

Yes, it's true. Rarely, there are rape accusations that are false. (The Duke lacrosse team case, for example, which happened in 2006.) Should we therefore assume that all rape accusations are false, unless proven otherwise? And what about the many rapes that occur, but the rape victim never publicly accuses anybody?

So, by your "logic", we should assume that all rape accusations are true, regardless of evidence or lack thereof? In other words, "innocent until proven guilty" is meaningless and a simple accusation should suffice?

I happen to believe what happened in the RS article is true and absolutely disgusting. However, because there is no proof - yet - I am very hesitant to jump on the bandwagon. Yes, rape is a big problem, especially on college campuses. But there has to be a presumption of innocence until one is absolutely proven guilty. Otherwise, what's the point of our justice system?

I agree with this completely, but the poster above at 10:38 said the boys involved have confessed, admitted guilt and signed confessions.
So, I’m wondering what the real issue is here? Is it that the victim doesn’t want to go through the legal process to see these guys punished?