I wish we'd stop arguing about the nitty gritty of this particular case, and start talking about the greater wrong, which is indisputable. I am the PP who was asked by another PP what we can do about this, and I do not know. But I'd like the discussion to turn to that. There is so much that needs to change for our kids to be safe. (Girls and boys) Can we brainstorm a bit on what we can do that is productive?

Ban sexual violence from video games? That seems an obvious start.

Iceland just banned pornography. That should be up for discussion. Germany just created a law that 30% of the leadership in any business needs to be female. That'd go over like a lead balloon in our quota-hating society, but I think it'd be good for us. What else?

Assemblies about sexual violence at high schools? By reformed offenders, or by survivors (though I don't want to put the burden on them.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty sure the boys all confessed in this case. As the article says, the dean knew who was involved. Pretty clear evidence that the assailants were known. At no point in the RS article is there any indication that her story might not be true and I read articles like this all the time -- it is made very clear if that is an issue you should be debating. There is no way this was published or got by the UV press screen unless it is true. No way.

I have read and re-read this article searching for anything that suggests the male students (they are not boys) confessed to the alleged gang rape OR that the Dean knows who they are. I don't even think Jackie knows who they all are. Can you please point to the section(s) of the article that lead you to your conclusion? I'm being sincere.

Of course -- when Jackie was told by the dean that all of the boys had graduated, indicating that she clearly knew who they were -- Jackie did not even know who they were, so I read that as a tacit statement that they had some kind of acknowledgment.

This whole ordeal illustrates why Uva is ranked so low in wold university rankings and has no alumni of great influence.

Busy, productive people have no time to organize gang rapes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty sure the boys all confessed in this case. As the article says, the dean knew who was involved. Pretty clear evidence that the assailants were known. At no point in the RS article is there any indication that her story might not be true and I read articles like this all the time -- it is made very clear if that is an issue you should be debating. There is no way this was published or got by the UV press screen unless it is true. No way.

I have read and re-read this article searching for anything that suggests the male students (they are not boys) confessed to the alleged gang rape OR that the Dean knows who they are. I don't even think Jackie knows who they all are. Can you please point to the section(s) of the article that lead you to your conclusion? I'm being sincere.

The boys in Jackie's story have not confessed. The boys in other cases have confessed and virtually nothing has happened to them, at UVA and other universities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty sure the boys all confessed in this case. As the article says, the dean knew who was involved. Pretty clear evidence that the assailants were known. At no point in the RS article is there any indication that her story might not be true and I read articles like this all the time -- it is made very clear if that is an issue you should be debating. There is no way this was published or got by the UV press screen unless it is true. No way.

I have read and re-read this article searching for anything that suggests the male students (they are not boys) confessed to the alleged gang rape OR that the Dean knows who they are. I don't even think Jackie knows who they all are. Can you please point to the section(s) of the article that lead you to your conclusion? I'm being sincere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely. But there have been confessions, admissions of guilt. So that had to be made to someone. I’m just confused here. Is the problem the guilty parties haven’t been criminally charged?

Actually, in this case, the problem is that people who have decided she's lying.

the "guilty parties" have not even been identified!!!! This is why this whole thing is so difficult for some to believe ... there IS an investigation by police but the 'victim' will not cooperate with police. This is very different than not reporting ... I completely understand and appreciate the fact that countless women do not report rapes and it's terrible ... however, this case is open and an investigation is ongoing. It has already been "reported" ... now the victim will not do so much as identify an assailant to police. She's now obstructing justice and she's making it harder for future victims to get their cases heard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty sure the boys all confessed in this case. As the article says, the dean knew who was involved. Pretty clear evidence that the assailants were known. At no point in the RS article is there any indication that her story might not be true and I read articles like this all the time -- it is made very clear if that is an issue you should be debating. There is no way this was published or got by the UV press screen unless it is true. No way.

Wrong on just about every level. No one has confessed. No assailants have been named. And the RS editors have confirmed that they are effectively taking the author's word for it that she fact checked everything, despite not questioning the accused nor the victim's friends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

PP, you seem confused about a variety of things:

1. When you talk about "evidence" but dismiss the victim's accounting of what happened to her, you are basically saying that her evidence is not "real" evidence. Your suggestion that a woman's report that she was raped should only be taken seriously if she also provides physical evidence is pretty cold. There are a lot of reasons why a rape victim might not have physical evidence. There was a thread on this forum this year in which a married woman was raped at gunpoint by her husband, who was drunk and coked up, and many of us reading that thread were surprised to learn that the only hospital in DC that has staff who are certified to actually collect a rape kit (which is more complicated than a lot of people initially believe) is WHC.

2. Obviously, when a person makes a report that they were the victim of a crime, what happens next (if they are reporting to the police) is that an officer will take their story and investigate it further. That investigation will obviously include many components, including attempts to corroborate the victim's story of what happened to her, collection of physical evidence, such as there may be, and whatever else goes into the investigation. What the PP (and many, many other people this thread) are taking issue with is the prevailing climate of investigation in which the answer is not "take the victim's report and treat it as a serious allegation". I am not a rape victim, but I know several women who did report their rapes, and every one of them experienced at least one law enforcement officer who suggested that maybe she had brought this crime on herself.

When you say things like "so her allegations should be good enough then?", my answer to you is yes, her allegations should be good enough to trigger an investigation, conducted by people who have sensitivity training on interacting with rape victims. Programs like that exist, but they are not prioritized, even in an environment with a known risk for a high rate of sexual assault (which frankly I'd define as any college town, at this point). Her allegations are good enough to trigger the rest of the investigation and should be taken seriously. The reality is that many, many women report that their allegations were NOT taken seriously or that they were encouraged not to press charges, even by law enforcement personnel in the context of reporting their rape.

Absolutely. But there have been confessions, admissions of guilt. So that had to be made to someone. I’m just confused here. Is the problem the guilty parties haven’t been criminally charged?

If this victim decided that she did not want to prosecute, for whatever reasons, that is her decision. I understand the reasons that a victim might make this decision, though in a case like this, I think it very clearly leaves the door open for the rapist to rape again. I am actually in favor of the state bringing the case on behalf of Jane Doe victims, though I understand that people might find that problematic in a "know your accuser" sort of way. The problem I have is with the general attitude that a woman's report of her own rape does not count as evidence. She's an eye witness to a crime and any lawyer on this forum can tell you that an affidavit does actually count as evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely. But there have been confessions, admissions of guilt. So that had to be made to someone. I’m just confused here. Is the problem the guilty parties haven’t been criminally charged?

Actually, in this case, the problem is that people who have decided she's lying.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

PP, you seem confused about a variety of things:

1. When you talk about "evidence" but dismiss the victim's accounting of what happened to her, you are basically saying that her evidence is not "real" evidence. Your suggestion that a woman's report that she was raped should only be taken seriously if she also provides physical evidence is pretty cold. There are a lot of reasons why a rape victim might not have physical evidence. There was a thread on this forum this year in which a married woman was raped at gunpoint by her husband, who was drunk and coked up, and many of us reading that thread were surprised to learn that the only hospital in DC that has staff who are certified to actually collect a rape kit (which is more complicated than a lot of people initially believe) is WHC.

2. Obviously, when a person makes a report that they were the victim of a crime, what happens next (if they are reporting to the police) is that an officer will take their story and investigate it further. That investigation will obviously include many components, including attempts to corroborate the victim's story of what happened to her, collection of physical evidence, such as there may be, and whatever else goes into the investigation. What the PP (and many, many other people this thread) are taking issue with is the prevailing climate of investigation in which the answer is not "take the victim's report and treat it as a serious allegation". I am not a rape victim, but I know several women who did report their rapes, and every one of them experienced at least one law enforcement officer who suggested that maybe she had brought this crime on herself.

When you say things like "so her allegations should be good enough then?", my answer to you is yes, her allegations should be good enough to trigger an investigation, conducted by people who have sensitivity training on interacting with rape victims. Programs like that exist, but they are not prioritized, even in an environment with a known risk for a high rate of sexual assault (which frankly I'd define as any college town, at this point). Her allegations are good enough to trigger the rest of the investigation and should be taken seriously. The reality is that many, many women report that their allegations were NOT taken seriously or that they were encouraged not to press charges, even by law enforcement personnel in the context of reporting their rape.

Absolutely. But there have been confessions, admissions of guilt. So that had to be made to someone. I’m just confused here. Is the problem the guilty parties haven’t been criminally charged?

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?

PP, you seem confused about a variety of things:

1. When you talk about "evidence" but dismiss the victim's accounting of what happened to her, you are basically saying that her evidence is not "real" evidence. Your suggestion that a woman's report that she was raped should only be taken seriously if she also provides physical evidence is pretty cold. There are a lot of reasons why a rape victim might not have physical evidence. There was a thread on this forum this year in which a married woman was raped at gunpoint by her husband, who was drunk and coked up, and many of us reading that thread were surprised to learn that the only hospital in DC that has staff who are certified to actually collect a rape kit (which is more complicated than a lot of people initially believe) is WHC.

2. Obviously, when a person makes a report that they were the victim of a crime, what happens next (if they are reporting to the police) is that an officer will take their story and investigate it further. That investigation will obviously include many components, including attempts to corroborate the victim's story of what happened to her, collection of physical evidence, such as there may be, and whatever else goes into the investigation. What the PP (and many, many other people this thread) are taking issue with is the prevailing climate of investigation in which the answer is not "take the victim's report and treat it as a serious allegation". I am not a rape victim, but I know several women who did report their rapes, and every one of them experienced at least one law enforcement officer who suggested that maybe she had brought this crime on herself.

When you say things like "so her allegations should be good enough then?", my answer to you is yes, her allegations should be good enough to trigger an investigation, conducted by people who have sensitivity training on interacting with rape victims. Programs like that exist, but they are not prioritized, even in an environment with a known risk for a high rate of sexual assault (which frankly I'd define as any college town, at this point). Her allegations are good enough to trigger the rest of the investigation and should be taken seriously. The reality is that many, many women report that their allegations were NOT taken seriously or that they were encouraged not to press charges, even by law enforcement personnel in the context of reporting their rape.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

To start an investigation, yes.

Obviously. Lets say your wallet was stolen. You know it was stolen because it was ripped from your pants. But you could have just it, right? Do you seriously not think your statement that it was stolen would be enough for the police to take you seriously? And if multiple other people said their wallets were also stolen in exactly the same way, shouldn't that be enough to trigger more concern?

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?

To start an investigation, yes.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct. Rape is a serious crime. I'd like to say that again: rape is a serious crime. That is exactly why it is so shameful that most rapists are never arrested, and most rapists who are arrested aren't convicted.

https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty sure the boys all confessed in this case. As the article says, the dean knew who was involved. Pretty clear evidence that the assailants were known. At no point in the RS article is there any indication that her story might not be true and I read articles like this all the time -- it is made very clear if that is an issue you should be debating. There is no way this was published or got by the UV press screen unless it is true. No way.