Updated Evander Kane Cleared in Sex Offense Investigation

[TrueBlueGED]

What does this mean?

The worst moment of your posting career.

[That Aud Smell]

The point of posting the story is that I don't think false accusations are rare

 

[bob_sauve28]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/another-pro-athlete-appears-to-have-been-falsely-accused-of-rape/article/2582293

So stuff like this is not exactly rare. Got it! Not very difficult to see your point 

[Stoner]

The worst moment of your posting career.

I still think the board will gather and chant FREE MAN FREE MAN FREE MAN FREE MAN.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I still think the board will gather and chant FREE MAN FREE MAN FREE MAN FREE MAN.

 

Brace yourself.

 

You too, TrueBlue.

[qwksndmonster]

This is Freeman's version of wide right.

Bwahahahahaha this is amazing.

[darksabre]

The point of posting the story is that I don't think false accusations are rare -- and there is a very good likelihood that 2 hockey players have been recently victimized by false accusations. 

 

I don't know if this story speaks very well to frequency. It seems far more interested in addressing the actions of the accused individuals. 

[nfreeman]

I don't know if this story speaks very well to frequency. It seems far more interested in addressing the actions of the accused individuals. 

 

You are certainly right that it doesn't provide any data or real support as to frequency.  But I think that there is an increasing amount of anecdotal data about false accusations -- whether it's the DA in the Patrick Kane case more or less announcing that the accuser is not credible, or a series of thoroughly debunked college rape hoaxes -- such that the historical presumption that these accusations are true (which is still probably operative in many quarters), and its tension with the presumption of innocence in the US criminal justice system, is worth reconsidering.

[bob_sauve28]

You are certainly right that it doesn't provide any data or real support as to frequency.  But I think that there is an increasing amount of anecdotal data about false accusations -- whether it's the DA in the Patrick Kane case more or less announcing that the accuser is not credible, or a series of thoroughly debunked college rape hoaxes -- such that the historical presumption that these accusations are true (which is still probably operative in many quarters), and its tension with the presumption of innocence in the US criminal justice system, is worth reconsidering.

There's also a lot of rape out there too 

[sabills]

You are certainly right that it doesn't provide any data or real support as to frequency.  But I think that there is an increasing amount of anecdotal data about false accusations -- whether it's the DA in the Patrick Kane case more or less announcing that the accuser is not credible, or a series of thoroughly debunked college rape hoaxes -- such that the historical presumption that these accusations are true (which is still probably operative in many quarters), and its tension with the presumption of innocence in the US criminal justice system, is worth reconsidering.

 

That presumption goes both ways, you have to assume that the accuser is also innocent of falsely reporting stuff. Also, if we're going anecdotally, we can go one for one on "women who probably falsely accused a man of rape" and "men who have probably raped women and gotten away with it because of stature" and see who comes out on top.

 

I'm not saying Kane (either one) did or didn't do these, but saying "well he's rich so she's probably lying to get money" is a bad way of coming at this.

Edited February 5, 2016 by sabills

[nfreeman]

That presumption goes both ways, you have to assume that the accuser is also innocent of falsely reporting stuff. Also, if we're going anecdotally, we can go one for one on "women who probably falsely accused a man of rape" and "men who have probably raped women and gotten away with it because of stature" and see who comes out on top.

 

I'm not saying Kane (either one) did or didn't do these, but saying "well he's rich so she's probably lying to get money" is a bad way of coming at this.

 

That is not what I'm saying.  My point is simply that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and that false accusations happen often enough so that the accusation itself shouldn't flip the presumption into a presumption of guilt.

[darksabre]

You are certainly right that it doesn't provide any data or real support as to frequency. But I think that there is an increasing amount of anecdotal data about false accusations -- whether it's the DA in the Patrick Kane case more or less announcing that the accuser is not credible, or a series of thoroughly debunked college rape hoaxes -- such that the historical presumption that these accusations are true (which is still probably operative in many quarters), and its tension with the presumption of innocence in the US criminal justice system, is worth reconsidering.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The criminal justice system has a responsibility to take rape accusations seriously and investigate them accordingly. Just as it should with any other allegation of harm. And the onus is still on the prosecution to prove guilt.

[sabills]

Freeman, I don't think you're coming from a bad place posting that article, nor do I think you're being malicious against women or anything. The problem is that a woman, or man for that matter, who has been sexually abused, assulted, or raped is already very afraid of what will happen to them if they come out and say something. Its even worse when the person they need to accuse is someone famous where a spotlight will be put on the whole thing. The suggestions that someone is faking the rape for money is inherently detrimental to someone else who WAS raped coming out and saying something about it. What that person sees is "if I come out and say something, I'll be accused and ridiculed for doing so." Worse, those people are often called sluts and worse for "allowing it to happen" or even "asking for it". This means victims keep quiet, which means these perpetrators can continue hurting more people.

 

Of course he's innocent until proven guilty. Of course what you are saying is possible. But we need to create an environment as a society where people feel ok coming forward, and then letting the law sort it out. 

Edited February 5, 2016 by sabills

[K-9]

Allegations of sexual abuse or rape made by someone with compromised credibility regarding that charge really hurt legitimate complaints. Presumption of innocence is always paramount but Ashe Schow seems to imply that presumption of money grabbing gold diggers should come first.

[That Aud Smell]

But I think that there is an increasing amount of anecdotal data about false accusations 

 

Those stories sure do get a lot of run when they arise, don't they? Quite possibly, they tend to get more (a LOT MORE) attention than the average run-of-the-mill (ugh) sex assault story involving a high-profile athlete.

 

I'll also note: The angle that that writer took was just sorta gross. "Hey, millionaire athletes, watch yer back. Cos I ain't sayin' she's a gold digger ...."

[nfreeman]

Those stories sure do get a lot of run when they arise, don't they? Quite possibly, they tend to get more (a LOT MORE) attention than the average run-of-the-mill (ugh) sex assault story involving a high-profile athlete.

 

I don't agree with this at all.  Had you heard about the gold-digging aspect of the Bromley case before I posted that link?  And how much ink/pixels was devoted to the Patrick Kane allegations, relative to the amount devoted to the clearing of his name?

 

As to D4rk's, SABills', and K-9's posts above, I'm glad that everyone here seems to agree with the presumption of innocence.  The problem is that (i) it doesn't exist on most college campuses and (ii) it doesn't exist in the minds of many people -- which is why it's an unfair and devastating blow to public perception of someone's character when it's false.

[darksabre]

I don't agree with this at all.  Had you heard about the gold-digging aspect of the Bromley case before I posted that link?  And how much ink/pixels was devoted to the Patrick Kane allegations, relative to the amount devoted to the clearing of his name?

 

As to D4rk's, SABills', and K-9's posts above, I'm glad that everyone here seems to agree with the presumption of innocence.  The problem is that (i) it doesn't exist on most college campuses and (ii) it doesn't exist in the minds of many people -- which is why it's an unfair and devastating blow to public perception of someone's character when it's false.

i. College campuses don't carry out criminal prosecution. Presumption of innocence intact.

 

ii. The court of public opinion doesn't carry out criminal prosecution. Presumption of innocence intact. 

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't agree with this at all. Had you heard about the gold-digging aspect of the Bromley case before I posted that link? And how much ink/pixels was devoted to the Patrick Kane allegations, relative to the amount devoted to the clearing of his name?

 

As to D4rk's, SABills', and K-9's posts above, I'm glad that everyone here seems to agree with the presumption of innocence. The problem is that (i) it doesn't exist on most college campuses and (ii) it doesn't exist in the minds of many people -- which is why it's an unfair and devastating blow to public perception of someone's character when it's false.

I'd like to see the evidence for your assertion that most college campuses lack a presumption of innocence.

[darksabre]

I'd like to see the evidence for your assertion that most college campuses lack a presumption of innocence.

 

Any discussion on that line of talk would have to recognize that college campuses aren't beholden to anything like "presumption of innocence" in the criminal justice sense. If you're a member of the student body, you're subject to their rules. Especially a private school. Hell, the right to free speech doesn't even apply there. 

 

If we want to have a discussion on the role of colleges in sexual assault cases, that should happen. But not in the context of criminal justice ideas like presumption of innocence, clearance rates, etc. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Any discussion on that line of talk would have to recognize that college campuses aren't beholden to anything like "presumption of innocence" in the criminal justice sense. If you're a member of the student body, you're subject to their rules. Especially a private school. Hell, the right to free speech doesn't even apply there.

 

If we want to have a discussion on the role of colleges in sexual assault cases, that should happen. But not in the context of criminal justice ideas like presumption of innocence, clearance rates, etc.

I get all that. I'm just curious what numbers he's basing that statement on.

[That Aud Smell]

Especially a private school. Hell, the right to free speech doesn't even apply there. 

 

Public universities most definitely are constrained by the First Amendment. 

 

And while private schools aren't regulated by it, many (if not all) of them have free speech clauses in their by-laws, handbooks, etc. In fact, I believe California has a state law that essentially subjects private universities to the First Amendment.

[darksabre]

Public universities most definitely are constrained by the First Amendment.

 

And while private schools aren't regulated by it, many (if not all) of them have free speech clauses in their by-laws, handbooks, etc. In fact, I believe California has a state law that essentially subjects private universities to the First Amendment.

This is true. I only intend to point out that college campuses administrative actions are not subject to the same standards as the criminal justice system.

[nfreeman]

TB -- I don't have specific numbers, and I doubt that a full-blown survey of the level of due process on this issue has been conducted.  What we do know, though, is that almost all US colleges get federal funding, and that this administration has taken it upon itself to make new law in this regard (and many others), by threatening to withhold federal funding unless the college adopts a certain anti-due-process approach.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428910/campus-rape-courts-republicans-resisting

 

 

For more than four years, the White House and the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have used an implausible reinterpretation of a 1972 civil-rights law to impose mandates unimagined by the law’s sponsors. It has forced almost all of the nation’s universities and colleges to disregard due process in disciplinary proceedings when they involve allegations of sexual assault.

 

 

D4rk -- certainly there is a difference between college due process and criminal due process.  But the fact remains that withholding due process in college can completely screw the accused for life -- not to mention be used against him in a criminal action.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/07/29/do-students-get-a-fair-hearing-an-effort-to-change-how-colleges-handle-sexual-assaults/

 

 

The right to legal representation at campus hearings for both students involved is fundamentally important, Cohn said, a right they only have now in North Carolina and North Dakota.

 

“Most people don’t realize that statements students make in these campus proceedings are admissible in trial later on,” Cohn noted. “While it’s true the dean isn’t going to sentence a student to 20 years behind bars, a judge or jury in a hearing later might.”

 

 

[darksabre]

Now, I'm willing to have a discussion on the role of colleges in the handling of sexual assault matters. Because personally I believe that the role of the educational institution should be to facilitate, not process, criminal matters.

[TrueBlueGED]

 

TB -- I don't have specific numbers, and I doubt that a full-blown survey of the level of due process on this issue has been conducted. What we do know, though, is that almost all US colleges get federal funding, and that this administration has taken it upon itself to make new law in this regard (and many others), by threatening to withhold federal funding unless the college adopts a certain anti-due-process approach.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428910/campus-rape-courts-republicans-resisting

 

Ah, the Title IX stuff. I think it's important to do three things in this discussion. 1) Admitting that there is quite a gulf between lowering the standard of proof to a preponderance of the evidence, and there being no presumption of innocence. 2) Recognizing the difference between what is required by the Dear Colleagues letter, and situations where individual institutions choose to go well beyond those requirements in infringing upon due process for the accused (many of these policies are going down in flames in court, as you're probably aware). 3) Not rely on articles that are out to blast Obama more than to inform on the issue.