this week in unintentionally grim-sounding recruiting headlines
I can't believe administrators at a major university would want any part of an "informal" process for dealing with the allegations of rape.
Eastern Michigan got slammed for not coming out and announcing that they suspected the student found dead in the dorm was murdered while the police investigation was going on. Heads rolled there -- this is even more incompetent and possibly underhanded, so expect heads to roll.
Unlike many who frequent this board, I am no laywer and don't even play one in my home. But my question is this: After this woman reports this crime to 5 different University of Iowa employees [AD Gary Barta; Associate Athletic Director Fred Mims; Kirk Ferentz; Betsy Altmaier, a UI faculty member and a representative on the Presidential Committee on Athletics that serves as a liaison to the Big Ten and NCAA; and the victim's own coach], she is encouraged to allow the university of Iowa to handle it and not report this to the local authorities.
1) There is a definite conflict in interest between these UI employees and the woman.
2) These employees did not get their own security force involved. Do they have the capability to obtain and handle the physical evidence that is involved in such type of cases? OF course not.
3) Even if they do obtain such physical evidence, is it not now aldulterated since it was handeled by poeple other than the proper authorities?
4) Time is a major factor; any physical evidence must be gathered quickly.
By being in a position of authority over this woman (and having interests quite opposed to hers) and convicing her not to report this crime, did these 5 employees participate (or conspire) in obstruction of justice or some other crime?
Again, I'm not an attouney, but just wondering if the consequences in this go beyond that of job security.
Part of what I am trying to convey in the above is that, the administration, by encouraging the woman not to immediately go to the authorities is that:
1. If the rape did happen, they did her a great disservice, but:
2. If the rape did not happen (a la Duke LaX), the administration unwittingly did the two players accused a great disservice, and a cloud will likely forever hang over their head.
It seems like an informal policy is the sort of thing you break out for harrassment, or he said/she said situations where there is some sort of equity between the students involved and their presentation of the facts.
If Kirk Ferentz is such a stand-up, respectable guy as a coach and a human being, upon being presented with the fact of a woman who was so drunk/drugged she barely remembers what happened, covered in blood who had a rape kit done at the hospital, couldn't he see this wasn't really within his realm of expertise, or the athletic department's for that matter? If his players did it, they don't deserve to be protected, and if she is so damn crazy she's making it up, that's beyond his ability to handle as well.
pretty serious. I'm just saying I don't like the over use of euphemisms. 'sexual assault' is about as descriptive as 'weather event'
And here's a legal conundrum for you. Not related to this case, as I don't know anything about this case, but if drunk driving carries implied intent to harm - as some people contend it does - then does drunk partying carry implied intent to get freaky? Just asking, from a logical standpoint. Does going up to [name redacted]'s hotel room in the middle of the night while he's watching porn carry implied consent to get bent over the back of chair? I'm not taking sides, I'm just throwing the question out there.
and iowa seems like they're screwed for trying to cover this up.
" Does going up to [name redacted]'s hotel room in the middle of the night while he's watching porn carry implied consent to get bent over the back of chair? "
You're not seriously asking this question, are you?
again, not talking about this case cause it sounds like something serious went down, but just looking at those words:
"second-degree involves forcible sexual contact (which is defined as penetration in Iowa)"
if it wasn't a euphemism, then WHY did you have to define it? because "forcible sexual contact" = "he rubbed his elbow on my boobie"??? just say 'the accused is charged with forced penetration without consent." Is that so hard? 2nd degree sexual abuse is much more clear. right? No, they just don't want to put the word penetration on the front page, you have to look it up on the google footnotes.
And you're taking the easy way out. As the law is written, of course getting drunk doesn't give consent. But should it? Drunk driving laws were changed to include the implied intent. Will sexual misconduct laws be changed? Should they??? What do you think? don't avoid the question.
: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo
It seems to me defining sexual abuse crimes in terms of degrees is consistent with other crimes such as murder—which comes in various degrees. Hence, this system of annotation does not appear to be made up out of whole cloth to avoid graphic sexual terms. Defendants must be charged with actual crimes (at least until recently…) and sexual abuse in its various degrees offers a classification system which encompasses many levels of crimes into manageable categories.
As to your ‘tough’ question I am confused. I have no interest in debating issues of rape with you. However, you compared rape to drunk driving in terms of consent/intent. Please tell me if you think the following comparison is reasonable. Mary gets drunk and drives her car and is found guilty of drunk driving. Mary gets drunk and a man forces her to have non-consensual sex with him. I don’t know diddly about the ‘implied intent’ you mention but it seems disingenuous for Mary to claim she is not responsible for driving drunk because she was drunk. However, I do not think that Mary getting drunk makes it legal for all males present to rape her. Getting drunk and driving shows the intent to drive drunk. Getting drunk does not demonstrate any intent to have sex. Even drunk Mary could drive an SUV through that difference. For the record, in the Iowa case it is alleged the woman was unconscious (implied consent of penetration—by anyone--by virtue of passing out?) and there was a significant amount of blood.
I think the laws are fine. In today’s world sex with strangers is fraught with peril. Sex with really drunk strangers is unquestionably a high risk behavior.
As the law is written, of course getting drunk doesn't give consent. But should it?
Drunk driving laws were changed to include the implied intent. Will sexual misconduct laws be changed? Should they?
This has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.
I'm pretty sure I just saw that episode of Law & Order. The kid went to prision, his mother shot the DJ, and the slutty actress went on her way.
Is this a Law & Order discussion?
you're taking the protagonists p.o.v. in the first situation and the antagonists p.o.v. in the second. You have to argue what you would have done if you were the drunk person, not the guys, they are obviously breaking the law by taking advantage of an incapacitated person.
and you're using different levels of drunkeness. if you were able to think about it, you weren't ripped off your ass.
The decision to drive drunk is that: you're drunk, and you decide to drive. It does not imply an intent to harm, though, admittedly, that's an outcome with an increased likliehood.
The decision to rape someone is, flat out, the decision to harm someone, unlike the decision to drive while impaired.
That's the difference. I have problems understanding why you can't comprehend it.
why you can't understand that you're making the same logical mistake. we know the rapist did something wrong, but what i'm talking about here is the responsibility of your actions when you drink.
let me repeat, YOUR actions, not the actions of the other people. If you're drunk driving, and another person hits you from behind when you're parked on the side of the road, obviously the fault lies with the other person.
I'm saying there's a gray area, somewhere short of penetration, that is technically illegal, but should probably be handled outside of the criminal courts.
Emotional distress without bodily harm, the type that might come from drunken fondling ala andy dick, is a perfect candidate to be taken to civil court, not criminal court. But it is, in most states, considered a criminal offense. And some states would consider that reason enough for your name to be put on the same list as pedophiles and kidnappers.
I'm glad you agree with me that drunk driving, in and of itself, is not an intent to harm, but laws are being writing to make it so. That's the legal conundrum.
In 1: I'm a drunk guy who wants to drive home, knows it's wrong and does something instead.
In 2: I'm a drunk guy who wants some sex, knows it's wrong and does something else instead.
In either case, being too drunk to know better is not an excuse. I've been in situations where I thought I was going to get laid, was drunk as hell, and she changed her mind. Did I assault her? No. In one case I went back to the party and took someone else home. Girl #1 knocked on my door the next morning and the girl #2 answered. Girl #1 didn't talk to me for a month, but that just makes me an asshole, not a fucking coward who raped someone. In most cases I've just had to go home alone and pass out.
And for the record, you're making yourself look like a tremendous asshole and douchebag by defending those guys. Whether that's your argument or not, that's how you're coming across. I'd suggest you quit now while you're behind.
in case 2, if you're a drunk guy at a party and a girl you don't know, possible a girl you hate, comes up and kisses you on the mouth and grabs your cock, DO YOU CALL THE COPS? or does that make you an asshole and a douchebag? (because you'e looking like one now)
You don't seem to understand who i'm defending and who I'm not. I'm defending kevin grady, letting people know that while his desicion to drive drunk was poor, dangerous, and completely stupid, does not make him an axe murderer.
And on a tangent, i'm half heartedly defending the idea that there may be situations, again short of bodily harm, that do not require police involvement. Now this case seems pretty serious and so OBVIOUSLY it isn't one that should be kept 'in house'.
And if you haven't read the three times i already said I wasn't talking about the iowa case, but in general logical puzzlement, then you're fuckiong stupid. don't call me names cause you can't understand my argument.
And to me; truth, knowledge, and intelligence are more important than how i 'look' on an internet message board.