ACLU Sells Out

[lomiller]

You're clearly not responding to what I wrote. I didn't say that the standard is a lynch mob. Even if you don't read my post for context, I am clearly saying that the lynch mob is if you don't get the desired result from that standard. It's a bit ridiculous when it's literally what's written in my post.

The perhaps you should clearly explain what you think this has to do with the ACLU’s support for the standard that was previously in place (preponderance of the evidence).

The point, since I have to spell it out, is that going for a lesser standard because the correct standard doesn't always work is a recipe for abuse.

If you are not going to argue that having the university look at the preponderance of the evidence is improper, what exactly are you saying here?

Also, the discussion isn't about whether the standard should be lowered. it's about whether it should be raised so that rapists and people guilty of sexual assault continue to attend classes with the victims in spite of the preponderance of the evidence saying they were guilty.

 

[Belz...]

The perhaps you should clearly explain what you think this has to do with the ACLU’s support for the standard that was previously in place (preponderance of the evidence).

Impressive. You submitted your post even after reading the second part of mine that specifically answered that.

If you are not going to argue that having the university look at the preponderance of the evidence is improper, what exactly are you saying here?

It's going to be difficult to make it any clearer. I don't get it. Usually you're pretty sharp.

 

[lomiller]

What do you think the "they" in my post refers to? Grammatically, there's some ambiguity here

If you are worried about the way people interpret your ambiguous posts stop making ambiguous posts and say what you actuality mean instead of trying to insure wiggle room to backtrack later.

But the ACLU does oppose the new regulations, that was made clear in the opening post and no one has since suggested otherwise. So me saying that the ACLU doesn't oppose the regulations would be nonsensical in context, regardless of why the ACLU opposed them.

You were assuming the ACLU was endorsing regulations that “inappropriately favor the accused” long before the ACLU position was ever posted. Apparently your only reason for doing so was that a partisan right wing op-ed said it was so.

 

[lomiller]

Impressive. You submitted your post even after reading the second part of mine that specifically answered that.



It's going to be difficult to make it any clearer. I don't get it. Usually you're pretty sharp.

You posts genuinely make no sense in the context of this thread. We are discussing if the existing standard (preponderance of the evidence) is suitable and whether the new standard (beyond reasonable doubt) is inappropriate in this context as the ACLU suggests. No one is arguing for lowering standards, and the “lowest” standard being considered is whether giving both sides equal hearing with no presupposition of which the university should side with.

So again you need to explain why are bringing “lowering standards” or “lynch mobs” into the discussion because I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Belz...]

You posts genuinely make no sense in the context of this thread. We are discussing if the existing standard (preponderance of the evidence) is suitable and whether the new standard (beyond reasonable doubt) is inappropriate in this context as the ACLU suggests. No one is arguing for lowering standards, and the “lowest” standard being considered is whether giving both sides equal hearing with no presupposition of which the university should side with.

I didn't say they were lowring their standards. I'm saying that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the correct standard for sexual assault, even if it makes it a lot harder to prove the claim. It sucks, but giving the accused less than a full presumption of innocence is wrong. That's the point of my hyperbole: why not take the lowest possible standard, if it gets the job done? It was facetious, but it was supposed to make a clear point.

 

[Bob001]

Umm... you realize that your link is about sexual harassment of students by professors, and not by fellow students, right? Tell me one change in these regulations that would have had any substantive impact on the events described in your links.

That was a response to the poster who seemed to think the issue on campus is what has been called "regret sex." And it's an example of how behavior can be severely wrong without being prosecutable as a crime.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you are worried about the way people interpret your ambiguous posts stop making ambiguous posts and say what you actuality mean instead of trying to insure wiggle room to backtrack later.


You were assuming the ACLU was endorsing regulations that “inappropriately favor the accused” long before the ACLU position was ever posted. Apparently your only reason for doing so was that a partisan right wing op-ed said it was so.

Is this a poe? they released their position before this thread was posted, as linked in the OP.

Are you contending they issued a position different than the position expressed in their original release?

Well they are not. Blown away that every argument you have made in this thread is spectacularly wrong, I assume it has to be intentional.

 

[Bob001]

I didn't say they were lowring their standards. I'm saying that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the correct standard for sexual assault, even if it makes it a lot harder to prove the claim. It sucks, but giving the accused less than a full presumption of innocence is wrong. That's the point of my hyperbole: why not take the lowest possible standard, if it gets the job done? It was facetious, but it was supposed to make a clear point.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal trials, where the full power of the state can be used to deprive you of your property, your liberty and even your life. It is not the standard of proof in civil suits or administrative proceedings or even a police traffic citation. And even under the proposed new rules, the new standard would be "clear and convincing evidence" instead of the current "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond reasonable doubt."

 

[Ziggurat]

That was a response to the poster who seemed to think the issue on campus is what has been called "regret sex."

But that very much is an issue. It's not the only issue, as your link shows, but still an issue.

And it's an example of how behavior can be severely wrong without being prosecutable as a crime.

Sure, but it's not relevant to these new changes, since they wouldn't make any difference in that case.

 

[theprestige]

Dumb thread is dumb. If the regulations inappropriate favor the accused

As far as I can tell, the regulations do not inappropriate [sic] favor the accused. Is there something in the regulations that makes you think otherwise?

 

[Ziggurat]

You were assuming the ACLU was endorsing regulations that “inappropriately favor the accused” long before the ACLU position was ever posted. Apparently your only reason for doing so was that a partisan right wing op-ed said it was so.

Your track record of perfect failure continues apace.

That post had nothing to do with the ACLU's actual position. I accepted your hypothetical of what might motivate the ACLU to oppose (not support) regulations IF the rules inappropriately favored the accused. That was you positing the hypothetical, not me, and I agreed with you, given the premise of your hypothetical. How is it even possible for you to be upset with me for agreeing with you on that point? Talk about an own goal.

But it's merely a hypothetical since the rules do not inappropriately favor the accused. That's the real point of my post, and that point, again, has no dependence on the ACLU's position.

 

[Ziggurat]

And even under the proposed new rules, the new standard would be "clear and convincing evidence" instead of the current "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond reasonable doubt."

No. Under the new rules, schools can choose between "preponderance of evidence" and "clear and convincing evidence".

 

[Belz...]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal trials, where the full power of the state can be used to deprive you of your property, your liberty and even your life. It is not the standard of proof in civil suits or administrative proceedings or even a police traffic citation. And even under the proposed new rules, the new standard would be "clear and convincing evidence" instead of the current "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond reasonable doubt."

I don't know, being found guilty of sexual assault by a university could have some serious consequences on your future life.

 

[The Big Dog]

There aren't very many organizations out there that should make you reassess your own views if you ever find yourself on the other side of an issue from them. The ACLU is one.

"I've been cautious, and hesitant, and suspicious, when people have argued that the ACLU is no longer recognizably the ACLU. Starting to thing I was wrong."

Link

 

[Bob001]

I don't know, being found guilty of sexual assault by a university could have some serious consequences on your future life.

So could losing a million-dollar civil suit. So could getting fired from your job. So could losing a child custody battle. The fact is that it is ultimately a dispute between two private parties, which the law treats differently from criminal trials. The college can't lock you up.

 

[The Big Dog]

So could losing a million-dollar civil suit. So could getting fired from your job. So could losing a child custody battle. The fact is that it is ultimately a dispute between two private parties, which the law treats differently from criminal trials. The college can't lock you up.

many, many many colleges, including the University at issue in the Sixth circuit opinion that I summarized and linked and that has been totally ignored in this thread involve State Actors, not two private entities.

 

[lomiller]

As far as I can tell, the regulations do not inappropriate [sic] favor the accused.

You are entitled to your opinion, but given track record I’m farm more likely to trust the ACLU’s opinion. You (And Zig and TBD) mostly just seem to read whatever right wing op-ed you are directed to and just accept that opinion as your own without ever apply any real thought to it.

 

[lomiller]

I don't know, being found guilty of sexual assault by a university could have some serious consequences on your future life.

More than being sued for wrongful death?

 

[The Big Dog]

You are entitled to your opinion, but given track record I’m farm more likely to trust the ACLU’s opinion. You (And Zig and TBD) mostly just seem to read whatever right wing op-ed you are directed to and just accept that opinion as your own without ever apply any real thought to it.

Or, ya know, opinions from actual left wing commentators (like Popehat) and actual opinions from actual Courts of Appeal.

But you just keep on ad homining the **** out of the thread, i need a laugh.

 

[Belz...]

So could losing a million-dollar civil suit. So could getting fired from your job. So could losing a child custody battle. The fact is that it is ultimately a dispute between two private parties, which the law treats differently from criminal trials. The college can't lock you up.

No but you could end up being followed with the label for the rest of your life because of a lower standard of evidence.

Sexual crimes are not viewed like other crimes.

More than being sued for wrongful death?

I'm not even sure whether the answer is yes or no, to be honest.

Anyway, let the justice system handle crimes.