did OP mean 'mandatory' reporting?

Is there a difference you would like to explain?

Do a Google search.

How is your team (yourself, Wookie, Fly, etc) so ignorant about this?

It comes up with mandatory reporting and mandated reporters, not mandated reporting

#dudeliterally the first thing that came up on Google when I typed in "mandated reporting".

https://www.childwelfare.gov/responding/mandated.cfm

I might have to ban you and your friends from my thread purely to limit the ignorance exposure to a minimum. I mean if I thought you all could possibly set aside your feelings towards me for the briefest of moments and learn something I wouldn't have to, but that's obviously not an option.

IDK, prove me wrong. Maintain an open mind, see what happens?

And the other 9 out of 10?

Being rather intellectually dishonest here #dudebitterly

Stop trolling me.

So it doesn't come up, then I show it's the first thing that comes up, then you are peeved about the not first things that come up?

Did you see that very first link and think, "Nah, I won't learn what mandated reporting means, I'll focus on the links that have nothing to do with mandated reporting."? Is that how it went down?

Did you just want to nit me more on semantics?

Get it together.

No, I was just pointing out that it's clearly not a very commonly used phrasing. Evidenced by 90% of the top results in google being about something else, i.e. the two things I mentioned.

Also lol at thinking someone disagreeing with you is trolling.

1. The reason it exists in high schools and public schools is that the victim is a minor.

2. I feel like you're conflating reporting with referring, with the aim that if the police don't charge the rapist then the school is prevented from disciplining him themselves. As rape seldomly results in pre-trial detention the disruption to his life would be effectively zero.

3. Schools are also free to expel a guy who beats someone up outside the campus bar without that someone having to go to police.

4. As far as I know campus security already has some kind of liaison with the local police and so likely deal with this on a case-by-case basis.

I presume campuses who currently ignore internal rape reports would similarly violate the mandate whenever it suited them. I guess we need to know what problem mandatory reporting (= referral?) would solve.

What are you disagreeing with me about, exactly? My intended purpose for phrasing my own post? GTFO of here.

Just for kicks though, why don't you explain the difference between "mandated reporting" and "mandatory reporting," then explain why you thought I meant to use the latter. Since, you know, it was this honest disagreement that motivated your post and not an effort to troll me.

My thing is I think the average 19 year old girl in college is far more at risk for sexual assault than the average 17 year old in high school.

Like, put aside the fairly arbitrary 18 year old line differentiating children and adults. My premise rests on the fact that women in college are at such an extreme risk of sexual assault. It's easy to understand this population as vulnerable considering the data we've already discussed.

Also keep in mind that mandated reporting doesn't strictly refer to children.

I don't think I'm conflating reporting and referring.

C'mon. Start a thread if you want to talk about what schools should do about instances of assault. I'm talking about rape and sexual assault; something directly affecting 1 in 5 women who graduate college.

Yeah I don't want this dealt with on a case by case basis. What sexual assaults would you like to see not referred to the police?

9 out of 10 rapes on campus are committed by serial rapists. I want them facing justice each and every time.

Sexual assault is assault.

18 being an arbitrary line is not the point, which is that people under the age of 18 in the temporary "care" of institutions are owed a duty of care by those institutions (normally from their own parents). The primary exception among adults is to warn someone they are about to be murdered.

You would extend a duty of care established to benefit children to adult women but not adult men. Why?

It just seems super obvious that you're using false piety to frustrate private responses to one form of assault but not others. I don't like the display of injured innocence at the very idea you are using this to mark out some kind of moral high ground when it requires very little imagination to work out the reasons someone might wish to resolve a campus situation with the campus and then move on.

I was actually thinking about the elderly who are at heightened risk of being abused. People who frequently interact with this group in a professional context are also frequently mandated reporters and are required to contact Adult Protective Services when abuse/neglect is suspected.

My concern is precisely because this group (women in college) is at an exceptionally high risk of being sexually assaulted. They can easily, easily be considered a vulnerable group. This isn't hard to understand...

...until I read this. Like others, you're far too caught up with your own interpretations of what my motives might be and can't give the material I present objective consideration. Which is fine I guess, but w/e.

You think men aren't vulnerable to assault?

You are also confusing ongoing abuse of individuals under the care of institutions with individuals who are victims of discrete crimes and singling out this one crime for reasons you have not yet given. By identifying all women as members of a vulnerable group you are actually arguing for guardianship of adult women to be transferred from their parents to their school, which then has the absolute right and duty to turf anyone suspected of harming them.

How did reporting allegations and evidence of abuse turn into guardianship of women?

The desired outcome of reporting is for people to except to know abuse will be reported by people with professional authoritative roles over them. People with non-professional and other roles will be incentivized to support victims seeking help.

Is more people suffering in silence a consequence of this outcome, to avoid people who are responsible for reporting? That sounds like a surmountable problem to me, at first glance.

I know women in college are extremely vulnerable to rape and sexual assault and that men aren't.

Are you kidding me? I've provided the stats. Rape is ranked with murder as being one of the worst possible things you could do to another person.

If 20% of women were being murdered before graduating college, guess how often I would want law enforcement investigating the crimes? Guess what my level of comfort would be with the possibility that occasionally the cops wouldn't be called? Guess how I'd feel with Mr. Bennett and Mrs. Wright from the communications department volunteering to be on an IRB to determine how best to deal with the ****ing murderer?

FYP

And feel free to explain why you feel they aren't, given the prevalence of sexual assault/rape.

No I'm not. As a mandated reporter, I'm not the guardian of children whose homes I enter, nor of any elderly person I encounter.

Here's a question. You see a man being raped in an alley and choose to call the cops. Are you assuming guardianship of that man? If you were designated as someone who had to report any witnessed assault and did so, would you then be this stranger's guardian? Are police officers our true guardians because of the way they respond to witnessing sexual assaults?
Now you're just being dramatic. Everyone has the "absolute right" to report instances of rape to the authorities. Thank God.

A non-mandated reporter is simply a responsible witness.

I regret to hearing an instance recently where an inexperienced mandated reporter did not believe a victim because of their condition. Fortunately a more experienced professional took the report with correct seriousness and the abuser was removed without further incident.

I think I found something I can agree with you on. I am proud of the accomplishment.

My proposal: If a school (read: administrators, professors, staff) has reason to believe that a sexual assault has been committed and doesn't report it or is willfully ignorant that a sexual assault has been committed then they ought be charged with complicity to rape.

DIB must have just taken a mandated reporting training or something that he spaced out during so he doesn't remember any of the specifics but he's super sure it'll show those meanies, really the only explanation for his "no I won't explain my proposal just everyone agree that it's a good idea!" line here.

I like the general idea. Far more effective to make the relevant people legally responsible for doing the right thing and then letting them work out how to do it.

but I'd aim it at the top people who are responsible for the process, whatever you call the directors of your schools, they should be criminally responsible for handling incidents of sexual assault appropriately. Their only defense if its not handled properly is that someone else willfully circumvented the processes.

The crime of the top bosses wouldn't be complicity in rape (unless it really is) but with criminal negligence. The crime of anyone who willfully circumvents the process would generally be more serious.

Nothing about this is particular to schools or sexual assaults, it's an idea borrowed from how to make financial institution behave better and how to stop the Health Service in the UK from covering up mistakes.

You and Wookie could use a mandated reporter training (....or, you know, at least a glance at the Wiki) before forming any opinions. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

Because, for real Fly, this **** is beyond easy. Make relevant staff at school mandated reporters. Full stop. That's it. That's 95% of my proposal right there. Chalk up the rest of your/Wook's questions to straight, unfiltered ignorance.

Originally posted by Spank in another thread:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6030770.html

We all know how conservative and awful the Huffington Post is, so we can just chalk this up to MRA scholars and general misogyny. GTFO.

I might be ok with those at lower levels taking it to management (instead of directly to the legal authorities) if management has the obligation to put a system in place to go to the legal authorities.

Either might be fine. Its top managements legal responsibility to make sure that a suitable system is in place to make sure it gets reported correctly to the authorities.