I agree but seeing the system in action and being aware it could happen to you can be a deterrent. I don't think conviction is always required but there's obviously as problem if no-one ever gets convicted.

There are certain types of sexual assaults that are particularly prone to not being reported and those are the ones where its most likely to make a difference because they're the same assaults as the ones some men commit thinking they get away with it (some will claim no thought at all 'what! that's not assult').

Fair enough, the issue I have with that as a general approach is it's very tough to do cost-benefit analysis on the deterrent part but I assume we would all rather money was spent for the crime to be deterred than prosecuted afterwards. (I'm quite happy for the school not to have to pay all the cost if it's prohibitive, but that may be too OT)

I agree with you on that but if there are many reports and very few that go anywhere (prosecution seems a fair measure of that) then there is something else wrong. There's a lot of value in exposing that problem to proper scrutiny.

Sure, but when the girl is unwilling to cooperate, I don't see what such an investigation will ever turn up that could be admissible. Maybe the guy breaks down and admits everything under questioning?

Wow, you really are as stupid as advertised, aren't you?

Yeah yeah, unreported assaults. Happy halloweeeeeeeeeeen

Wookie is actually correct here.

I know, I was not exactly sober at the time.

Unwillingness to cooperate is likely to be rare if the choice to not cooperate is not explicitly offered.

If someone steals my wallet, the cops don't ask me whether I want to press charges. If they did, I'd be likely to say "no" just because I have better things to do with my time, don't really want to have any sort of responsibility of someone doing jail time, etc.

That sort of thing happens, but conviction isn't the only positive outcome.

If you knew that I was arrested for raping a dude who passed out while drunk (and it didn't go to trial for lack of evidence), would you get drunk with me?

Just so we are clear, what you're advocating for is for there to be mandated reporting (to the police) and then for the police to give the victim no choice in the investigation. And you liken this to someone stealing your wallet (which YOU have reported?) and the cops investigating the theft and pressing charges regardless of your wishes.

So you're saying you want a woman who was raped to have absolutely zero choice in whether to report or not, and then whether or not to press charges? Would she be charged if she refused to speak to the police?

Like, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be surprised if the cops can arrest someone based only on unsupported third-hand accounts of a rape. Maybe the folks here with for-real JDs can weigh in.

Looking at the bigger picture: the original complaint was that school internal review boards are acting as kangaroo courts by expelling dudebros based on flimsy evidence. Your solution is for the actual cops to arrest dudebros based on hearsay?

The school is the mandated reporter, not the victim. The victim still has the choice to not cooperate, but the police are not allowed to ask whether the victim would like to press charges (exactly the same as in domestic violence cases in some jurisdictions) or bring up me not complying.

Asking a victim whether they want to press charges is cruel and minimizes how seriously we take sexual assault. You might as well directly tell the victims "well, we're ok with you being sexually assaulted as long as you are. No harm, no foul!"

The wallet case is brought up because it is significantly less serious of a crime than sexual assault. If I told a professor that my wallet was stolen, and s/he called the police, the cops still won't ask me if I want to press charges.

Btm

You never came back on the lack of need for an alternative support route rather than reporting to authority.

I can see the case for the institution to have to report to police if it's reported to them by the victim. Can you respond to the independent counseling/support point? Its difficult to see why we want to force adult victims to involve the authorities.

Edit: the question I asked you about this was in the other reporting thread?

The cops don't simply take the school's word for it. They ask the victim what happened. They ought not be asking whether the victim wants to cooperate.

The victims aren't "forced" in any way. The schools and the cops are forced.

I'm fine with independent psychological services being offered. Not sure if it is obvious, but the standard advice given by psychologists/counselors to victims of crimes is to report them. There currently isn't a psychological cure for having been raped, and the perpetrator being charged with a crime goes a long way towards reducing self-blaming by the victim.

The victim is being forced. Not forced to cooperate but forced away from the privacy option. Maybe that's a good thing but it doesn't sound like an obviously good thing.

I would expect counseling services etc to commonly advise reporting but in an unpressured way. That's besides the point though.

I took a course in domestic violence last year and the adjunct had worked in the field for years. She referred to social work values, specifically self-determination, and strongly suggested not pressuring victims at all for LE involvement. Said not doing so was the professional standard, at least for practicing clinical social workers. I was taken back by this and started a lengthy dialogue in class about it.

An uneducated choice is no choice at all. A person cannot be expected to know what is in their long-term best psychological interest following a sexual assault any more than I can be expected to know how to treat a gunshot wound to my abdomen.

Again, the victim doesn't have to comply. There simply isn't any reason for the authorities to ask them whether they want to. They just need to ask questions related to the crime and if the victim really doesn't want to answer, they won't.

Brian- Are you a lawyer or a cop or something otherwise related to the criminal justice field? I'm asking this question, but I think we all know the answer.

You appear to have made up how you think it works and you're solving utterly fictional problems. And even granting you all of that, your suggestion still doesn't make any ****ing sense!

I don't think DIB and Brian understand the situation well enough to understand just how contradictory this is.

Sometimes ethical guidelines go too far. Self-determination requires that the client be sufficiently educated on the consequences of their choices. It is based on humanistic psychology, which is a bit behind the times.

I was a mandated reporter. As such, I was involved in more than a few criminal cases.

It isn't my responsibility to make you understand. Given that you think that rape and mandated reporting are fictional things, I doubt it would be possible even if it were my responsibility.

Cops only need reasonable suspicion to make an arrest and begin an investigation. Hearsay or even double hearsay is sufficient.

http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/131

lol asks the guy who #dudeliterally knows he's #dudeliterally talking about things he has no practical real-world experience with. Extra richness comes from the fact that he's copping a tone while asking actual mandated reporters with years of experience working with victims.

Exceptionally poor performance ITT Fly. Step up your game.

LOL latching on to DIB full hooks here, I guess. It is definitely your responsibility to make me understand YOUR ****ING PROPOSAL if you want someone to agree with it.

What are you even talking about? Remember what side we're on here. I'm on the "rape culture is a real thing, campus rape is a serious problem" side! That ain't the side you signed up for. LOL SMPtards

Two important things about this post:

1) As predicted, Brian did not answer Trolly's question.

2) In a wonderful surprise, Brian not only misidentified the standard necessary to make an arrest(it's probable cause, not reasonable suspicion), HIS OWN LINK explains that it's probable cause.

From the link Brian posted in case you missed it:
"Miscellaneous Rules:

Information used to establish probable cause need not be admissible in court: E.g., "hearsay," or even "double hearsay." (People v. Superior Court (Bingham) (1979) 91 Cal.App.3rd 463, 469; see also Hart v. Parks (9th Cir. 2006) 450 F.3rd 1059, 1066-1067.)"

That seems to answer the question pretty well, but nice catch with the RS v PC thing. I've been trying to prove Brian's dumb for quite some time.